User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 18

Hill 303 massacre
Hello. Last month you contributed to the FAC for Hill 303 massacre. I just wanted to let you know I have reopened the article for FAC, if you wouldn't mind taking another look at the article and seeing if you have more comments. Here is the link: Featured article candidates/Hill 303 massacre/archive2. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a great holiday
From the Anglo-Saxon king and science fiction magazine person to the horse and bishop person. Possibly, one of these days, from the Anglo-Saxon Doctor of the Church person to the Anglo-Saxon Doctor of the Church person. I hope you and your family have a great day and a great year. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And the same from the anything-whacky-will-do-for-me person. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Best wishes for the holidays. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Rutherford Hayes
I don't disagree about the value of copyediting, but I'm not sure whom to ask to do it. Is there any editor you'd recommend? --Coemgenus 13:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd recommend Malleus, but he's English, so you'd get English spellings creeping in (plus I'm not sure boring American presidents fall into his interest range, I think he sticks to boring English bishops...(grins) (its a joke, by the way)). You might see if you can interest Casliber in the subject? One of my talk page stalkers might be available also... (hint hint). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave Casliber a note, and I'll be glad for anyone else who reads this to add their two cents. Some caution is warranted, though: Hayes is possibly the most boring of American Presidents.  Grover Cleveland was a barrel of laughs compared to this guy.  Thanks again for reviewing it.  --Coemgenus 14:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 29, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 29, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 04:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 

Laurence of Canterbury was the second Archbishop of Canterbury. He was a member of the Gregorian mission sent from Italy to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity, although the date of his arrival is disputed. He was consecrated archbishop by his predecessor, Augustine of Canterbury during Augustine's lifetime, in order to ensure continuity in the office. He attempted unsuccessfully to resolve differences with the native British bishops by corresponding with them about points of dispute. Laurence faced a crisis following the death of King Æthelberht of Kent, when the king's successor abandoned Christianity; he eventually reconverted. Laurence was revered as a saint after his death in 619. (more...)

Links..
photos - not sure if folks can see or not... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Works for "friends"! Thanks for sharing!  :-)   Montanabw (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto; thanks! Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

iPhone note
Per this, I thought you might be interested in a solution -- see here. It completely removes the rollback link, so I am now happily logged in on my iPhone again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're just about to commit to buying an iPad with the 3G coverage, so I'm thinking I'll be using the iPad for most lookups... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bede
Are you up for getting back into this? I don't mind cracking on with it alone for a while if you're busy, though I won't be able to get it clean enough for a third party review without your help. I've done as much as I think I can on the Life and on the sources for HE and the theological works; not sure about a "Library" section but we'll see. I've left two or three questions on the talk page that I think you can answer from the sources you have and I don't. Next up is looking at the intent, morality, biases in HE, and Anno Domini. I have some material on that but I suspect that's the area where we're going to do have to do the most reading. The other works have drawn so much less attention that I think we will have little trouble with them; they could each be an article to themselves, of course, but we don't have to worry about that here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can get working on it later this week, probably. Kids are out of school until Tuesday, and I have some errands to run Tues or Wed (library run to University of Illinois), but other than that, and a visit to Indianapolis on the 10th-11th (I've gotten roped into helping the Children's Museum there with their Broad Ripple Park Carousel article drive to FA status), I'm probably as free for wiki work as I'm going to get for a long while. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I am going to try to keep a parallel editing track with my sf magazine articles, and I also want to try to review a couple more FACs.  One of my New Year's resolutions is to review at least three FACs for every FAC I submit, though it can be incredibly time consuming to review a FAC properly.  But I will try to put in some time on Bede every day or so. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On a positive note, I think we laid some good groundwork when we last worked on this -- a lot of the basic article material is there. I'm finding it fairly easy to drop snippets in as I come across them; with any luck it won't take more than a week or two to mine what's left in my library and add it.  Still quite a bit of reading to do, of course. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page stalkers alert!
I'm desparately looking for:


 * Bates, David (1992) Bishop Remigius of Lincoln, 1067-92 Honywood Press 48p.

It is just not available through Amazon, nor through AbeBooks. My local university doesn't have it either. The nearest I can find it is almost 200 miles away (and in Chicago, where I do NOT go), next nearest is at Western Michigan University. Here is the world cat listing... Can anyone snag me a scan of the thing? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Six bucks from Amazon UK. Can I have a cookie? Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of stock (pokes) Both there and AmazonCanada. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn. Sorry; thought I was onto a free cookie there. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hell, you were verging into free beer territory, you underestimate just how badly I want/need that article/pamplet. I still owe you the Famulus Christi too... hopefully this week. Children belong in school, not on holiday. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interlibrary loan and a 2-week wait? That used to be the only way I could survive out here... ?   Montanabw (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are so few places in the US that have it... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I'm in Michigan, so things from Western are usually pretty quick (as long as the book isn't classified as non-lending reference). Do you want me to see if I can get it? Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please. My "local" library (i.e. the one I pay taxes for) has the theory that if they ignore ILL requests, they will have less work, so it's like pulling teeth to get things. Plus, they tend to mess them up. And the university library I get a lot of things from, won't do ILL on a "courtesy" card like I have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Allright, I'll be in town this evening, so I'll drop by the library and put in the request then. That's too bad about your local library - mine is actually quite good about ILLs, and the only thing they haven't been able to get me are the ones that are held by something like three private libraries worldwide. It also helps that Michigan State has a huge agriculture collection, and so many of the books I need for the horse stuff come from there :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's my address. We've a postal address in town, but are outside the city limits, so while I qualify for a library card, it's clear that I'm not paying as many taxes as the folks inside the city. Also, they cannot understand someone wanting more information than they have in their library ... gotta love little cities in town sometimes. The couple of times I've tried getting ILL, they either "misplaced" the request, or flat out lost it, or twice, they gave me such a hassle about wanting something beyond what they had that I just gave up. Luckily, the U of I is so close that I can get most things there easily, it's just the really obscure stuff that's a problem at times....Thanks much. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If Dana comes up dry, let me know. It may take a bit of time, but we have the ILL goddess of the world at my library -- did you even know that there was such a place as Sul Ross State University and they were one of the only places in the country to carry the proceedings of the 1967 American Association of Equine Practitioners?  She found it.  Now when she's on vacation, its not so good and if she ever retires, we'll be up the creek, but for now...   Montanabw (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as an update, it has been ordered through ILL, and since it's coming from an in-state library they are fairly certain that they can get it relatively quickly. I'll keep you updated. Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankee, Dana. Look below for my two newest horse books! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere around here there's some page where you can request this kind of help (editors who have good library access and will get the source for you). But I don't know what it is or where to find it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, although they tend to be better with journals than books. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Asser
For some reason it never occurred to me till I saw you fix the succession box for Asser, but I guess I've done a bishop too. That was only my second FA, so I am sure it could be improved a great deal. If you have the energy to look through and give me any feedback I'd be glad to fix anything you find. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I'm only at the Bishop of Lincoln in my list, it'll be a while! Amazon didn't deliver anything terribly exciting today, at least as regards Anglo-Saxons. I did get Hamilton's Religion in the Medieval West, which is supposed to be a great introduction and explanation of all sorts of things medieval religious that are taken for granted by scholarly writers... we'll see. I gotta admit I'm more excited by my copy of Hunter's American Classic Pedigrees, and really looking forward to this book coming in. I did order some AS stuff, just not a lot from Amazon, just Harmer's Anglo-Saxon Writs. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on horses, and having been raised in Britain I recognize few of the American horse's names. I guess that sort of fame doesn't really cross the Atlantic.  Unless you've heard of Arkle?  I know there are a quite a few Brits who would scorn the idea of any horse other than Arkle being regarded as the greatest racehorse of all time. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know
Thanks for taking a look at my nomination at T:TDYK. I changed the wording of the hook to reflect the source more accurately, so I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Council of Reims (1148)/GA1
Hey, interesting article! I've offered a review and placed the article on hold for the time being. J Milburn (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should get to that tomorrow... quick work on picking that up, I just put it up what, 6 hours ago??? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Close
Sorry about that, i was helping that user out, i didn't realise that edit was wrong, i let that one slide as i was trying to help him-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's a specialized subject. Luckily, that usually means little vandalism too. Thanks for catching all the other issues! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

William Warelwast
Just one quick question for now. In the Work as a bishop section it says this: "Several medieval chroniclers state that William Warelwast was illiterate, although this probably was due to Eadmer's bias against the bishop than to truth.". Apert from the fact it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the section topic the issue of Waselwast's education has already been covered in the Early life section. Could that sentence just be dropped? Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the info is elsewhere, yeah. Might need to be combined with the other section... I'm like incredibly busy at the moment or I'd look. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take care of that. Here's another for when you get a free moment: "Warelwast's elevation was a reward for his diplomatic efforts in the Investiture crisis." The capitalisation can't possibly be correct there can it? Either "Investiture Crisis" is an alternative name for "Investiture Controversey", in which case "crisis" has to be capitalised as well, or it isn't, in which case "Investiture" ought not to be capitalised. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * decapitilize it... or however you spell the silly word. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've finished with William now, so here are some final questions for you:


 * Royal service for King Henry I
 * "King Henry continued to use Warelwast as an ambassador, sending him to Rome in 1101 to bring back Pope Paschal II's reply". The pope's reply to what?


 * Work as a bishop
 * "As a bishop, Warelwast attended the Council of Reims in 1119 along with three other bishops ...". Is that meant to be three other bishops from England? Written as it is makes it seem that there were only four bishops at the council.


 * "Warelwast went blind in his later years, starting in about 1120,[1] which William of Malmesbury regarded as a fitting punishment for Warelwast's alleged attempts to remove his predecessor from office early." This is the first we've heard about any attempts to remove Warelwast's predecessor from office early. Earlier we were told that Henry I had reserved the bishopric for Wehwalt Warelwast after his predecessor's death.

Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll get to these tomorrow or possibly later tonight. My brain is fried and the sinus headache is getting worse. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I got these, but my additions will probably need massaging. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Massaging done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gods, a massage sounds wonderful. I'm hip-deep in source reviewing the Missouri River FAC... argh! Thanks, Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So are we good to go? I'm planning on co-noming you for this one, unless you have other plans for an FAC of your own. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks fine to me now. I've got nothing in the FAC pipeline, or even in the GAN pipeline; the muse seems to have left me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, Hygberht had his lead expanded, so he's good to go for comprehension/copyedits, from any of the TPSs. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources reviews
Looking back, I see I ducked Rhodocene, on the grounds that I couldn't understand a single word of the text. You may be made of sterner stuff, however. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was easy - ran it through Coren and Earwig, and then check all those lovely doi's - those are like a nice neat easy way to see that it's a peer-reviewed journal at the least. And the books are all by reputable scientific publishers - wiley's is like the gold standard on that. I love hard science topics, they are easy to review most of the time - check for dois, check the publisher, you're done. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1906 Valparaíso earthquake
Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. You are free to fail it. I thought I was going to have more time today, but I see I won't, nor for the next following days (at least not to do such a job!). However, I'll take these indications into account and will re-nominate it in the future. Thanks! Diego Grez (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-plagiarism tools
Hello. Thanks for your source review on my FAC 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl; I've replied to your concern there. I saw you mentioned the Coren and Earwig anti-plagiarism tools; could you let me know where I need to go to gain access to them? They would be very helpful and save me a lot of time when trying to check hooks for Did You Know. –Grondemar 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:CorenSearchBot/manual and here Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 12, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 12, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch Talk and C. 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 

William Longchamp (died 1197) was a medieval Lord Chancellor, Chief Justiciar, and Bishop of Ely in England. Born to a humble family in Normandy, he owed his advancement to royal favour. Although contemporary writers accused Longchamp of being the son of a peasant, his father held land as a knight. Longchamp first served an illegitimate son of Henry II of England, but quickly transferred to the service of Richard I, King Henry's eldest surviving son. When Richard became King of England in 1189, Longchamp paid £3,000 for the office of Chancellor, and was soon named to the see, or bishopric, of Ely and appointed legate by the pope. Longchamp governed England while Richard was on the Third Crusade, but his authority was challenged by Richard's brother, John, who eventually succeeded in driving Longchamp from power and from England. Longchamp's relations with the other leading English nobles were also strained, which contributed to the demands for his exile. Soon after Longchamp's departure from England, Richard was captured on his journey back to England from the crusade and held for ransom by the Holy Roman Emperor. Longchamp travelled to Germany to help negotiate Richard's release. Although Longchamp regained the office of Chancellor after Richard's return to England, he lost much of his former power. He did, however, retain Richard's trust, and was employed by the king until the bishop's death in 1197. Longchamp wrote a treatise on the law, which remained well known throughout the later Middle Ages, but he aroused much hostility among his contemporaries. (more...)


 * Mainpage twice in two weeks. What a lucky girl! :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I do the "Let this cup pass from me, oh lord" thing? Probably not. Drat. And I was on the road today too! ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And it's the last bits of my birthday too, argh! Raul!!! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How many years is that in horses' years?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Luckily, you young whipper-snapper, horses years don't work like dog years. So I'm spared having to chase you around with my cane! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for General Duke (horse)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gen. Duke
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oldfields draft and a thanks!
Hello! Thanks so much for coming out today - it was a lot of fun, and I hope helpful for you! I really appreciate your willingness to put all of the time into the carousel when I know you have a back log of things continually coming through. It will be a thrill for us all when the information is out there and accessible straight from the exhibit via all of this fun technology. (Here is a very recent blog post I wrote for the National Council on Public History about such things: History museums in a wiki world.

Here is my Oldfields article draft which you can compare with the original Oldfields. I appreciate you checking it's length for me. I'll be happy to hopefully get it up as a DYK. (If I do, would it be OK for me to let you know so you could check up on it for me on the nomination page?) I'm trying to do this as a surprise for the head of programs at Lilly House, as well as Maxwell L. Anderson. Thank you again for all of your help. Let me know how IHS went and if you need anything else. HstryQT (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IHS went great, no research fee charged so all is good. Oldfields is just barely 5x expansion - it was 1676 bytes as it is in mainspace now, and your draft is 8392 bytes, when it'd need 8380 bytes to make 5x. I'd recommend just a bit more padding (throw a bit more in the lead, which is always a safe place to put padding) and you should be golden. The wind here is beastly, and getting worse, so hopefully the snow won't drift too bad over there for you. It was great meeting you too, and everyone at the Museum. It'll be a few days for the pictures, I came back to an article I'd edited as Today's Featured Article (what a crappy birthday present!) so I'll spend most of tomorrow dealing with edits like this. Whee. On the plus side, four more of my book orders arrived - but not the carousel one, drat! Thanks again for all your help! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad IHS didn't charge you- that's great! Thanks so much for checking my draft out. Can you clarify the byte counts of what the draft is at this point? I see that 5x expanded should be 8,380 but the count you mention is higher than that, so wanted to make sure I knew how much to add (or so I don't pester you, if there's a quick link to the java script to check it, let me know - just don't know what to search for!) Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in the 5x expanded rule. I was going to pull my hair out trying to pad it THAT much.


 * I don't know if to you, in FA world, a main page FA article requires a "Congrats!" or an "I'm sorry!" but maybe it's both :). Thanks again!! HstryQT (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Currently the draft is at 8392 bytes, so it's a whole 12 bytes over the requirement. I generally try to be a bit more over that requirement though, just for safeies sake - so adding a couple of sentences more to the lead should give you a margin of error in case someone edits your article a lot while it's a DYK nom. The link for the prose size gadget is from User:Dr pda/prosesize, and the specific DYK one is User:Shubinator/DYKcheck, but the DYK one only works for things already in mainspace, so in this case, it won't work. So for this one, you'd use the prosesize script on both versions, see how many bytes each one is and check that the revised version is 5x the old version. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the TFA - after your first one, for most folks it's a "I'm sorry", there are a few strange people that really like it. This one is my 9th officially, plus some others I've watched for friends, and it's generally not much fun. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! I got ya now. Thank you for the explanation and the links! HstryQT (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Source reviews
Delighted to see you back reviewing sources. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

 * User talk:Jimbo Wales Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me someone did NOT suggest that making an "Easy-button" editing interface available would make more women edit. Please, tell me that! (tears out her hair). It's been a WILD couple of days, and i'm just not up to dealing the with internet-male-idiocy I see exhibited there. (mutters). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Skip that part-- it gets better :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I think that's the winner for the week, honestly. I'd like to see some of these guys commenting go out and deal with my horses in 6 degree weather - lifting hay bales or chipping ice from water troughs... (mutters some more). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You go tell 'em that :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had steam coming out of my ears as well when I saw that Ealdgyth. SandyG has it exactly right when she says we need good editors, regardless of their sex, nationality, or creed. (Well I added that last bit, but it's pretty much what she said.) Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Appaloosa images
Re: the above, oy. (And I agree with you about the taking care of animals thing!) On another topic though, do you have any ideas about what to do with the last couple of problem images in the Appaloosa article? They are:

File:Nezperceindians1895ish.jpg (Mary Hinmes) and File:Barnesspottedhorsephoto.jpg (Hertzberg Circus)

According to Jappalang, the main problem is that we don't know for sure that Hinmes and Hertzberg (especially Hertzberg) actually owned the copyright when they allowed the images to be published. If they did, the book is out of copyright and the images are PD. If not, they shouldn't have been in the book in the first place and we need to find out who actually owns the copyright, if they've been published before, etc. I've sent an e-mail to the museum that currently holds the Hertzberg collection, but haven't received a reply. I have had no luck trying to find contact information for Hinmes. I have also had no luck searching for a replacement for either of these images, although the Nez Perce one is the one that is probably the most vital.

My questions are thus: Do you have any ideas with regards to the contact of Mary Hinmes? If not, do you have any idea what to replace the images with? The main reason I'm asking here is that you uploaded them and I think that a new discussion on these two images in particular is a good idea, since they're getting rather buried on my talk page. Other than the images, I think that the Appy article is pretty close to ready for Malleus, if he feels so inclined...unless you have other thoughts on the subject. Dana boomer (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I defer to Jappalang .. and I don't have any idea how to contact Mary Hinmes. I don't have anything else in my stuff that might work, not on a quick look. I'll hunt a bit more but.. I'm thinking we may have to remove them. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, nothing else. As a side note, if we ever work on draft breeds, I have a copy of Plumb's 1906 editon of Types and Breeds of Farm Animals which has a pile of pictures on various horse breeds from the time, which would definitely be PD and safe for use. Unfortunately for us, the App wasn't a "farm animal" then... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Darn. Guess they have to go then, and nothing we can replace them with right now. There is the one of Looking Glass on horseback, but it's not an Appy and I haven't checked out the copyright... What kind of draft breeds in the book? I've been working on and off on some of the draft breeds - have seven at GA and one at FA, plus two more at GAN and more in the pipeline, and have been toying with the idea of working on Draft horse. I figure that the large article will probably be easier to put together when many of the smaller articles are done (being able to pull in refs and information is SO nice), so have been leaving that 'til last. Thought about some sort of a good/featured topic, but I think the problem is going to be the separation between draft and non-draft with a bunch of the iffy breeds. I'm rambling, though...my main point is that the pictures could be quite useful in that work. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, there are two pictures of Orlov Trotters, five Hackneys, five French Coach, 1 German Coach, 1 Cleveland Bay, 6 Clydesdales, 6 Percherons, 2 Shires, 3 Belgians, 1 Suffolk Punch, 2 Welsh Ponies, 1 hackney pony, 3 shetlands. I also have a couple of Norman Horse stud books (I'll buy any horse book if its cheap enough..) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't give up yet! I am digging through http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/aipn:@field(SUBJ+@od1(Nez+Perce+Indians--Transportation))  See also comment on Dana's talk page.   Montanabw (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leofric Missal
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What keeps you motivated?
You're a woman, allegedly, and women find in difficult to understand how to edit, allegedly, or indeed to perform any task more complicated than making tea. Yet you keep on churning out such great stuff on medieval English bishops and horses. What keeps you motivated?

I read that discussion yesterday on the "need" to recruit more female editors with increasing horror. I understand SandyG's point about females maybe being more likely to be the subject of harassment if they identify as females, but I'm fundamentally opposed to any kind of discrimination, either positive or negative. I would be absolutely horrified to be accused of treating female or male editors differently, yet at the back of my mind I know that I do; there are things that I would never say to you, or to SandyG, or other editors I believe to be female, that I would quite happily say to others. Does that make me sexist? I'm always a little bothered if I don't know the gender of the person I'm talking to; nothing creepy, probably just me being old fashioned. I'm rambling, just a late-night brain dump before bed, feel free to ignore. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm.. I guess for me motivation is just always wanting to know something new. I'd be reading a lot of this anyway (well, maybe not ALL of it, but a good bit of it) so I might as well make it useful to others. Some folks volunteer at hospitals, some help at animal shelters.. me ... I donate knowledge to others. There are days when I don't have any motivation to do anything ... those days I do other stuff. Some days I just feel like digging into a research project and figuring out something new, those are the days I'm most productive, usually. No knowledge is wasted, if only one person is helped by something I wrote (even if it's just some student who needs to cram for an exam) then it's not wasted. I guess i picked up the "intellectual hobby" from my father - he was a train buff and got pretty heavy into researching logging railroads in the U.S. So it seems normal to me to have a very intellectual hobby. If I wasn't doing this, I'd either do genealogy or be back doing horse pedigrees for folks and charging them just enough to cover my costs.
 * As for the "women" thing... I think folks need to worry less about attracting women, and just figure out how to support the content creators. As for saying things to me.. obviously you have no idea what an American stable is like ... I cuss like a sailor at times (although I do know when NOT to also.) and am unlikely to be too bothered by anything as long as you treat me like I can and am competent at most things. Women ARE different then men, we do the social thing differently, so treating us differently isn't necessarily bad, as long as you don't assume we can't handle technical stuff. The main differences are in how we approach consensus and discussion, not in what we can handle technically.
 * Like I told Sandy - I'd LOVE to see some of those folks arguing that we need special editing tools for women watch me out in our weather .. filling our trough by bucket or slinging around feed bags or saddles. My western show saddle weighs in at close to 40 lb ... it's not something I get out of hauling just because I'm female! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As one of Ealdgth's TPSers, thought I'd weigh in.  I'm one of those people who deliberately has a gender-neutral user name and though I don't exactly hide that I'm female, I don't flaunt it either.  It's a safety issue.  I've had very little gender-based harassment, but 1 or 2 minor things. I HAVE seen some editors treat me in a dramatically different way (usually worse, and in the "you must be incompetent and stupid" way) if they started out thinking I was male and then found out I was female.  I will say that for the most part, most editors don't seem to care either way.   I would agree that we need to do more to support content creators and I agreed with Sandy's comments here and elsewhere that POV-pushers and tendentious editing are two major sources of discouragement. I too am motivated by a desire to both contribute content and to increase quality of what's there. If there is a gender issue on wikipedia, I look to the studies of Carol Gilligan who noted that in the face of conflict in a game of some sort, boys tend (whether socialization or what, doesn't matter) to fight out the rules, while girls tended to avoid conflict and quit playing the game. I'm a fiesty sort, so I suppose part of what motivates me is pure stubbornness; I WILL NOT let the bullies run me off. But if you are looking for a gender-linked reason women may not stick with wikipedia, there you have it in a nutshell.  There is some real contentiousness on occasion, and only those who are somehow able to face conflict, -- whether by fighting, soothing or deflecting -- are going to last on wiki.  Those who cope with conflict by avoiding it are going to get tired of this place and disappear.   Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's lot of sense in what you say. I saw someone in a TV interview recently sum up (humorously) what he saw as a fundamental difference in the way that men and women communicate. When a woman tells a man about a problem he immediately starts trying to think of solutions, but all she really wants is for him to listen. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in: I'm female and I've never been harassed for my gender on Wikipedia. If I've been treated poorly, I attribute it to the internet just plain sucking and everyone doing their best to promote themselves and their various neuroses than discounting me because of my genitals. I lose my motivation quite a lot. I get fed up with the truly abhorrent communication I see around here. I don't think it's a battle of the sexes by any stretch (but then, I straddle gender fairly evenly). In the absence of a culture determined by a set body of authority figures here, what replaces it is a constant ongoing struggle to determine what the culture will be: the absence of a culture has created a culture of argument. This is not something I wish to be a part of and I disengage frequently. Re Montana's Gilligan study: I saw a similar study by Jean Piaget. Perhaps Gilligan furthered his observations. --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest GA
Hi Ealdgyth. I just listed Roger Gale in the "Historians, chroniclers and history books" subsection of World History at GA. If you think it would be better in another category, let me know. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Works as well as anything, I think. Thanks for the thorough review also! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Bassett
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joe Daniels (horse)
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Springbok (horse)
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN for Skipper W
Hello. I reviewed your good article nominee Skipper W and placed it on hold pending resolution of a few prose issues. You can find the review here. –Grondemar 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly for the review.. I should get to those in the morning... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the quick response to my comments. I have now  passed the good article nomination. –Grondemar 04:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

I see that you're trying to get back to more article editing... a worthy goal. But since you can be bribed... I should just mention that WMF is sending out packages of Wikipedia swag, including a really cool Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, to ambassadors. :)

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article nomination comments
Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination of ZX81 as a featured article candidate. I have responded to the issues you raised in the FAC discussion - could you please review my replies and let me know if you're satisfied? Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch *  ۩  ۞ 19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

Lightning Bar (1951–1960) was an American Quarter Horse race horse and breeding stallion. Bred and owned his entire life by Art Pollard, Lightning Bar's sire, or father, was a Thoroughbred. His dam, or mother, was originally from Louisiana, noted for breeding race horses that ran short distances. Although his racing career was cut short by illness after only one year, he managed to achieve high speeds on the track. After racing, he became a show horse and was trained as a team roping horse. As a breeding stallion, he sired only eight crops, or years, of foals, but they included a number of influential horses, among them his most famous son, Doc Bar. Lightning Bar died in 1960 at the age of nine, the result of a viral infection. He was inducted into the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame in 2008. (more...)


 * Gods above, what is this... torture Ealdgyth month???? That'll be THREE in one month - Laurence of Canterbury on 29 Dec, William Longchamp on 12 Jan and now Lightning Bar on 23 Jan. Joys. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a cruel and unusual punishment to me; the only question is for what? Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually a plot. Especially your latest little problem.  Yes, it IS "torture Ealdgyth month."   Montanabw (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow
in getting back to you, all I really found were a couple of pay articles.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Broad+Ripple+Park+Carousel&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22White+River+Park%22+Carousel&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a

I've been worrying about another sort of carousel at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Inevitably some questions on Hygeberht

 * Lead
 * "He was elevated to the episcopate in 779 and became Bishop of Lichfield later that year." Probably just showing my ignorance, but doesn't "elevated to the episcopate" mean that he became a bishop?


 * Archbishop
 * At the start of the second paragraph we're told that Hygeberht "became the foremost prelate in England", but at the end we're told that he was "considered the senior prelate in the south of England". It seems self-evident though that if he was the senior prelate in England then he would also be the senior prelate in the north, south, east, and west of the country. Or am I missing something?


 * Council of Chelsea
 * "Also connected with the council was the vow that Offa made to donate 365 mancuses each year ...". This is a bit vague. Connected with the council in what way?

OK, that's it, I'm done. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow. The two hours of farrier time today in the cold sapped all my energy, I think. Also, last code class tonight... blech! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Interested?
I saw you work with horse racing articles maybe you would interested in Charles E. Whittingham article. He is a very acclaimed trainer in horse races according to the article. Im trying to expand coverage of Chula Vista for its centennial and i came across this article but i dont know much of horse racing stuff. Its ok if your not interested. Spongie555 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal
E, I'd like to update the portal with new WPEQ GA and FA articles, but Im not sure how many are out there because quite a pile came in at once. Can you peek at the portal and tell me which ones of yours need to be added? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All my GAs and FAs are on my user page... you can find them linked there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are they chronological, though?  Montanabw (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really (grins). Although most aren't horses, they are bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)
Hi, regarding Talk:Georges-Antoine Belcourt/GA1, I've been off-wiki for quite a while and did not even know the GA review had been completed. You put the article on hold for a while and then failed it a couple of days ago because nobody showed up to fix the issues you pointed out. I've now fixed them - is there any possibility of having the article passed now? Thanks! <font color="#3399FF">Arctic  <font color="#000000">Night  17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi - did you get around to chasing this one up? Thanks, <font color="#3399FF">Arctic  <font color="#000000">Night  17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really not inclined to revisit honestly. You're more than welcome to renominate, but it's been a bit and probably easiest just to do that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, done, although it's really only been a week... <font color="#3399FF">Arctic  <font color="#000000">Night  18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It came!
The bishop book finally came in on ILL!!!! Will be picking it up this afternoon, and will try to scan and e-mail it this evening, tomorrow at the latest. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Rutherford Hayes FAC
I've renominated Rutherford Hayes for FAC. If you have any more comments to add this time around, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Coemgenus 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Mech hack
Sorry about the edit conflict on the mech hack. Glad to see improvement, but have some old wounds related to one of those horrid edit conflicts with that now-banned editor we all knew too well. Also want to be real sure to keep misinformation out of this article. FYI, hid one thing because just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's a good thing to include. Very concerned about that bit about how a mech hack could be used to start young horses. That would be very bad advice and dangerous. To say nothing of potentially cruel. (Ensminger is usually a good source, whatever brain fart did he have on that one?). I'll try to find a source on the rodeo stuff, but the things are very common there -- including the bit-with mech hack designs. Like this: =:-O     (these things are why I get the way I get -- they sell them in tack stores here!) oh, and my (least) favorite:    Montanabw (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, just wanted to make sure you didn't include something that wasn't in the source. Why you've never heard those names is because the source is a british import book - so it's European nomenclature (which is always good to include). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm now trying to decide what I should concentrate on while I'm likely snowed in the next few days - bishops? manuscripts? 19th century winners of the Belmont Stakes? WPEQ articles that need help? So many choices, so little time... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WPEQ! Definitely! It's been mostly Dana and sometimes me on vandal patrol! Where to begin???   Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There, did some more cleanup. That's about all I can take of that today. Thinking of going and making soup. Supposed to get wind chills around -30 tonight. BLech! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just wind chill? The cold spell we had in December had the thermometer telling us that in raw temperature! Of course, no humidity out here, so I'll grant you that it probably FEELS colder... I think the two coldest places I have ever been in my life was Minneapolis when it was zero with a wind and crossing the English Channel on a ferry on a cloudy day in JULY, wearing only a wool sweater and a hoodie over a long-sleeved shirt!!  =:-O

Cnút
Not sure it's at all helpful, but if you're seriously "working on a fuller pull from your shelves" I thought I'd add what's on my shelf (alas, I don't need more than one for this kind of literature)
 * Cnut: Stafford, Pauline, A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland, c.500–c.1100, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, ISBN 978-1-405-10628-3
 * Cnut: Woolf, Alex (2007), From Pictland to Alba, 789–1070, The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, 2, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-1234-5
 * Cnut: Stefan Brink and Neil Price. The Viking World. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-41277-X.
 * Cnút: Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí, Prehistoric and Early Ireland, A New History of Ireland, I, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-922665-8
 * Knutr: Downham, Clare (2007), Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014, Edinburgh: Dunedin, ISBN 1-903765-89-0

I expect it would take you a bit longer to check your shelves, but anyway, FWIW & so on. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have the Wolf, but not the others, so might as well add them. I didn't pull everything (If I'd tried to do all the Anglo-Norman Studies or Haskins Society Journal or the post-William the Conqueror biographies of English kings, I'd never have finished) I just find it incredible that we'd write an article with one title while using almost exclusively sources that call him something different. But whatever, I suspect the problem here is that folks learn about "King Canute holding back the waves".. I wonder if we should call the various candidates for Old King Cole by that name since that's what they are best known by? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably no point in piling up more titles, those you listed should be moooore than sufficient for anyone who really cares what current English-writing scholars call the guy. If I lived closer to where you do I would have volunteered to help you put those books back on their shelves however - you do have an impressive collection of interesting literature :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The library falls into three parts (with a fourth part that's just an oddball collection) - science fiction and fantasy, medieval history, and horse books. The horse books are probably as scarily esoteric and obscure as the historical works. The sci-fi, not so much, it's just a lot! I cannot resist a book, it's a severe failing. (Ask the last moving company that moved me...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see your obsessive book-buying and raise you a basement full of shelves. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Already there... we built a house and had to build it to accomodate the books in the storeroom. This doesn't count my father's railroad books which are still boxed... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A few years ago I met someone who'd become interested in early Christianity almost to the point of obsession. He'd collected so many books over the years, some of them quite rare, that he built a library extension to his house, which was even used by local Biblical scholars. He was actually quite an intimidating character until you got to know him. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had serious enquiries from Keeneland and from the American Quarter Horse Association about the horse portion of my library. For that matter, I have some stuff that the Library of Congress doesn't have - bound issues of the American Jockey Club's monthly newspaper called The Racing Calendar from the 1890s through 1916. Along with stud books, etc etc. I know a woman in Nevada who has a better horse library than mine, in some respects. It's a constant source of entertainment, figuring out how to fit more books into the house... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Feeling quite nervous ...
Well, the time has come, as the walrus said to the carpenter, and the fairies are on the main page. I'm not sure I'll be able to look; already there's a discussion on the talk page about "fairies don't really exist". Probably they don't, but I'm not going to call anyone a liar who believes that they do. I recall rather similar and ultimately demoralising discussions about the use of the word "witch" in articles like this one. I fully expect that the article will be at FAR this time tomorrow. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As they said on Star Trek, "brace for impact!'' Good luck, Malleus!  Montanabw (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re just now, you can join the usual petition at the bottom of WP:ANI - but you'd better be quick! Btw, is SandyG travelling, or pissed off (last edit Jan 25)? Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure. May be utterly snowed in .. she's in the Northeast of the US somewhere, i believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for taking the time to edit many of the articles in the Indiana Statehouse Public Art Collection. Your work has improved them considerably and saved me some work along the way! Much to still do with that collection. Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that some of those articles would withstand an AfD. Especially the plaster copies. You might consider consolidating them into list articles instead. The only reason I didn't AfD them was I have quite enough on my plate and I will be on the road in about a week, so I don't have the time to deal with AfD. It's probably only a matter of time until someone does, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While I disagree with your interest in deleting those articles--yes, the Voorhees is a copy of the original it has lived a notable existence--, I wonder if I could ask a favor? A favor I note you certainly don't owe me. But I'm often confused by the more complicated aspects of Wikipedia, and I noticed you seem to have a good handle on how the conversation templates work for dimensions. Would you be willing to edit the WikiProject Public Art Template to include some information on how to properly use them?

Kind regards, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything I learned about conversion templates, I learned from reading Template:Convert. It's kinda tricky, but not that difficult in practice. Basically .... 6 mi give you 6 mi. The first parameter after the convert part (the "|6" says the amount you're converting. The next one "|mi" is the abbreviation for the original unit of measurement (in this case, mi is for miles). The last one "|km" is the abbreviation for the unit you want it converted into. That's the simple set up. You can then add additional parameters to modify that output. If you add "|abbr=none" you won't get the abbreviations in your output like so: 6 mi turns into 6 mi. If you want American spelling of the units, you add a parameter "|sp=us" .. to give you 6 mi gives you: 6 mi. If you want to display fractions in your initial figure you do like so 6+1/2 mi gives 6+1/2 mi. There are a lot of different options, but those should cover the ones you'll most likely need.


 * I'm assuming you're not wanting to know about the Template:Inflation and Template:Inflation-fn "conversions"?


 * As far as notablity, the standard for artworks is going to be WP:GNG, the General notability guideline. This is basically that there needs to be substantial third-party coverage in more than one place, and of more than local coverage. The local paper writing a small blurb about a piece of art doesn't begin to meet the notablity requirements, usually. You're best off with scholarly papers discussing the work, second best is national newspapers. LOTS of local coverage can also work, but it needs to be pretty substantial and sustained. This sort of mention isn't going to be a listing in a database of public artwork, but articles discussing for at least several pages the work. There are, of course, some things that are "assumed" to be notable, but that's because we assume that because of what the subject was/is/became there would be coverage. A lot of early medieval bishops fall under that category - it's assumed that they are notable because they were so significantly above the rest of the populace of their time that there should be sources. As an example of artwork - check Liudhard medalet or Leofric Missal - these are two medieval artworks that have been discussed in several papers and other works, and thus meet the GNG. I'm not interested in dealing with the bother of deleting them, it's a royal pain in the behind, but I think you'd be better off dealing with original artworks, rather than copies, unless you're talking ancient copies (I don't think anyone would argue that Venus de' Medici isn't notable by Wikipedia standards, but a plaster copy of that isn't notable by Wikipedia standards.) The important thing to remember is that Wikipedia has its own standards of notablity. What you'd consider "notable" as a professor of art, won't necessarily follow Wikipedia standards. I run into this with horses - I've done a lot of research on Quarter Horses - and while I've written about a large number of horses that would be interesting to include in Wikipedia, and would be considered "notable" by Quarter Horse enthusiasts, we don't have those articles, instead we stick to Quarter Horses that meet Wikipedia's standards. It's not "denegrating" the subject if they don't meet Wikipedia's notablity standards, it's just the way it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal
Finally updated the portal! Check Portal:Horses/Selected article to make sure I added all your new ones! Montanabw (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Something that might interest you
Sigeberht of East Anglia, recently passed as GA (by me), but you may be able to think of ways to improve it further. (Or is it a little early for you? I tend to think "early Christian in the British Isles + very little known = Ealdgyth's realm (especially if horses are involved)" but then I have little appreciation of the nuances of history! BencherliteTalk 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on the road at the moment ... but when I get home in a few weeks - I'll try to look in on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A return gift
...at List of Anglo-Saxon saints, just to make you aware. :) There will be an accompanying template sooner or later, so I apologize in advance if your watchlist gets bombarded. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I just missing Wilfrid on there? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He's been logged as 'Wilfrith of Hexham' per my idiosyncrasies ... So you'll be rooting for the Packers, right? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * At least Cnut looks to be staying at Cnut. I'm carefully NOT rooting in the SB. We have very ... vocal ... friends who are fans of both teams. Better to be safe and just enjoy the game. (Hubby is a Indianapolis Colts fan ... and I, for my sins, am a Houston Texans fan.. so we're agnostic today). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries at my house, for the first time in a decade or so, I think we finally got to root for the team that we wanted to win!Wahoo!!!!  Now all that said, I watch exactly one football game a year, and not every year, so it's not like, say, the Kentucky Derby or an IMPORTANT sporting event!  (grin)   Montanabw (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WTF happened there!? It must have slipped off my watchlist (or did I watchlist the wrong Cnut?), but for reasons I probably shouldn't disclose I'm glad to have missed must all the fun. Anyway, good to see the old saints have been usefully grouped together, with new ones added as you went along. A good reminder also that I left a similar list quite unfinished. Cavila (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Cavila, I hadn't spotted that! Great work. I think Yorkshirian's template may need some work though. Ireland was third on my list after Scotland. Was there any particular source you used? Anyway, both of you, there a RfC at Talk:David I of Scotland you may be interested in commenting upon. All the bestDeacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New book
Just in case you haven't seen it, you might be interested in this book. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen it, but am holding off, I spent my wikibook budget on some other things instead (this looks to be something I want a couple of chapters from, not the whole book). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
<div style="background-color: #F0FFEC; border: 4px solid #107020; width:100%; -moz-border-radius: 15px; -webkit-border-radius: 15px;" > WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Victoria: I just had to let you know how thrilled everyone is with the Carousel article; it really looks fantastic! I couldn't be more excited. The curators and others all through the museum have been talking about how it's such a great compilation of all of the resources and history, something they can proudly point to whenever people want to know more. This has shown many people the real value in Wikipedia. Can't ask for much better than that! I know you put a lot of time and resources into this article and I hope you know how appreciative I am. I'll be chatting with Angie soon about our next steps with QR codes and such. Let me know if you know its status through the FA process, as that's something I'm not as familiar with and don't know how to check up on. Thank you again and I hope you're enjoying your vacation! HstryQT (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a great piece of work Ealdgyth. I wouldn't say that it's quite ready for FAC just yet, but I don't think that much would be gained by putting it through GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW. Surely a bishop-pirate deserves better than this? Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let you know, it's going to be after I get back from my trip (I'm currently in Colorado about to go to Mesa Verde this morning...) And thanks for the copyedit Malleus. You can keep fiddling with it for a while, I'm at least two weeks from getting home. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to check over the carousel again ... we're at least a week and a half out from getting home, but we're approaching the halfway point at least. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A can of worms
that you might or might not want to stick your head into. Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Being in even partial agreement with the Deacon is a huge step for me. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A few popped up on my watchlist - mainly for the authors of the content. I'm not sure that adding them as if they were sources is really the way to go and the sheer numbers that were added (which I didn't know about until I wikistalked Deacon's contribs for the day after he started stripping out the additions) makes it rather a pointless exercise to just bulk add them and not actually SOURCE anything to the work. I've not seen the work yet (and am unlikely to until it shows up at my local university) so I can't really judge how well it's done. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it must be an improvement on EB 1911 & sources from 1866, even if it actually says much the same, but this is not the way to do it. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly it costs nearly $600 and will only be bought in its current hb form by big university libraries and hardcore academics and enthusiasts, a sign perhaps that the golden age of academic print publishing is probably well over. The libraries here haven't ordered it, though I'm guessing that's because Brill haven't sent their latest catalogue out yet ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider myself somewhat hardcore as an enthusiast, but $600 is a bit much! I did shell out $100 for Sharpe's Handlist of Latin Writers, but I'm not that interested in chronicles... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in chronicles, but interest alone does not magic money! :) In any case even if I had that kind of money I'd be getting those Oxford medieval text volumes before this. Still don't even own the Libellus de Exordio, though it is so important to my work! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are a lot better ways to spend $600, that's for sure! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward III
Hiya, can you check the article again, it sure looks like "the the" is back again following your edit, but of course it is late here and I may be suffering temporary blindness... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ack, you are correct. I should have had more caffeine this morning... Sorry!Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Handbook of British Chronology
I've been reading R. I. Page, 'Anglo-Saxon Episcopal Lists, Parts I and II', and 'Anglo-Saxon Episcopal Lists, Part III', Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 9 (1965), 71-95, and 10 (1966), 2-24. Don't know if you have access. In parts of the first article he criticizes the HBC. For instance, he seems to show that the HBC erroneously separated the bishops of Winchester Eadhun and Eadmund of Winchester, the latter being a product of Anglo-Norman writers updating the name Eadhun to a more familiar one; he gives other examples (pages 93 to 94). Tell me if you have access to the articles, and if you don't I can send you them. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * he'd be criticizing the second edition, right? I've been using the third to update (although I haven't gotten to winchester yet). I'll let you know when I get home and you can send them to me if I don't already have them (I obviously don't carry around all the research material when I travel...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I believe he was criticizing the first edition actually, but the criticisms weren't noticed by the editors of the 2nd ed. (no idea if they were noticed by the 3rd). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do know they eliminated a number of bishops between teh second and the third, so there's a good shot they got that too. It's looking like we'll be home in a week and a half or so. Really depends on the weather and what wee see to photograph. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 2 March 2011 (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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter de Stapledon
Hey, thanks for the changes you made on the article. I don't have access to the ODNB. Stapledon is listed as Constable of the Tower in 1323 by W. L. Rutton. Do more current sources confirm or deny this? Thanks. --  Kenatipo   speak! 15:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't until I get home from a photography trip I'm currently on. I can get to the ODNB while I'm here, but the books and stuff are (obviously) still at home and it'll probably be another week before I get there. ODNB confirms that he held the position - Buck's sentence is: "There followed the abortive Scottish campaign of 1322; Stapeldon participated in the negotiations that led to a thirteen-year truce in May 1323. After the escape of Roger Mortimer from the Tower of London in August he held the post of constable until the following November. Stapeldon was already at work on the government records stored in the Tower, a consideration which, added to his political reliability, doubtless explains his appointment to this position." Walter's a bit outside my "hard at work" area - I'm trying to get all the pre-1300 English bishops up to some sort of standard before I tackle the 1300-1500 range. Hope that helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Stigand
Some queries on Stigand.

The article states in the intro that he was excommunicated, and later that he was excommunicated by five popes. It mentions that this is partly disputed by one historian, and the online DNB article on him at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26523 does not use the word excommunication. It says that after he was removed Lanfranc required three bishops to acknowledge that Stigand had been condemned by five successive popes, but "For any such sustained papal campaign there is neither evidence nor probability." Should the article be more cautious on this?

The article states that it is not known why Stigand was deposed as bishop of Elham, but the DNB articles on Stigand and Edward both say that he was deposed because he was Emma's adviser and reinstated along with her. The article on Emma mentions a supposed charge of an affair with another bishop, but not with Stigand. I think that the article could make clear that there is a simple explanation, whatever stories were later told by hostile writers.

I think that giving Antipope Benedict X the title Antipope is (in this context) pejorative, and therefore POV. Incidentally, the DNB article on Stigand says that Benedict had a reforming past, and the Wikipedia article on Benedict makes no mention of the issue, stating that he was opposed on a charge of simony and defeated in war.

Thanks for any comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not at home and won't be for at least a week... so I can't get to the sources, so it'll be a bit before I get to this. But, Benedict is considered an "antipope" and his status is one of the reasons that Stigand had issues later, so I don't see it as POV to give him that title. If we didn't call him that, we'd have to explain it anyway... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Greenway in the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae supports the excommunication. Note that unlike Wikipedia, articles in the ODNB don't need to hold to NPOV as strongly as we do, they often argue the author's own views and are less likely to include dissenting views of the events, which is why it's always good to include other sources. Likewise, with the Elmham bit, while Cowdrey has his opinion, stated in the ODNB, there are other opinions, which we give space to also, while also noting that some of the stories are not contemporary. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. On excommunication, certainly most historians say that he was excommunicated. My point was that the definite statement does not recognise that there is a minority opinion. I would be happy with 'most scholars say he was excommunicated'. One point I am not clear about is why Cowdrey never uses the word excommunicated. Does he use the contemporary word at the time 'condemn' which scholars now call excommunication, or does he disagree that there was any claim at the time that Stigand was excommunicated?

On Elham it is not only Cowdrey. Barlow in his ODNB article on Edward and Peter Rex in his biography of Edward take the same view, which is not clearly set out in the list of different explanations in the Wikipedia article on Stigand. You say that some of the stories were not contemporary, but were any?

On Antipope, you say that if we didn't call him that, we have to explain it anyway, but the article does two lines below. An article on an Antipope can set the title in context, but I am uneasy about using it out of context as implying condemnation of someone who may have just lost out in the power politics of the time. The article presents it as an issue between reformers and anti-reformers, but the very limited sources available to me suggest that this was not the issue with Benedict X.

On all these issues, you will no doubt have better sources than available to me when you get access to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

John of Tynemouth (canon lawyer) and William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose
Hi, I have reviewed John of Tynemouth (canon lawyer) and William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose and placed them on hold with some small concerns. You can see my reviews on their respective talk pages. Canadian  Paul  01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've dealt with most of that... and let me take this opportunity to say how nice it is to see you about again! It's been a bit since we've run across each other. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed! I've been busy with all sorts of things in real life, but I can't pass up reviewing a few GAs for the backlog elimination drive! Anyhow, I've passed John of Tynemouth, but there's still one small concern with Braose's article. Canadian   Paul  17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done for seeing the article through to GA. Have you got a special interest in the Braoses? Doug (at Wiki) 00:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really - father and son Braose were a loose end from helping Malleus with William Cragh. Tynemouth was a loose end from Hubert Walter and Walter of Coutances. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)