User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 22

John Calvin
Hi Ealdgyth--the editor responsible for bringing Calvin to FA-status seems not to be with us anymore. I was wondering (since you reviewed the article) if you have an opinion on the recent change to the language template for his name, which dropped the "Middle French" in favor of "French". (When it was promoted, it simply had "né Jean Cauvin".) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I don't know near enough about linguistics to have any clue. Our article on Middle French says it lasted until about 1611, so I'm clueless... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything one way or another so I'll leave it as French--sorry to bother you. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sheriffs
Given your comments on User talk:Plucas58. The first bit is off topic but the second part is not, and so, I think you might be interested the second part of the section User talk:Plucas58. -- PBS (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've managed to keep it out of any medieval bishops/ecclesiastic articles, as well as a few laymen that I watch... can't testify to it being completely gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your "Mark Satin" comments!
You may be too busy to watchlist me, but I want you to see the heartfelt thanks I appended to your "Mark Satin" comments:

Thanks for these sharp and wonderfully detailed comments. What a great gift! In the real world, people pay good money for this. I will integrate ALL your suggestions into my text, probably all at once, hopefully within a week (some will require significant revisions of my text, as you know). After I enter my changes I'll explain them under each of your points above. - Babel41 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. I do suggest getting someone to copyedit/review again before bringing the article to FAC. I did not do a total in-depth review, but much of what I pointed out could be used as examples for other parts of the article. It's an excellent start! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would very likely have blown up by now
I think you're being almost saintly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I'm not nearly as calm as that post appears. It's been a very trying day, a friend of ours had wrist surgery and we've been on pins and needles about whether they'd even be able to salvage his utterly shattered wrist, plus my online gaming job is right about to release a big festival (one we prep for all year) so today hasn't been the best day for this sort of moving goalposts feeling I'm getting. What do you think about the numbered points, should some of them be fixed? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you want my honest opinion or my wiki-cleansed opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Have I ever worried about the language you use? Honest, please, especially if you think I'm in the wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that Carcharoth is behaving like an ass, for whatever reason. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I'm curious, what was the wiki-cleansed version? And did I ever tell you I used to dye my hair red, since nature wasn't kind enough to give me the hair colour (gods, you're infecting me) to match my temper? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That was the wiki-cleansed version. My honest opinion is just the same, but expressed a little more in the Anglo-Saxon style. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, so Ealdgyth is aware of it, I've commented on aspects of this at Malleus's talk page here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (TPS blows beverage out nose in amusement of above) Montanabw (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Dispatches notice
Hello there. I'm writing to tell you that the editors of the Signpost are making an effort to revive the long dormant Dispatches section. Your name is listed in the "Members" section, indicating that you have or had a willingness to help write or critique Dispatches.

Since the project was inactive for over a year, I have moved all of the names previously in the Members section to the "Inactive" subsection. If you no longer wish to participate in the capacity described above, you do not need to do anything, this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches.

If you are, however, still interested in Dispatches, please go put your name back into the main members section. I will take that as an indication that it is okay to continue to send your way both Dispatch related messages and individuals seeking assistance with Dispatches in the areas you specified as being your specialties.

I personally am hoping to get at least one Dispatch out before 15 November, so that the section can avoid being officially inactive for a full year (the last dispatch was 15 November 2010). Cheers!  S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember how I said that "this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches" (it's right above this)? I lied. I'm deliviering another message, this time it really will be my final message related to Dispatches.


 * Yesterday, I was enthusiastic about getting Dispatches back up and running. However while I was asleep (note I'm in UTC +8), ResMar and SandyGeorgia decided to use my talk page to stage a massive, ugly brawl. I was unaware of the history behind Dispatches when I first signed up, but I certainly have an indication of it now. It's not a pretty history either. From what I gather, it was working fine and then just erupted into a fireball of ill feelings and unkind words, and my efforts to reactivate the section have caused another fireball. In short, I want out, and since nothing, save the brawl, has actually happened yet, rapidly pulling stakes and leaving the whole thing behind me poses no ethical dilemma in my mind.


 * You are, of course, free to do whatever you want in regards to Dispatches, however you should be aware of the fact that you are going to be wading headfirst into an explosive situation, and will be stuck between several well known editors who are more than willing to fight for their agendas. Whatever you do, however, I'd much prefer to be kept out of the loop on the matter.


 * Sorry for the abrupt turn of events. I would have tried my very hardest to make Dispatches work if I were not convinced that the atmosphere is too poisoned to function. However, since it is, I'm gone. Good luck,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Something you may like to look at
A few weeks ago you mentioned that you'd be prepared to peer review the odd article if anything suitable turned up. Well, I have just nominated Amundsen's South Pole expedition to PR. It's ages since I worked on Antarctic articles (they used to be my bread and butter), but I have been tempted from retirement by the forthcoming centenary of Amundsn's expedition. If you could see your way to reviewing this (with FAC in mind) that would be excellent. Not much has changed; its still freezing cold, and the dogs...well, you'll remember that part, I'm sure. If you're simply too busy, of course I'll understand. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review/St Edern's Church, Bodedern/archive1
Thanks for your helpful comments at this PR. I was wondering in fact whether to ask you to take a look, given your interest in oldy religiousy things, but you got there anyway! I've made some changes in response, and if you had some point in the next week or so to come back and see whether my changes meet with your approval, I would be grateful. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 07:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

John, King of England
Hey Ealdgyth. In this edit you removed references saying I added it in the wrong section; could you kindly tell which section of the article is appropriate for it? Thanks. 111.88.62.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I would imagine the other issues, particularly of giving undue weight to what appears to be a minor non-event, are more important concerns. Nev1 (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said that same content is already there in the article Muhammad an-Nasir. For neutrality I think it should be added to the article John, King of England, too. 111.88.62.206 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's in the other article, John is a featured article and is carefully balanced. An incident that may or may not have happened, that isn't covered in any of the biographies of John, is undue weight. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Give Me That Old Time Religion
Medieval theology is a hoot!

You may enjoy Constantinos Patrides's survey of the history of apocatastasis.

Patrides was known to begin his classes by sternly announcing that The second day, he would suddenly break into a grin, very pleased with himself, and comment that "My performance has suitably reduced our numbers ....". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * there would be 3 seminars at 8:30 a.m. Saturday, to compensate for his canceled classes when he was lecturing elsewhere,
 * that his students should closely read the section on academic honesty, which he would not condescend to read in class, so great was his contempt for the plagiarist,
 * that their papers should be completed 2 weeks before their due date, so that they might be polished (04:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC) to the standards expected of a University of Michigan student), etc.


 * Can whoever is editing someone else's posts please STOP, it's not really cool. And it's very annoying to have my orange bar going off over and over. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to take Patrides' commentary to my own history class! Sweet! Sorry if I unnecessarily made the orange bar go off, E, but this made me laugh so hard a beverage came out my nose! (The humor of which may be only understood by other instructors of History 101 at a local 2-year college...)  01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Such were the days (continued)
 * I gave the Bowdlerized version. What he actually said (like Master Thespian performing Hamlet's "let all my thoughts be bloody" speech of resolution or William Shatner addressing the crew of the Enterprise) was
 * "You can see that on 6 occasions classes are canceled so that I may give lectures at other universities, and of course this is far too much time to lose. Therefore, we shall have 3 seminars on Saturday morning beginning at 8:30 a.m. You shall find the experience bracing and good preparation for graduate study."!! (This was English 240, Introduction to Poetry, not even an honors section. My t.a. had recommended Patrides, but warned that he would not understand that I had 3 other courses, or even 1 other course.)
 * "For each poem, you shall have to spend 3 hours with the O.E.D. to understand the range of meanings available to the poet."
 * When he read the roll of registered students, he read everyone's name as formally as principle. Let's say my name was "Wolfowitz, Kiefer M.", where "M." stands for a shy Midwestern kid; after Patrides read "Wolfowitz, Kiefer M.", I raised my hand, and said, "excuse me, Professor, but everybody calls me 'Kief' ..." Without blinking, Patrides just repeated "Wolfowitz, Kiefer M." and went on to the next name (while I slouched as low as possible).
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 04:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry 'bout that, Chief!
I think I'm done now. Sorry to bother you. (Did it go off more than twice?) --  Kenatipo    speak! 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen's South Pole expedition
Thank you very much for your peer review. We will work through your points in the next couple of days, and report back when we're through. Sorry about the dogs. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your concerns. You may wish to take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 1 November 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) 20:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

DNB request
Hi -- I got a note from Drmies asking if I had access to the DNB to get some info on Peter Percival; I don't, but I know you do: would you be willing to provide him with the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Henry II...
Hope all's well! I'm beginning to plough through some Henry II material in userspace. As part of this I was thinking of buying either Emilie Amt's "the Ascension of Henry II", or Graeme J. White's "Restoration and Reform"... If you've a recommendation or an opinion on the two works, I'd be interested in your thoughts: I'm tempted towards getting Amt at this stage, but as far as I can see they both seem of equal standing as accounts of Henry's early reign. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You probably want both, honestly. I've not read either cover to cover, but have read significant chunks of each and they are both good accounts. You'll need Warren's Henry II also, of course. I'd also strongly recommend Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings - it's an overview, but quite hefty and very well written. Henry's not been covered by a more recent biography since Warren - I'm surprised that there isn't one, given the number of books out about Stephen and Henry's sons. Chibnall's Empress Matilda would probably be useful for Henry's early life, and the books you have on Stephen will help with that also. You'll also need to consult Barlow's Thomas Becket just because the Becket thing is so central to how Henry's reign is considered. I don't know of a good biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine - that's something else that would need to be consulted. Let me dig in my journal articles and see what you might need also, drop me an email so I can feed them to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Emails received - very many thanks. Some serious reading to do in the coming weeks I think! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry state of affairs
This is the kind of work that is so vital to Wikipedia, and it's a sorry state of affairs when even editors like you leave articles in such a mess as to require this kind of cleaning up. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall whack myself with a wet noodle for being so bad... although I gotta admit I'm doing my semi-annual "go through all the FAs and GAs and play whack-a-link".. I swear, links multiply while you're not looking and they sneak in... If you want fun, check out Ancient Roman Pottery for some interesting stuff... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's endemic. Tony1 used to run a monthly contest for the daftest wikilinks, perhaps still does. It's evident that many editors believe that if an article exists then it ought to be linked to. About the daftest I've seen is male, female, and water. Heck, if you don't understand any of those words you're not going to live very long. "Water is a colourless liquid you have to consume regularly, as it makes up the overwhelming majority of your body. Have you never felt thirsty moron? Ever had a pee?" Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I once saw a church article that talked about the south door (complete with links for those unfamiliar with the concept of the points of a compass or, indeed, doors). Sadly I think I must have corrected it without keeping a note for future submission in the competition, because I can't find that particular link to "south" using "Whatlinkshere". Perhaps I'll log out and add a link like that to one of Ealdgyth's articles to see how long it takes to be removed... BencherliteTalk 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gods. Mostly, I've been cleaning out repeat links. I liked the one that had a link in one sentence and the very next sentence repeated the link... I suppose it's possible I put it in, but I've found over the years that periodic audits of the FA/GA articles on my watchlist help keep things under control. I'm also always amused at the links to "monk" that get thrown into my articles - like folks don't know what a monk is... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One of them liked to meddle with history, I hear... BencherliteTalk 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I freely admit to being a geek and a nerd, but one thing in my defense - I've never been a Dr Who fan, thank the gods. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Geeks and nerds unite! I never got into Dr. Who, but after one of my good friends dressed up their two kids as Daleks for Halloween, I realized that I must at least be conversant in the concept...   Montanabw (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Becket
Hey, sorry if I overstepped with removing that cite request, I honestly thought someone maybe put it in there as a gag. My reasoning was, the cite request seems to be asking for verification of when Becket's shrine was no longer in Trinity, when the picture and the cites given make it pretty clear when and why the shrine ceased to exist (because of Henry VIII). Am I just completely reading that sentence and thus the cite request wrong? It wouldn't be the first time I was thick-headed :-/ --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

RSN request
Hi Ealdgyth. I don't believe we've met, but I've seen some of your source reviews at FAC and they are excellent. I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which in regard to an article that is currently at FAC (Ruby Laffoon). No worries if you don't have the time, though. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: William de St-Calais
This is a note to let the main editors of William de St-Calais know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 17, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 17, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



William de St-Calais was a medieval Norman monk, abbot of the abbey of St. Vincent in Le Mans in Maine. During his term as bishop, St-Calais replaced the canons of his cathedral chapter with monks, and began the construction of Durham Cathedral. In addition to his ecclesiastical duties, he served as a commissioner for the Domesday Book. He was also a councilor and advisor to both King William I and his son, King William II, known as William Rufus. Following William Rufus' accession to the throne in 1087, St-Calais was considered by scholars to be the new king's chief advisor. However, when the king's uncle, Odo of Bayeux, raised a rebellion against the king in 1088, St-Calais was implicated in the revolt. Imprisoned briefly, St-Calais was allowed to go into exile in Normandy, where he became a leading advisor to Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy. By 1091, St-Calais had returned to England and regained royal favour. In England, St-Calais once more became a leading advisor to the king. In 1093 he negotiated with Anselm, Abbot of Bec, concerning Anselm's becoming Archbishop of Canterbury; in 1095 it was St-Calais who prosecuted the royal case against Anselm after he had become archbishop. Before his death, he had made his peace with Anselm, who blessed and consoled St-Calais on his deathbed. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * effin-A. (sighs). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hey E, as the goddess of images and copyrights (well, you and Sandy) what is your learned opinion on images from the Smithsonian? Are they images owned by the US Government, thus Public domain. A specific example would be here. I'm working with some other folks on Yogo sapphire and related articles, and while we are able to make images of these gems, none of us seem to have the macro capacity to take GOOD images of these gems. Nor are we anywhere close to DC so we can take photos of the famous examples. Hence, seeking good free ones. Can we swipe from si.edu, or no?   Montanabw (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the terms of use ... so I guess it varies, honestly. You can't assume that anything on their site is made by a federal employee, so you'd need to investigate each image. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Montanabw (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Arb election guide
Sandy's quite rightly archived that user talk page thread (which was going nowhere fast, though I may write up my thoughts into an essay at some point). I did want to follow up the point about namespace editing percentages with you though, as I noticed you are using that as one of the metrics in your arbitration election guide. I may write a guide myself this year (earlier than the rushed one and questions I did last year), but focused more on pulling out what I think makes a good arbitrator based on what I experienced of it. I am serious that namespace percentages and article stats are really only useful as an initial pass, and to really make any sort of accurate judgement you need to look at the actual article edits made by the candidates (as I'm sure you are doing). You mentioned my article space editing percentage on Sandy's talk page, and I am slightly gratified that my percentage is a smidgen better than the three candidates so far (though I did have a period when I was at ANI a lot...), but really, once you get low percentages it is very difficult to lose that. Try calculating how many article space edits I'd have to make to get to 60% (its 52,500). I suppose a better target is to stick to a certain percentage from a certain date onwards, and also to see how things vary over time (using myself as an example again, my ANI contributions decreased drastically after a certain point - something that doesn't show up on raw figures). But really, as I said, it is edit quality (and content), not quantity or percentages, that matter. I'd be quite happy making one article space edit a week if it was depositing an article that I'd written in that time period (one of the longer articles I created literally was just that, a single edit). Anyway, if you are interested in what I have to say about the candidates, keep an eye out for my guide on the template as I'll add it there once I've written it. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) PS. Before I forget, I am sorry if I come over as pompous sometimes, it is something I do try and work on, but like Malleus I think it better sometimes (more honest) to post what I've written rather than try and de-pompousify it - that's not a word, is it?


 * I'm not basing it totally on that, as you'd see if you checked out last year's guide - where I voted for candidates with low percentages as well as voting against one candidate with over half his edits to mainspace. It's just one bit that goes into the decision making process. Quality will also figure into it - I like to see GAs at least, FAs are better. Although a history of reviewing at A-class, GA/FA will help there. But I had no issues voting for Elen last year, and her editing history to mainspace is not great at all, but she saved that with a lot of clue and her behavior in other respects. I continue to respect NYB - even though his mainspace contribs are not that great and really haven't been in ages. A lot will depend on who else runs. Nor do I think I'd be a good arb - I'm not suited to the job and frankly, unless ArbCom gets some serious reform and actually starts ruling on content issues rather than this silly "conduct only" thing - it'll continue to be at best a marginally useful bit of politicking. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree about how content issues could be handled. Those are things that reasonable editors using reliable sources should be able to sort out between themselves. Asking an arbitration committee to sort it out is too much (to use a currently topical phrase) like "running to mummy". There may be a very small role for some sort of committee to sort out the most intractable content issues, but even then it shouldn't really be more than a supervisory role, turning a chaotic situation into an ordered one, where a set of reasoned arguments can be laid out, opened for comments, and a clear decision made (a more binding and public version of the Mediation Committee). About conduct issues, have a look at the current Abortion arbitration case proposed decision, where several editors are being 'frozen out' due to their conduct. This is invariably in the hope that removing the worst of those acting up will leave the field free for calm editors to move things forward. I would go further than that, and say that in the worst cases a team of skilled article rescue writers should be asked to come in and do a rewrite of an article, to help kick-start progress. That is the element that is often missing. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I've raised my percentage quite a bit in the last 20K edits or so, by attempting to keep the chatter down somewhat as well as concentrating on what I do well. Pick an article - work on it, then do it over and over again. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good advice, though one of the reasons I often fail to find enthusiasm for writing article content on Wikipedia in my spare time is that I write all day at work. When looking at what people do on Wikipedia, it is easy to forget that sometimes the reasons for editors contributing to a greater or lesser extent in particular areas is because they want to do something different to what they get paid for, rather than for any other reasons. Anyway, enough of that. As I said, I'll post a guide of sorts at some point, and I'll be looking at what others have said as well. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 15 November 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) 05:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit counts
Hey Ealdgyth, how did you figure out that Courcelles had made more than 100 edits to 17 articles in your 2011 ACE guide, despite the fact that he has about 300,000 edits? The only tool that I know that works out the pages with the most edits in each namespace, X!'s tool, times out beyond 45,000 edits. I'm kinda curious to figure out which pages I've contributed to the most. Graham 87 13:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's one of X!'s tools, just hidden here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! Graham 87 14:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. With only two or three exceptions I'm amazed at how few edits most of the candidates have, never mind to article space. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting tool. I once tried to opt in to the edit counting stuff, but it didn't work for some reason. I've just used that tool to look up my most-edited articles, and those of a few other editors as well. It is surprising how few editors have articles that they've edited more than 100 times (though 100 is really an arbitrary number). It does depend on a lot on whether the edits include vandalism reverts, and whether editors do lots of small edits, or a few large edits. In fact, unless you are prepared to look at that level of detail, the stats are pretty meaningless. But it does give a pointer. As for amount of editing, I think that largely depends on the amount of time you have available (this would be the point where, if I did this sort of thing, I would say what was keeping me busy this weekend, but that would be social chit-chat and isn't relevant to Wikipedia). More interesting might be a way of finding out how many articles (if any) an editor has where they have more edits for that article than anyone else. That would end up including more obscure articles an editor worked on that haven't been edited much by others, even if the number of edits for that article is still low. Stats are over-rated though. Look through someone's last 500 article edits, and that should be more than enough to tell you about what sort of editor they are. In fact, that would be a far better approach than forming impressions of someone from what they've just said or done on the page where you first encountered them. That's one of the strange things about the internet. In real life, you would rarely go by first impressions when meeting someone for the first time, you'd introduce yourself, talk a bit, and find out what sort of person they are (and if you are likely to get on with them). But on Wikipedia (and the internet in general), there is much more of a tendency to pigeon-hole people straight-away, probably because there is so little to go on, and the only way you have to judge someone as an editor is by what they've typed on the screen. Wikipedia is slightly different in that there is a whole contribution history available, but rather than trying to get a rounded view of what an editor is like, the default option is sometimes to just label them in some way from the few edits you've seen them make when you are around (especially if those few edits make a strong and negative impression on you). I think that is where a lot of the interpersonal aggravation on Wikipedia comes from. People jumping to conclusions (sometimes right, sometimes only partially right), or forming impressions, about someone, based purely on a small selection of their edits, rather than a rounded view of their editing history as a whole. Maybe if people took the time to get to know each other's editing more, and worked together on articles, rather than bouncing off each other in other namespaces, there might be less interpersonal tension in some areas of Wikipedia. Or is that just a pipe-dream? Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * AGF and get to know someone before barging in with all barrels blazing? You dreamer!  LOL!    Montanabw (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon warfare
I've asked at MILHIST for some assistance with the article Anglo-Saxon warfare and been given your name to follow up. The article as it stands is quite essay-ish and runns the risk of being considered OR. In my view, it is quite narrow - dealing primarily with battlefield behaviour - but ven within that specialism, it presents a model of heroic single combat which is at odds with majority opinion. It could be ruthlessly edited and the OR sections swept away. But, before going there, I've been looking for someone who might be able to point me to a source that supports the OR section, allowing it to be referenced and thus kept as an alternative theory. Folks at MILHIST believe you may have the answer. Are you able to help? Thanks in anticipation. Monstrelet (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Henry Garnet
Hi Ealdgyth, I'm currently rewriting the above entry here. I'm absolutely ignorant of church structures, terminology, etc, and wondered if you had 10 minutes to speed read this article and point out any obvious errors?

I'm only part-way through it, I need to add more sources and copyedit most of it, but I'm keen to avoid any WTF moments. I think it'll be a GA, I'm not certain I have enough expertise to run it past FAC. Parrot of Doom 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh. Post-Reformation Anglicanism. I'm not really up on that ... you're about 400 years past my comfort zone, honestly. Probably better getting someone from WikiProject Anglicanism to look at it... things changed a lot during the English Reformation. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok no problem, I'd rather ask someone with a track record of writing high-quality articles though - do you know of anyone? Parrot of Doom 23:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What about Johnbod? Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've asked him. It's just things like episcopal, generals, superiors, fathers, doctors, that kind of thing.  Also, there's a fair bit of work to do to make sure the article will be neutrally worded, and I think I'll need a bit of help there. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well don't ask me; I'm the one who mistakenly believes that the Manchester Martyrs were rescued. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course they weren't rescued, their escape from custody was merely assisted by neutral observers. Parrot of Doom 23:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * An escape is someone letting themselves out of the Tower of London with a rope (ala Ranulf Flambard). A rescue is when someone opens the door and lets the prisoner out. Which one was this? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there were guns and a large mob involved. But the article correctly states that the rescuers were the ones who opened the van doors, and the escapees were the ones who legged it out of the van.  Hence, the escapees were rescued. Parrot of Doom 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument, it seems to me, is that only "good" people can be rescued; villains escape. Malleus Fatuorum 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) Skorzeny rescues the Duce. Ning-ning (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But there weren't Irish Republicans involved, that's when the trouble starts. Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this?
I hope you will comment further here. Risker (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it. It is a holiday here in the States and I've been busy. I'm also not sure I intend to reply, quite honestly - it is an impression I've formed, and I'm not sure I want to get into a long drawn out discussion about every part of my decision making process. Still deciding on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatant bribe
If you'd like to take a look at the links in Jonathan Agnew, as it nears readiness for FAC, I'll copyedit an article of your choice. However, if you do agree, please wait until Casliber has done his copyedit of "Aggers". :-) Thanks --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll start reviewing Liverpool F.C. in Europe in anticipation... :-) --Dweller (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL... sorry ... last weekend was an art festival so I was a bit busy. Today isn't going to work either, I'm about to take a nap soon, and if i don't manage that, I will be so tired I shouldn't copyedit anyway... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I assume my offer of Liverpool is thereby accepted I don't think Cas has finished yet anyway. I'll ask him to drop by here when he's done. --Dweller (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Err.. no on the Liverpool (snorts). No need to bribe, eventually Malleus will get uninvolved with dramah and will tackle whatever article interests him next... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Cas is done, so care to give it a quick once-over? --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Guide to guides
Please watch, correct and update as needed: User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011/Guides. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire
I am helping to push Ely, Cambridgeshire through the review process. It is presently at peer review. I have raised a query at the humanities help-desk that you may be able to (partially at least) resolve. Any assistance you can provide in this difficult area would be forever appreciated --Senra (Talk) 14:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You want Edward Miller's The Abbey & Bishopric of Ely: The Social History of an Ecclesiastical Estate from the tenth century to the early fourteenth century - Cambridge UP, 1951 (reprinted 1969). There is an entire chapter on "The Liberty of St Etheldreda" starting at page 199. It's very extensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant.
 * Hold(s) Placed. Senra. Library Barcode: The abbey and bishopric of Ely : the social history of an ecclesiastical estate from the tenth century to the fourteenth century. Miller, Edward. 1951 1st edition 1969 reprint. isbn 0521077788. Pickup at: Ely. Expiry date: 24/5/2012
 * Not sure I will understand it but thank you --Senra (Talk) 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tip. The book arrived and I have been reading it but as you can see, it is hard to understand; especially pinning down the Isle of Ely as a county palatine. Charles Matthews is going to take a look for me --Senra (Talk) 10:54, 4 December 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) 04:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Daft question time again (Robert de Chesney)

 * Lead
 * "Although granted the right to a mint by King Stephen of England, Chesney was present at the coronation of King Henry II of England in 1154 and went on to serve Henry as a royal justice." Difficult to see how the granting of the right to a mint and Chesney's presence at Henry's coronation are related.


 * Early life
 * "His brother William de Chesney remained a layman, and was one of the leading laymen in Oxfordshire." Can we do anything about that "layman ... layman"?


 * Election
 * "Arnulf also asked Chesney to help the cause of Henry fitzEmpress, Matilda's son and a contender for the English throne." Probably need to explain who Matilda is, as she just seems to pop up out of the toaster.


 * Bishop under Stephen
 * "At the height of the civil war during Stephen's reign, and shortly after Chesney's consecration, the bishop acted as a guarantor for the famous treaty between Ranulf de Gernon, the Earl of Chester, and Robert de Beaumont, the Earl of Leicester". Someone is almost certain to object to that word "famous".
 * "Chesney was present at several of King Stephen's courts, and the king granted the bishop the right to a mint at Newark. Stephen also named the bishop as the local justice for Lincolnshire." This seems to be largely repeating what's said in the final paragraph of this section.


 * Bishop under Henry II
 * "Chesney witnessed a charter of Duke Henry's before his succession to the throne ...". Who is Duke Henry? Henry fitzEmpress?

Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Diocesean affairs
 * "He also permitted the clergy of his diocese to remit the payment of chrism money and remitted the payment of pensions from the archdeacons of the diocese to the bishop." Does "chrism money" need to be explained? I don't understand that bit about the archdeacons paying pensions to the bishop.


 * Hoping to get to these today... sorry I've been scarce - mother has been more demanding than usual... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Blech, being "labeled" as a mere star collector really has cut my desire to do much with these. Hopefully tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said that? Not ture!  I'll go kick their butt for you, can I? ;-)
 * see here Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Geez, that's a slap and does not AGF, grrrrr ... well, at least you are also a "super collaborator." :-P I know I'm hijacking the thread, but if they want to know why some people don't push for GA or FA, it IS because form matters more than content, and it's because we get hit by rip-your-hair out reviewers like this one (criticizing an f---in SEMICOLON?).  It's just too risky to deviate from the formula. (sighing)  Any long, substantive article will get hit by the idiots, and after what we personally went through with Horse's GA and the Appaloosa FA, I think the whole process is fundamentally flawed when one tendentious a--h--e can nearly derail it.  (longer, heavier sigh)  Montanabw (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, there's only one thing bothering me now, and it's the third chapter of the Diocesan affairs section. Chesney founded a Gilbertine house of canons, he granted a fair to Banbury, and he bought a house for himself in London. Then we're told "These expenditures contributed to his financial difficulties ...". I can see that founding a house of canons and buying a house could be financially stressful, but what expenditure is involved in granting a fair? Sounds like more of an opportunity to make a few quid. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I reordered it a bit, see if that works? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I think he's probably as ready now as he's ever going to be. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun thing
If you are interested in something a little bit different, another editor has been doing a ton of work on Yogo sapphire, which I helped with a little and just was a DYK (and got something like 22K hits while at DYK!). The creator of the article wants to take it to GA now (my idea to do so), and if you wanted to do something a little different from your normal routine, would you mind taking a peek at what's there so far and offering any suggestions to get it to GA? Or, if pretty rocks aren't your thing, maybe ask someone else who you think might be interested? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead editor got this past GA and is kind of interested in giving it a PR and then FA. I know it's going to need some work to get there, but would you mind popping over there and giving us some pointers at what jumps out at you as potentially problematic?  Or, if busy, can one of your stalkers do so?  Thanks!   Montanabw (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Henry II reading continues...
The bones of an improved article are steadily taking shape in user space - just finished Everard's book on Angevin Brittany, which was very good! A quick question though: what would you recommend as the better texts on his ecclesiastical policy, Becket et al? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The "classic" work on Becket is Barlow's Thomas Becket but there are a number of others also. Weirdly, there are not as many full length treatments of the whole Becket controversy as you would think. For ecclesiastical policy - there is no good book on just Henry's reign - you will want Cheney's From Becket to Langton and Saltman's Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury - handily, Theobald of Bec is a featured article! You'll also want Turner's Judges, Administrators, and the Common Law in Angevin England The English Judiciaary in the Age of Glanvill and Bracton and Men Raised from the Dust and I think I already recommended Warren's Governance of Norman and Angevin England. I think I sent you all the journal articles you could want, probably...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The big box of printed articles has steadily transformed into the big pile of read and digested articles! :) Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Richard Barre, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Romanus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dagan (bishop)
Hi there! Have you any more stray Irish men wandering around medieval Britain? Fergananim (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as this chap - William of Kilkenny. Anglo-Irish? Fergananim (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2012 (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) 02:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gundred, Countess of Surrey
I noticed your post on Malleus' talk page and thought I should respond here. I checked on Leo van de Pas' genealogics concerning Gundred. He has under Gundred's entry, which mentions she is not William or Matilda's daughter, these sources: Hope this helps you. Keep the faith and keep editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Europäische Stammtafeln, Band II, Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven, 1975, Isenburg, W. K. Prinz von, Reference: page 59
 * The Complete Peerage, 1936, Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: vol XII page 494.
 * The Ancestors of Sir William Mallory, of Studley and Hutton (d.1603), 2003, Reitwiesner, William Addams, Reference: 40841


 * Similarly, if the sources being used are of poor quality, WP:HISTRS (which is in beta) may be useful for pushing back the tide. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing you need to remember with that guideline - ancient and medieval history moves to a slower publication schedule than modern history - we don't consider things outdated nearly as quickly as a modern historian would. I routinely consult sources published around 1920 to 1960 and they are considered quite valid, especially where someone hasn't yet studied the subject again. And consulting even older historians isn't out of the question, it just requires that no one else has revisted the subject afterwards. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, ideally I'd like to note examples from classics, and medieval history about "currency" in research. The case with Gundred is clearly that research has moved on from the past position, but I certainly understand that in medieval history that the period of "currency" of research may be much much longer than my field's relatively short 30 years for theory, 60 years for fact (more or less, plus or minus).  My colleagues in social science of business regularly get papers back "where are your citations from the last five years?…" Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * UGH! How difficult it must to be stay on top of scholarship there ... that'd REALLY suck. Gundred's got the issue of some folks would MUCH rather claim that she was the daughter of William or Matilda rather than some no-name Fleming who's ancestry can't be traced... much better to have another line or five to Charlemagne, than to some obscure person. (And I can say that with a smiling face as my ancestry does indeed trace to Gundred along with a bunch of other folks - I'm just more interested in accurate genealogical research rather than the most exalted...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In medieval art history academic citations to books or articles going back over 100 years (typically in German) are not at all uncommon; often individual works of art, even important ones, are really only "published" once. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a naive reader of the article, I find the references to crypts confusing- the word appears to be used to refer to lead chests rather than the more common architectural usage. Also that line about "Gundred's remains in a good state of preservation"- I had to read that three times before I realised it was referring to the "crypt" and not Gundred's remains. Ning-ning (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

List of monarchs of East Anglia
Hi Ealdgyth, List of monarchs of East Anglia is a list-class article that I have nominated for featured list status. The process seems to have got stuck a bit. Would you mind taking a look at it for me, and either supporting or opposing it, as it's not been commented on much? Thanks. Hel-hama (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your input might be illuminating
In the ongoing debate about creative misunderstandings of the "verifiability, not truth" thing (i.e. "I can show you where is was published, and I don;lt care if it's true or not, the fact that it's sourced means it can be included" approach)Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability, I've referred to your comments on Malleus's talk page under "When people ask why experts get driven off Wikipedia..."

How many times do you, personally, come across people insisting that something should be included, true or not, because it can be sourced? How much frustration? How many hours extra work? How much WikiStress? Does this kind of persistent idiocy really drive genuine experts off? Do you have live examples of it having done so? If you can answer any of these points, and ideall if you know of others who can, as well, would you please contribute to the discussion there? Many thanks. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See User talk:Adam Bishop and First Crusade for one recent episode. Another is Talk:Saladin and the article history as well as Adam's page - where you can see that someone wants to insert Saladin the Turk based on 16th century sources. William II of England gets some occasional oddnesses. Check out the GA review of Talk:Feologild/GA1 where I'm urged to include information not in secondary sources just to pad out the article - even though no recent secondary source mentions the information. It's not a common occurance in my area of work, but it happens. Gundred just happens to be a particular flash point - that information has been debunked and debunked and debunked but yet it keeps coming back. Another spot would be Guy Fawkes - where the whole issue of the mask in V for Vendetta is a perennial problem. It's not that these things can't be beaten back... it's that every single time it takes up an hour or so of my time with Gundred - folks are never satisfied with "see talk page earlier for explanation" - you have to repeat and repeat and it gets very old. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh, big hugz! (>**)> Thank you loads. Shall I paste all that across to the convo, or dfo you want to participate directly? (Would be much easier if you could participate directly, as my brain is currently enjoying 20mg of morphine, and I'm having trouble keeping focussed :P) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're free to use them as examples, but with the holidays here, I'm on somewhat limited Wiki time. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've ported that straight across there to give them something to think about. Holidays! Wheee! This weekend, we've managed to get our first days off in over a year from looking after mother (she's at the care home where my daughter works for a long weekend), which means I've finally been able to put the Christmas decorations up :o)  The ponies send their love (or they would, if they could talk, lol!)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) And for those stalking over here - yes, it is indeed directly related to the "verifiablity not truth" issue - the crux of the problem is that in the past there were genealogical works which stated that Gundred was the daughter of either William the Conqueror and Matilda or just the daughter of Matilda. This was disproven by a number of historians, starting with E. A. Freeman and extending to C. T. Clay. However, reprints of various works as well as not-quite-competent genealogists as well as a few genealogical descent societies still state that Gundred was the daughter of William and/or Matilda. This is NOT a view shared by most professional genealogists nor of any historian of the period. So any statement which tries to put the discredited theory on par with the actual descent is pushing a fringe theory - and is implicitly relying on the "V not T" idea. Note the statement page on Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey, where the IP states "Exactly how does a source become "out of date"? Surely, older sources in this case would be more reliable as they were closer to the actual life and times of Gundred." - this is such a mockery of historical thought that it's not even funny. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the V not T issue, I tend to think that it's worth including information about old mistaken ideas in articles specifically in order to explain the evolution of historical thought on the topic. You've done this for Gundred -- does doing that make any difference to the way people approach it?  I would think it would mean you can now revert with a summary of "already included as discredited theory", for example, if that would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With Gundred, it was already in the article (albeit in an extensive footnote) but that did nothing ... the discredited information was just added into the body again... without any indication the addee had read the footnote. This little spat with Gundred also illustrates another issue I've been running into more and more - the use of "reprints" of outdated sources - without the user seemingly realizing it. One of the sources used to "prove" the royal ancestry of Gundred was a recent reprint of a 1610 work - with more and more reprinting of out of copyright works, this is getting to be more and more of a problem - folks not doing the due-dilligence to check out their sources and see that they are current. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum update
It's time again to share the latest news on the Children's Museum of Indianapolis Wikipedia project! In the last few months we have been busy with our third image donation, which was made up of 150 images that were professionally photographed specifically for this upload. We are asking for volunteers to categorize these images and distribute them into Wikipedia articles. Your help is appreciated! Check them out here.

We have also donated our first ' and a second ' to Commons. In September we were thrilled to welcome Jimmy Wales to the museum. Following our successful Edit-a-Thon and Translate-a-Thon in August, translations have continued with the help of the established QRpedia community, (particularly Russian translations thanks to Lvova!) We have begun to analyze our implementation of QRpedia codes and completed an extensive case study. In November we presented at the Museum Computer Network conference about how museums can effectively collaborate with Wikipedia. You can see more details on the Prezi.

In more general news, in addition to serving as the Children's Museum's Wikipedian-in-Residence, it was recently announced that I will be taking on the role of US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. In this role I will be working to streamline the process of connecting interested US GLAMs with the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to let me know. Be sure to sign up for This Month in GLAM to keep up with the latest GLAM-Wiki news from around the world (subscribe).

We have a listing of High Need and Moderate Need requests on the Ways to Help section on the project page. I encourage you to lend a hand if you're able. While the Children's Museum partnership continues to truck along, we still are in desperate need of volunteers to help disperse our images and update and maintain content. Thank you for your time and help. Happy holidays! LoriLee (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the card
This was very nice of you and I was touched. If I get round to doing something similar (and why not?) I will be sure to send you one in return. In case I don't, let me wish you a happy holiday season and a great 2012. --John (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Nikkimaria...


21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Plegmund
Hey Ealdgyth, merry Christmas, I hope you're having a good holiday. Just wanted to let you know, in case you missed it in the excitement of the last few days, that I have offered a GA review over at Plegmund. That said, there's no hurry at all, feel free to get to it when you get to it. J Milburn (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)