User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 21

Featured Article promotion

 * Do you realize that you're now number 8 on the list of cabal members? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. Scary. How's the witch-bishop look? And it goes without saying that anything I can do to help with old computers or other things .. .all you have to do is ask. That'd be a great subject for me, as I know nothing and can be your test dummy for "is this comprehensible to the average idiotic American" (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I may hold you to that. How are you with my other obsession, 17th-century English witch trials? I think Gerard's just about ready, but I'd like to read through him again one last time before you put him to the sword. I'm about to pop out out now, and I've got a few little chores to attend to ... so, later. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know a little bit more (I think I read a book on the subject in college during one of my survey history classes) but it's not a subject I've kept up on. I'm much more likely to know random stuff about ancient or medieval subjects than anything after 1500 or so. I have my occasional quirks after that date (anything connected with my genealogy or with the Third Reich is a topic I can be dangerous on) but in general, I'm not that good with "modern" history. I'm always glad to read your work though... and make useless suggestions on sources (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you very likely know more about old computers than I do about old bishops, although unlike you I do know when Anselm died. ;-) Anyway, I'm back now and about to give Gerard a final lick of paint. I'll let you know when I'm done. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Gerard agreed to a compromise on the matter of obedience to Anselm. King Henry proposed that Anselm accept a witnessed oath from Gerard that his profession made to Anselm when he was consecrated Bishop of Hereford would continue in force. Gerard did so at the Council of Westminster in 1107." What does "did so" mean here? The proposition was that Anselm accept a witnessed oath, not that Gerard provide one, if you see what I mean. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apart from that small thing above I think Gerard's about ready now. I'll try and keep an eye on the nomination, but give me a shout if there's something I miss. Bon chance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 22 July 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) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

High Sheriff v. Sheriff
Fair enough- Point taken Plucas58 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your help
Ealdgyth, I was wondering if you could take a look at Darius the Great and tell me any improvements that should be made before this is nominated at FAC? Thanks, warrior  4321   12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My first reaction is .. it's entirely too short. You need to use and mine all of those further reading books for more information and more views of Darius. Drop the Abbot - it's from 1850 or so. Likewise the Farr. Also drop the Encylopedia Brittanica! You need to consult journal articles also, I don't see much use of journal articles. Look at {http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=darius+persia&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 this google scholar search] which has at least two useful articles - the one from 2000 here and this one on Darius' rule in Egypt. Right now, Darius is shorter than my most recent successful FAC Theobald of Bec and if there isn't more written on Darius I'd be very very very surprised. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I am actually having a hard time finding more unique content on Darius. There's a lot written on him, the majority of books that I've found just state the same stuff. Perhaps, I'm not looking properly. Could you tell me how you research for the content that you add to articles? By the way, both of the journals you have linked above require purchase. warrior  4321   04:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I go to local universities to get access to the various journals. I then read whatever is being referenced by the first set of sources, and just keep going from there. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gransden
I see you have a copy of Gransden's Historical Writing in England c. 550 - c. 1307; can you tell me if it would be any use for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle article? I found it while googling for Waverley annals, which doesn't have an article yet; it looks thorough but since it's 1974 I wondered if it was starting to age a bit. Would you recommend it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of another treatment of the subject since, at least as a broad survey. Anything that's been translated or had the originals published in say the Oxford Medieval Texts will have information on that particular work, but as a broad overview of the various writers and works, I don't think there is anything else. Keep in mind that this is a time period where scholarship changes slowly. There are only three biographies of King WIlliam II that I know of - and when I started studying, there was only one - that by Freeman who did it in the 1880s or 1890s. His work wasn't superceeded until 1986 or so with Barlow's William Rufus - so something from 1974 is usually quite sound. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. It's going at around $75 on addall; I may see if I can persuade my family to give it to me for Christmas instead of socks.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But.. but... socks are useful! If your family is like mine, they think your book fetish is strange... if you need anything out of it before then, let me know, I can scan my copy ... most sections on specific chronicles/writers aren't very large. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually my wife knits awesome socks; what's holding me back is the memory of the time about ten years ago when I actually asked for socks for Christmas and received about twenty pairs from a variety of relatives who were relieved at the simplicity of the task I'd set them. Could you send me anything Gransden says on the ASC?  Not sure if it would be useful but if you think it would contribute I'd like to see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll check in the morning... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Its going to be tomorrow .. my head is pounding from sinuses and I just don't have the energy today... not to mention out power has gone out once already today .. quite likely it'll do it again since we're due for some storms. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No hurry; I still have a fair bit of EHD to go through. It feels odd to be working hard on an article that's already an FA; I have to say that I would oppose the original version if it were to come to FAC now, since it's clear to me that there is plenty more to say.  Oh, well, nice to be able to improve it.  Hope you feel better soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've worked my butt off on articles that were FAs, but soon to become not FAs. One that sticks in my mind is Roy of the Rovers, which is kind of embarrassing when placed in conjunction with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but my small offering to popular culture. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I try to take the view that all articles are equally important. Only true in a very utopian sense, I know.  I feel that every time we nail down one small corner of the carpet we free up time to work on other corners; some parts of the carpet are going to get walked on more than others but it's all got to be nailed down.  Or another way to look at it: look at the work done on WP eight or nine years ago.  Almost none of that still survives, but I would still be immensely proud if I'd been a prolific contributor back then, because I would have been part of the reason it became yet more successful.  Same thing with Roy of the Rovers and Offa of Mercia; we've nailed those down as best we can, and so long as we have high enough standards to go back and improve them even after the star I think we're being intellectually honest about them.  You, me and Ealdgyth have over 100 FAs between us; we account for over 3% of all the FAs on the English Wikipedia.  We're nailing down as much carpet as we can find time for.  I'm proud of all of it; Startling Stories as well as Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting analogy. It does seem to be the case that once an article reaches FA it's easier to defend. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Feologild
The problem you may be having with sources could be due to the fact that apparently the dark ages did not exist. Adding an extra 300 years was all a mistake in the dates. I mention this because it is currently my favourite conspiracy theory. Little green men are very dull by comparison.Fainites barley scribs 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL... where is this argument that the dark ages did not exist? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Found, with some difficulty, at Phantom time hypothesis, but possibly not quite as nutty as the New Chronology (Fomenko). We don't seem have an article on the theory that the Trojan War took place in Cambridgeshire. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Illig. If he were still alive you could go and shout "ice cores" outside his house. I found it in a book about the Islamic golden age/dark ages/crusades etc.

One day, nobody will review anything
I'd like to vent a little here if I may. It seems to me that reviewers are now being blamed for copyright violations/plagiarism rather than the editors who introduced it. Nobody can check everything, or should be expected to. The article that's got my goat is Rochdale Town Hall if you care to take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anyone blaming anyone, but I'm quite likely to have missed it.. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You missed it. It was on SandyG's talk page yesterday. Part of the "DYK is crap" backlash. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic Malleus. DYK seems to be a hotbed for that stuff.  There is sort of a copyvio witchhunt out there with some folks that is a little out of control, we lost an experienced editor and admin over a TFA last Halloween that had about two sentences, sourced, but deemed to be too closely paraphrased to the source. On the other hand, a bunch of us are still cleaning up the massive copyvios of the infamous ItsLassieTime sock.  (drawer full of socks, dozens of articles, probably over a hundred) Then, OTOH, Ealdgyth knows I've survived some awful nasty stuff where attempting to put things in a non-close paraphrase has been roundly criticized by the tendentious sorts as OR.  I guess jerks will be jerks.  WP is a great big city with all sorts.    Montanabw (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav
Hello Ealdgyth! There's been quite a lot of work in the article over the past couple of weeks, and I think your comments have been largely addressed. Could you re-check it? Thanks a lot! Constantine  ✍  10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry, RL has been a bear lately. I hope to revisit this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

UP! required...
...in your world, maybe. Long live the MLA! On another note, while I haven't checked the journal articles yet, I don't think there's a lot more to The Death of King Edgar. Even a DYK is probably out of reach, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Could you control wether category "History" of the article "Dolmabahçe Palace" has been written correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa Bakacak (talk • contribs) 08:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Horses in World War I
With all respect, I found your wholesale deletion of my brief section summarising the nature and order of battle of the French cavalry in 1914 on the grounds that it was too detailed, a little puzzling - since much more lengthy passages remain in the article covering individual mounted clashes or other isolated topics. My purpose was simply to record that France had fielded a major mounted force of a very traditional nature during 1914-18.Buistr (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * YOu'll note that that wasn't the only reason I deleted it - there was uncited opinion and the citation given didn't match the format of the citatons in the rest of the article. May I suggest that if you really feel it's required, you suggest the wording on the talk page so all the editors involved can discuss it? I did not note that any discussion of the exact make up of the calvary forces for any other nation was in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 30 July 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) 01:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Horses in Warfare
I've been looking over my edits (and the page history) and I have to stand by my decision to call users to talk discussion. Edit warring is present when a dispute is ongoing, and all the discussion is in talk summaries. This was clearly the case here.

You are experienced enough to know the cycle is BRD, not BRRRBR but never D. When I noticed the exchange, I went to talk to read the discussion, low and behold, vastly experienced editors were actually engaged in editwarring with relative newbies for a couple of days, yet hadn't availed themselves of talkpage discussion. This is what I was thinking when I interjected.

To my view, my mistake was to mention editors by name. For that I apologize. I was wrong. Plus, other editors were and are involved, so by pointing out just two, it might have seemed like I was acting like the police, and taking sides. Exactly the opposite of my intention, and again, I acknowledge my error. If I can ever make it right, I'll offer. BusterD (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You grasped what my problem with the discussion was - you called out editors by name without having the full facts. Personally, I would have been fine with going to the talk page and would have after I noticed that he'd reverted a third time. Sometimes, it takes folks a bit of time to realize that there are two folks opposing their change, so I don't consider edit warring to have really "started" until two different folks revert. The thing that got me maddest was being accused of reverting twice (edit warring) when I had only reverted once. Sometimes, folks don't really believe that the first revert was meant - so it takes a second revert before they need to go to the talk page. Anyway, whatever. Water under the bridge. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Block the witch! Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that "don't bury the warlock in the cathedral"? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a fascinating story there that could be the subject of a best-selling novel. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but THEY started it!!! :-P Montanabw (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A non-drama
A very civil and polite conversation going on about the copyright status of an image here: and  here. I honestly don't know the answer and the other person makes a compelling case, but I wonder what would happen at FA if this arose. Feel free to offer your thoughts, but no obligation to do so. (And the discourse IS very civil) Someone very helpfully added the image to a new article I just created Albert, Alfred and Chris Schlechten, and I was concerned that it is not a free image (it got uploaded to Commons) but see the conversation. If you have a view that is helpful, that would be terrific. Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirming Backstage Pass
Hello! I was very excited to see that you'll be able to come to the Backstage Pass! This is your friendly reminder that the Backstage Pass & Edit-a-Thon is this coming Saturday, August 20th. Please confirm, either here or on my talk page, that you and your guest will be attending.

We ask that you meet us outside of the Welcome Center Security Office between 9:45 and 10:00am. Come down the ramp and make a sharp left towards the security office. You will be asked to check in prior to starting the day. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Looking forward to seeing you! LoriLee (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * well, we thought we'd make it but then my sister decided to come visit a week early, so there is no way we can make it. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw :( That's disappointing. We have a rather large gift we were going to present to you, that's not very mail-able. You'll have to come out soon, if you're able. LoriLee (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We'd love to, but my sister only comes up twice a year or so from Texas. She may want to go over to Indy while she's here for some genealogy, so I'll keep you informed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edward III...
Just to let you know, I've offered to talk Corusant through making a referenced change to the Edward III page using Mortimer's book as a source (its online). He seems keen to make a difference, but I don't think he understands how to do the referencing yet, so perhaps that will help.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 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) 03:47, 20 August 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 August 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 30, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 

Hemming's Cartulary is a manuscript cartulary, or collection or charters and other land records, collected by a monk named Hemming around the time of the Norman Conquest of England. The manuscript comprises two separate cartularies that were made at different times and were later bound together. The first section, traditionally titled the Liber Wigorniensis, is a collection of charters and other land records, most of which are organized geographically. The second section, Hemming's Cartulary proper, combines charters and other land records with a narrative of deprivation of property by the church of Worcester. The two works are bound together in one surviving manuscript, the earliest surviving cartulary from medieval England. A major theme is the losses suffered by Worcester at the hands of royal officials and local landowners. Included amongst the despoilers are kings such as Cnut and William the Conqueror, and nobles such as Eadric Streona and Urse d'Abetot. Also included are accounts of lawsuits waged by the Worcester monks in an effort to regain their lost lands. The two sections of the cartulary were first printed in 1723. The original manuscript was slightly damaged by fire in 1733, and required rebinding. A new printed edition is in production as of 2010. (more...)

New tables
Sorry for not consultating you and other uses before implementing the new tables. My apologies. Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I really wasn't complaining, I just didn't want you guys to get a lot of flack from others ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Discreet review?
E, would you be interested in giving me a pre-GA review on Russell and Sigurd Varian and John Osborne Varian? I'm half kicking around the "four award" idea on one or both of these (Probably Russell and Sigurd, there's a book about them out there, but can't find much more on John); they are not horse articles, so I'm not all that emotional about them. They were fun to do, you obviously can figure out why I wound up doing these. Montanabw (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Second, a question on using photos of artwork of living artists. I think the general rule is "no," but I happen to own about five prints by Monte Dolack, who just had a new article created (by someone else, not me).  I'd love to supplement the article with samples, but not sure if there is an OK way to do so...  Can't seem to find anything of help at WP:IMAGE, even though I swear I once saw something on that... help?  Montanabw (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's no, without the artist's permission, unless you go the fair use route, which normally involves discussing each work in the text. You can often get away with a single representative work without much discussion, but hide in the cellar if the copyright police special squad come calling. Don't load them to Commons. You will find more at Copyrights and the link-trails from there. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The world will be a better place if I can cook up a fair use rationale to use Cabin Fever. LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Link Over

 * My bad, I know the overlinks, I just messed up on something was trying to correct a wording, thanks, by the way, out of curiosity, do you know anything if the King actually help pave the way to the age of exploration? Later---Corusant (yadyadyada) 20:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Somerset Historical Essays
Just to let you know that I am adding Somerset Historical Essays by Armitage Robinson to enWS, as I see that you have cited that work at least in one article. I have a few works from that period added. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairfax Harrison questions

 * Lead
 * "Another concern was increasing the amount of railroad track and the extent of service for the railway." I don't understand what "extent of service for the railway" means.
 * See if the new wording works better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First years as president
 * "One of Harrison's first acts as president was to implement a new training program for college graduates hired at the company." Shouldn't that be "by the company"?
 * Duh. Yes. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "In 1915, while the railway lost 12 percent of its revenue owing to disruptions in trade from the start of World War I, Harrison warned the stockholders that automobile ownership could severely impact railroad passenger revenues." I'm not sure why these two things are together in the same sentence; are they in some way linked? Also, the US didn't enter the First World War until 1917, so it's not obvious why the railroad would have been affected in 1915.
 * Will check with the source when I find it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check to see if this makes more sense now? I've expanded a bit. I'm afraid this is where being the child of a railfan meant that I just assumed that others would make the connection... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "They were trained in mathematics and other high school-level courses ...". Mathematics is a subject, not a high-school course.
 * Changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great Depression
 * Conversions to present-day equivalent value have tended to become controversial at FAC, so it might be an idea to add a note explaining what the basis of the calculations are.
 * Should I just remove them?? (gaze up) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * *I think all they need is a note to explain the basis of the conversions. I'm not sure what you call RPI in the states, CPI? I'll check and add something. Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've changed my mind. It's obvious from the citation that you're using CPI, which seems reasonable for a share price. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1920s
 * "Harrison spent a good deal of time traveling around the southern United States, endeavoring to increase southern industry." It's not entirely clear what "increase southern industry means"? Make southerners work harder?
 * Mainly, try to increase the number of factories in the south... suggestions on how to word this welcome (the phrase used is pretty common in texts describing the south's traditional lack of industry...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Most railroad presidents used only one, which made Harrison's practice unique." "Most" and "unique" don't match; "almost unique"?
 * I have to consult with the source on this ... which I can't locate on my shelves.. yikes! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Found the book (having 7000 books can be a pain at times, yes...) and it's quite clear he was the only one to use two... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "... a class of locomotive called the Pacific P-4, which became famous and symbols of the Southern Railway." "A class" and "symbols" don't match.
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Harrison himself toured the southern United States giving speeches about southern industry as well as about the railway". We've already been told this, right at the start of the section.
 * Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "The railroad took occupancy of the building in the early fall of 1929." There are some who will take exception to using seasons like "fall" in this way.
 * Oh, good gods. It's what the source says, if they'd given a month, I'd have stated it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with "fall", but I'd bet a pound to a penny that User:John will wave WP:SEASON at you. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "In 1926 the United States government forced the railroad to move out of its headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C." Why?
 * I don't believe the source stated, but I'll double check when I find it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The source states "In 1926, when the federal government condemned the Southern's headquarters building on Pennsylvania Aven in Washington..." ... this sounds to me like they exercised eminent domain, but it's not clear in the source. I think we'll just have to stick with not knowing why the government did something (not an unusual situation ... unfortunately.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915- this might be the reason for the loss in revenue. Ning-ning (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Think I got all of these? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think so, looks pretty good to me now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Easter egg link
What is an easter egg link? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:EASTEREGG ... but basically it's any link like unicorn where the piping doesn't quite match the underlying link. This can lead to surprises when the reader clicks through. The one you did isn't quite a total surprise, but given that plain charters was linked in the very first sentence, there was no need to pipe the link, when the specific link fit fine in the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The bird
We call those fine fellows you photographed a "camp robber." Did you know that nickname? Montanabw (talk) 22:07, 2 September 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) 13:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spacing...
Talk back DBD 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Horse furniture
I thought you might know this... Is "horse furniture" a synonym for "horse tack"? I have encountered the term in an old book on uniforms but an on-line search has proved inconclusive. If it is a synonym, I might at least create the redirect. Waltham, The Duke of 13:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen it used in that manner but looking through my various works I cannot see anything which would support that - even the OED didn't have the term. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is now mainly used in archaeology, where it still is current, as google shows, and so inevitably tends to mean the metal bits that have survived rather than the leather bits that haven't. There's also "horse trappings" and "horse tackle" . All essentially mean the same.  Worth a redirect certainly. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I have created all three redirects, just in case. And if anyone's interested in Edwardian uniforms... (There are no inter-page links, so you have to adjust the URL for the other two pages of the gallery; this is an example of the term in question.) Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 7 September 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) 21:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Award
Would you mind taking a look at the sources in Hugo Award which is currently at FAC? I'd particularly like your opinion on the websites: timill.co.uk seems unlikely to be a reliable source, though it claims to just transcribe what would be an RS. (Tim Illingworth, who did the transcription, is an old acquaintance of mine, and personally I'm sure he's reliable, but it doesn't seem likely to be an RS by our standards.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 18 September 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 September 17, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 17, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 

Hubert Walter (c. 1160 – 1205) was an influential royal adviser in the late 12th and early 13th centuries in the positions of chief justiciar of England, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Chancellor. As chancellor, Walter began the keeping of the Charter Roll, a record of all charters issued by the chancery. Walter was not noted for his holiness in life or learning, but historians have judged him one of the most outstanding government ministers in English history. Walter served King Henry II of England in many ways, including diplomatic and judicial efforts. After an unsuccessful candidacy to the see of York, Walter was elected Bishop of Salisbury shortly after the accession of King Henry's son Richard I to the throne of England. Walter accompanied King Richard on the Third Crusade, and was one of the principals involved in raising Richard's ransom after the king was captured in Germany on his return from the Holy Land. As a reward for his faithful service, Walter was selected to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury in 1193. Walter set up a system which was the precursor for the modern justices of the peace. Following Richard's death in 1199, Walter helped assure the elevation of Richard's brother John to the throne.


 * Bad luck. You seem to have had a lot of these this year. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I must be on Raul's good side...haven't had a main page article in almost a year!!!! Of course, I've only had one new FA in that time frame.  Maybe that's the secret ;)  Good luck, E! Karanacs (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Try a TFA on April Fool's Day to really get the feel for it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By looking pitiful, I managed to persuade Dabomb to reschedule... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats are in order, even if it means being chained to WP for 24 hours, again!  Montanabw (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You got it changed to one of mind ... that's what I get for bragging :( Luckily, I didn't even know it was up. Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Shrinking Horses
Dear Ealdgyth I wonder if you or one of the people at WPEQ can help me out with this one: I was writing an article on Daylami and found a ref from his racing days that gave his height as 17 hands. BUT on the website of the stud wher he currently stands, he is listed as a somewhat less impressive 16.1. Is it possible for horses to lose a little as they get older? The horse in question is a 17 year old Tb stallion.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (Lurking on E's page). Horses can "shrink" a little, but not that much. I'd suspect that the 17 hand measurement was an exaggeration.  (I once looked at a mare advertised as 15.2 and on the stick she was 14.3   People lie about horse height worse than people lie about their weight!  LOL!) It also does not correlate to speed; Seabiscuit and Mine That Bird were, I think, both under 16 hands or right around 16 hands.   Montanabw (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a lot like football players who are stated to be 6 foot plus and turn out to be like 5 feet 9 inches in real life... or if you're female, it's like hearing "12 inches baby" and knowing that it's really only 5 ... (cackles) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The funny thing was that it's the horse's owners who say 16.1, and the independent body who say 17.0. Off to Ireland to check. And I am 6 feet tall, because you always round 0.5 upwards, so 5 foot 11 and a half=six foot. There, proved it.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL all around!  Montanabw (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on October 3, 2011. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/October 3, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 

The Gregorian mission was a group of Italian monks and priests sent by Pope Gregory the Great to Britain in the late 6th and early 7th century to convert and Christianize the Anglo-Saxons from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Many of the known members became bishops or archbishops, while most of the remainder became abbots. The lone exception is James the Deacon, who never held a higher office than deacon in the church. Among the archbishops were the first five Archbishops of Canterbury: Augustine (statue pictured), Laurence, Mellitus, Justus, and Honorius; all of them were later canonized as saints. Two other missionaries, Paulinus and Romanus, also became bishops. As well as the five archbishops, three other members of the mission are regarded as saints: Peter, James the Deacon, and Paulinus.


 * There's just no escape for you, you will be punished. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Hubert Walter goes up tonight too... I've never understood why people get excited about having an article on the main page... at least ... after you've dealt with one or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a little tweak of the blurb, you might want to check it out. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like good changes to me, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to get the bold link any earlier in the blurb? One recent TFL (List of Donkey Kong video games) had "Donkey Kong" with the first words, with the link to the list coming later on in the opening sentence; even so, the list only got 3,800 hits as compared to Donkey Kong itself with over 9,000, so it's easy to see where the readers went that day (and it wasn't to the TFL). See WP:TFLSTATS.  Even though Gregorian mission is in great shape, of course, the aim is to get people to go to the list first then onto the main article. BencherliteTalk 19:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this? This version also avoids linking "monk" and "priest", which would save Tony spluttering on his morning coffee from seeing common words linked on the main page. BencherliteTalk 23:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 

pretty picture A group of Italian monks and priests was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to Britain in the late 6th and early 7th centuries to convert and Christianize the Anglo-Saxons from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Most of the known members of the Gregorian mission became bishops or archbishops...


 * I'm fine with whatever... I really don't get that excited about blurbs or being on the main page (grins). I did make one tweak. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairfax Harrison
Apologies - I thought I'd left a last comment on the FAC!

Other than a bit of disquiet over including the dollar conversions - my concern here isn't that they're wrong as such, just a bit superfluous - I've no objections. I haven't gone over it for anything other than prose style & general coherency, though... Shimgray | talk | 21:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's just been a couple of weeks, and I'm trying to drum up some support for the poor guy. If you're comfortable with the prose, feel free to support with that qualification. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll note that just now. I'm never quite sure with FAC etiquette! Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a slight hack at it. It's a beautiful article and meets FA standard in my opinion. Some critical feedback for you (assuming these were yours, I'm too lazy to check):
 * "Also significant was... " looks like padding; everything in the text should be significant or we wouldn't mention it
 * "a number of" seems weak; bearing in mind that zero is a perfectly respectable number, it would be better to say "some" or "several"
 * "It was not until... " always looks like padding too, and seems to emphasize the period unduly; unless the length of the period is the main point, I'd avoid this phrase
 * Thanks for your hard work and for asking me to review, it was a pleasure to work with you. --John (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the copyedits (and those you did on the related articles too!). I'm going to get these corrected right now. Feel free to hack at anything I put up at FAC anytime... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't clear, these comments were based on copyedits I already made to the article, though I see I missed a couple. Thanks, I will. --John (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * When the wiki idea works, as it is here, it can be quite inspiring, but when it doesn't it's a nightmare. Doesn't often seem to be much in the middle though except for thankless drudgery. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Still better than having your washing machine die (spectacularly) and having to wait on the delivery of the replacement... my whole day is wasted and I'm still waiting... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also better than a lot of real life work, including bill-paying, clearing the in-box, cleaning toilets, etc.  Montanabw (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't remind me. Toilet/bathroom are up after the delivery... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TPS alert...
I'm going to be going to the University of Illinois library to return some books (and pick up new ones, of course) in the next couple of days .. (the returnee books are due Tuesday, so I must go before then). If anyone wants any articles/look ups, please note them here and I'll try to get to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your two comments today have been enormously helpful to me
I really appreciate your being willing to share your own views in this controversial arena. I hope I'm not picking at a festering sore. Until recently, the twin towers site has been like a gaping wound in the NY landscape, IMHO. Riding the PATH train from Jersey into the WTC site has long felt like a coachride into hallowed ground. Now that the memorial is complete and the building is underway, the healing has begun for me. But I know I often see symbols and portents where they never existed (per Wallace Shawn's rebuttal in "My Dinner With Andre"). BusterD (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I had friends in the city (and a cousin in the Pentagon) but I'm not a NYer, so the issue for me is not nearly so fraught with difficulties. And I did train as a historian, which tends to give me a detachment on issues that I'm not researching. No, it's not been a sore, just watching folks tear into Malleus and then not get called on their behavior has been very instructive on how things remain the same... just the pages change. In truth, I feel sorry for many of the editors on the page who are so defensive - it's obvious they care greatly, and I can certainly understand that they often have to deal with complete nutcase SPAs pushing fringe theories, but they have grown very very defensive and locked into a mindset that anyone who opposes must be a CTist, and that's a very bad place to be. My solution when I start engaging in bunker mentality (and I do at times) is to take a break from whatever article is causing me problems and pick up another area of interest. I'm not sure this would work on this set of topics. Ireland is another area where the bunker mentality has set in (and it's one that occasionally bursts forth on my watchlist... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Goodies

 * Can I get that in the non-chocolate version? I'm not really a chocolate fan (grins). Thanks for the thought... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * waves arms** I'll take the chocolate! E's disfavor means more for me, right??  :-)   Montanabw (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:
It's rude to refactor talk page comments. I understand you may not like it, but it is an effective way to get someone's attention.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the review was closed, there really isn't any reason for anyone to be watching or adding to that article. If you have problems with the close, you should probably take it up with the closing admin. And I think it's pretty safe to say would have gotten MF's attention also with "I'd really appreciate it if you didn't refactor my comments. Please revert." But I guess it's easier to hit a Twinkle button or whatever, rather than actually try to discuss. Templates are fine for new users or vandals... otherwise, your time is better spent actually crafting a personal comment that will help foster discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In the midst of all this furore
There's one thing you don't even half enough credit for: you're an American who's probably done as much for Wikipedia's medieval English history as anyone has ever done. My take on what's been happening over the last few months is that as Wikipedia inevitably moves towards article improvement rather than article creation, unwillingly and reluctantly of course, like everything else that happens here, so Randy from Boise feels he's being ignored. There is one 16-year-old kid that if I had the power to jump out of his computer screen I would definitely give a wake-up call to. Can you guess who that might be? (Oh, and for the purposes of the kiddies-admins who may be reading this, "wake-up call" is neither a legal threat nor a personal attack.) Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A wake-up call is generally something I need after editing into the small hours... BencherliteTalk 23:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gah, you've got me blushing. The scary thing is .. all I can see is how much more work that is left to do... Hchc is doing good work with the kings, but the basic "subjects" need work badly also ... I'd love to help out with the 9/11 stuff, but I do not need that stress nor do I really have the time to read. I think that's what scares me most sometimes... that so few of the "editors" seem to realize that you need to read and read widely and a lot in order to really edit well here. I've easily spent thousands of dollars on this hobby - buying books, tracking down rare books to photocopy, etc. And to have what I've worked hard on challenged because of some outdated source they can access for free on the internet .. it can really "chap my hide" to borrow a phrase from the Duke. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't get me started on the book issue... my poor house is groaning from my collection (as is my wife, whenever she trips over them...) I blame the advent of relatively cheap second hand books via Amazon myself. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just bought the autobiography of Henry Morton Stanley with a beautiful Plum Orchard bookplate for a fiver from a charity bookshop- the name of Carnegie obviously didn't ring any bells with the staff. Ning-ning (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed all around.  Montanabw (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it surprise anyone to learn that the very first thing I unpacked in my new house this summer was a box of books? I've now found about 90% of them...must sort through the storage unit and find the rest soon. Karanacs (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's update that… "the very first thing I unpacked...was my Kindle". How very prosaic that would be. Ning-ning (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Kindle wouldn't have been packed in a box... duh! My Kindle (and my iPad) live in my carry on bag when we travel... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Source check?
E, if you have a chance will you look over the sources at []? I'm having trouble judging consensus on the source choice and wanted another opinion. Karanacs (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry to have to direct you to that one, but I knew you had the most experience. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's obvious summer is over, isn't it? My editing is picking up again... don't hesitate to ask if you want me to look at something. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about ODNB
Hi Ealdgyth. I've got a question about citing a particular ODNB bio. It says: "Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008". How should I plug that into template:citation? Should the year parameter be "2004" or "2008", or should it be "year=2008" and "origyear=2004"? I'm confused. How do you do it?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I use the cite encyclopedia parameter for the ODNB ... and use the year field for 2004, and edition for the 2008, filling it in like "edition=revised January 2008". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do something like. Thanks.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed!
Hi Victoria! I hope all is well. Do let me know when you're next out this way; it'd be great to have you stop by again (and give you your present :). Having been our first real E-Volunteer, I wanted to be sure to pass this along to you - The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is considering adapting a formal E-Volunteer program and they welcome your opinion as a Wikipedian. Your responses to this E-Volunteer survey will be extremely valuable. The survey will come to a close on October 1st. If you're interested, here are other ways you can help the Children's Museum's Wikipedia project. Thanks so much again for everything! Oh also, did you see the scanning the carousel QRpedia code and reading your FA? (Be sure to check the whole category!) : )Also there was just a WMF blog post about it today. Will be in touch! LoriLee (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That AfD
Kim has a possibily good proposal on the Four Foundations AfD page if you want to peek and weigh in. At least I like it. (And given that I'm probably going to have to write some of it, that should count for something! LOL!)  Montanabw (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Capetian France...
...Amazon has delivered on Hallam's Capetian France. Will read it over the weekend... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an excellent work. She may not have any other comments specifcally relating to Stephen, but it's a great "corrective" to the often Anglo-centric views of many of the historians that cover medieval England. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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) 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephen of England...
...has been promoted. Very many thanks indeed for all your support and help (and patience) with this article. Am just reading through "New Intepretations of Henry II"... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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) 06:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey (archbishop of York)
Irritating/daft question time again:


 * Lead
 * "Upon the ascension of his half-brother Richard as king, Geoffrey was nominated as Archbishop of York, probably to force a potential rival to become a priest and out of contention for the throne." It's not clear from that whether the potential rival was a rival to Geoffrey or to Richard.
 * Changed to "...Geoffrey was nominated as Archbishop of York by Richard,..." which hopefully clarifies? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "After a dispute about the nomination, he was consecrated archbishop in 1191, and promptly entered into a dispute with William Longchamp". I don't like that "dispute ... dispute", so could we say something "entered into a conflict with William Longchamp"?
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "When Longchamp had Geoffrey dragged from sanctuary ...". We haven't been told that he went into sanctuary. Where?
 * "...when Geoffrey attempted return to York but was stopped at Dover. When Longchamp had Geoffrey dragged from sanctuary in Dover, a council of magnates ordered Longchamp out of office..." Better? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The archbishop spent much of his archiepiscopate in various disputes with his brothers ...". As Geoffrey was illegitimate surely they were his half-brothers?
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "He soon became embroiled in a conflict with William Longchamp, Richard's regent in England, after being stopped at Dover on his return to England". As we haven't been told that Geoffrey had left England, this reads a little strangely.
 * Let's try this... check it and see? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * "It was after this campaign that Henry is said to have told Geoffrey 'My other sons are the real bastards. This is the only one who's proved himself legitimate! That quotation doesn't look like it was spoken to Geoffrey, but rather to a third party about him.
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The bishop-elect made a number of gifts to the cathedral at Lincoln". Why is he being called "bishop-elect" here, after the pope has apparently confirmed his appointment as Bishop of Lincoln?
 * He was never consecrated, so he's not considered a bishop until his consecration. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "While he was the bishop-elect at Lincoln, it appears that Adam, Bishop of St Asaph performed the episcopal duties in the diocese of Lincoln, as Geoffrey had never been consecrated and was unable to those functions". Obviously a missing word towards the end there, but more significantly I'm not at all sure who the bishop-elect is here. From the way the sentence is constructed it looks like it's Adam, but is that right?
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Against these financial efforts, in 1180 he taxed his diocese heavily enough that it earned him a rebuke from his father, although." Can't really make sense of that, especially the dangling "although" at the end. I don't really understand what "against these financial efforts" means either.
 * try that? I've reworded .. (I knew what I meant, but I obviously was failing horribly at communicating that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Chancellor
 * Is "Chancellor" to be capitalised or not? This section starts off with "Chancellor" but ends up with "chancellor". The lower case spelling continues in the next section as well.
 * I think I've fixed most of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First difficulties
 * "What happened with the vacant archbishopric of York after Richard's taking the throne, when it did so, and why are complicated by the fact that the main contemporary accounts contradict each other." Can't really follow that: "when it did so"?
 * Reworded, let me know what you think (I'm sure it's clunky!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Along with the appointment, Richard required Geoffrey to swear that he would not return to England for three years". Was that a condition of the appointment? Did all this happen outside England, as Geoffrey could hardly promise not to return if he hadn't left?
 * The implication is that it was a requirement, but it's not so stated. None of this happened outside of England, so I've clarified a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "These actions were supported by the majority of the York cathedral chapter." There's only one action mentioned, Geoffrey's refusal to appoint Burchard as treasurer.
 * You've fixed this, obviously, as I can't find this sentence in the article any longer. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "In early 1190, Geoffrey stopped services in the cathedral and excommunicated Henry Marshal and Burchard in retaliation for a dispute during a church service". I can't quite follow that. He stopped all services because of a dispute during one of them? Who was in dispute? Marshal and Burchard or them and Geoffrey?
 * Earlier service was when the ruckus happened, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "This led Richard to insist on payment of the fine". is this the £2000 fine that we've just been told about? So presumably Geoffrey was given some time to pay?
 * Yes, he was. I've clarified this at the initial mention of the fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Because of the non-payment, Richard then re-confiscated Geoffrey's lands, upped the fine amount, and demanded a promise that he would not visit England for three years." But isn't Geoffrey in England at this point? Was Richard asking for him to leave and not come back for three years?
 * Oops, left out one of Geoffrey's crossings of the Channel. Clarified, see what you think. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consecration and more difficulties
 * "Other offensive actions included an attempt to subordinate Clementhorpe Priory to Godstow Abbey, which provoked an appeal from Prioress Alice of Clementhorpe to the papacy." Is "offensive actions" really the best phrasing here? "Inflammatory"?


 * "... his first choice, his brother Peter ...". Wasn't Peter his half-brother?
 * Fixed (although speaking as a person who has half-siblings, we often drop the "half" ...)


 * Quarrels with John, Hubert Walter and Richard
 * "When Prince John rebelled in 1193 ...". rebelled against whom?
 * Strictly speaking, against Richard, although the whole series of events is very confused. I'd rather not clarify here, because john claimed he was working against the people Richard had left in charge of England ... but likely it was more that John wanted to seize the throne. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "In 1194 Geoffrey went into debt to the crown for the sum of 3000 marks to buy the office of Sheriff of Yorkshire." To buy it for whom? Himself? Why did he want it?
 * For himself, and no one knows why he bought it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Geoffrey quarrelled with Richard in 1196, and Richard forbade Geoffrey from administering York. Geoffrey stayed in Rome until 1198." Geoffrey went to Rome in 1196 to answer charges against him to the pope. Did he stay there until 1198? If so, how did he manage to fall out with Richard?
 * As to how he managed it, he seems to have had a wonderful gift for pissing people off. None of my sources state WHY this particular quarrel occured. Clarified the chronology a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Death and legacy
 * "Another historian, J. C. Holt, stated that Geoffrey was through his career 'a perpetual source of danger, quarrelling now with de Puiset, now the the Yorkshire sheriffs, ever ready to attack the judicial and fiscal superiority of the Crown. I'd change that, but I'm not certain if it's just a normal doubled-word typo or whether the first "the" is supposed to be "with".
 * Nope, just a typing error by yours truly, now fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * "It is in Latin on parchment containing 185 folios with 23 miniatures, now owned at Leiden in the University Library under catalogue MS. lat. 76A." What does "owned at" mean?
 * Fixed. Just poor writing on my part. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. ONly... six questions? I'm impressed. Thanks much, I was out of town for the weekend, and it'll be tomorrow before I'm really caught up with crap here... leave for three days and the whole house goes to hell in a handbasket... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't finished yet, only about half-way through. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Way to be a wet blanket! (just teasing)... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should take more and longer breaks. That's the only way I'm ever going to be able to catch up with the number of FAs you produce. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had a first look through the whole thing now, but I'd like time to look through it again maybe tomorrow before I say I'm happy with it. For some reason I found it quite a dense read. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's a dense subject, with all of his various fights and quarrels and everything. (And I've simplified things, without going into the nitty-gritty details of each fight...) 00:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk

Second-pass comments

 * Early life
 * "It was after these events [the campaign in the north] that Geoffrey was confirmed as bishop by Pope Alexander, and made a ceremonial visit to Lincoln on 1 August 1175.". We've already been told that Alexander confirmed Geoffrey's election in 1175, in the immediately preceding paragraph, so this seems a little out of place.
 * Worked over a bit.. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Chancellor
 * "Geoffrey resigned the see of Lincoln on 6 January 1182, at Marlborough in England, rather than be ordained as Pope Lucius III had ordered." This comes a little out of the blue, as it's the first we hear that Lucius had ordered Geoffrey to do anything. The mention of Marlborough seems a little odd as well, as that's in Wiltshire, not Lincolnshire. What was the Bishop of Lincoln doing in Marlborough?
 * I've tried to clarify this. No, I have no idea why there were two ceremonies of resignation - neither do my sources. There just were. (gaze up) Maybe he quarreled with someone and they felt it needed to be done again? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "... following an earlier resignation ceremony that was held in France in February 1181". Presumably that's referring to a ceremony in which Geoffrey resigned as Bishop of Lincoln? And presumably the "earlier resignation ceremony" referred to is what happened in Marlborough on 6 January 1182?
 * See above, I hope this is sorta clearer. (Nothing is ever clear in Geoffrey's life...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First difficulties
 * "The king subsequently released Geoffrey from the oath, which was apparently another of Richard's efforts to keep Geoffrey's possible ambitions towards the English throne in check." That doesn't seem right. releasing Geoffrey from his oath was a way to keep his ambition in check? Surely that was making him take the oath in the first place?
 * Heh. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Walter's cause was supported by Richard's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine". What cause?
 * Walter's election to York .. clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "But the king forced Geoffrey to allow the royal appointments, and pay a fine of £2000 before his lands were restored." But it seems from the following paragraph that Geoffrey didn't pay the £2000 before his lands were restored to him, and that in fact he never paid it.
 * I think I got this in amongst the earlier stuff.. let me know if it's not clear now...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been through the article a few times now, and apart from the points above I'm fairly happy with it. On to the next? Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the next is either William de Chesney or Pain fitzJohn. I'm not sure William's long enough to bother with at FAC. What do you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, if that's all there is on William that's all there is. But we can do fitzJohn if you prefer. Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)