User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 25

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Americus DYK
Nothing obvious springs to mind. The fact that he alternated between racing and stud duties for several seasons is pretty unusual. He had six great-grandparents rather than the standard eight. The fact that such an obscure racehorse figures in the pedigrees of Shergar, Secretariat and many others that a main page reader will have heard of. I'm pretty sure that Boss Croker renamed him after a political "club" that he ran (no ref on this, but I'm sure I've seen it somewhere). Anyway, I've added a couple of details about his British career.  Tigerboy1966  22:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't shout I WILL get those refs formatted.  Tigerboy1966  22:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry.   Tigerboy1966   22:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I got them ... you just happened to be doing that along with someone else being very ... unhelpful .. on my pretty much total-rewrite of Middle Ages. At the same time I was trying to do a GA review... so it was bad timing, not that I didn't appreciate you finding the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Crikey, I wish I could multitask. Good luck with the Middle Ages. Say hi to Flavius Aetius while you're there.  Tigerboy1966  22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can go off something about that race where he managed to come in fourth even though he was "fat as a showyard bull"... that'd at least be interesting to the non-racing fan. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Middle Ages
Hey. The page had me engaged over the weekend, its great to see this kind of work. I'm really impressed, its one of the srongest Ive seen in a long while. Best of luck with it, youve tackled an amazingly difficult subject. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Norreis
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bede
There is a discussion going on Talk:Bede which you might care to contribute to. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Great Schism, Ile de France, Schism, Kingdom of Poland, Fiefs and Decretum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 5 April 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) 14:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (Victor Negus)
I've now finished my changes following your review, and noted them at Talk:Victor Negus/GA1. Hopefully those changes have made things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Taken care of! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Here you changed AD/BC to CE/BCE in an article that had used AD/BC since it was a new article in 2004 (See here). This is not allowed. You even tried to justify your change by falsely accusing another editor of breaking the same rule that you actually broke. See WP:MOS. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Note the edit right before the diff you first made - that edit did indeed change the era style so no.. there was no "false accusation". And WP:ERA doesn't just go by what the first edit it .. it also allows for change of style through consensus or other methods. But whatever ... I guess the concept of "honey catches more flies" is not one you embrace - I take your "warning" and have given it all the thought necessary quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Americus (horse)
The DYK project (nominate) 09:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Dora Trial/GA1
You can indeed- we normally do not allow quick-fails/fails with limited feedback, but that does not fall into either category, so yeah, it's completely fine. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

APRIL 2012
on the GA REVIEW section. --Chip123456 (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Slavonic, Trivium and Scots


 * Battle of Varaville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Overlord

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Eudo Dapifer et al.
When researching and editing I enter the citations as I have them, then continue researching. I do cleanup later as I haved the time. Now, if you don't care to wait for me to conform the citations to the existing style in an article, please be my guest and edit them yourself. I have no problem with that. But it would be far more helpful, not to mention respectful, to do so without any derisive comments. I would really appreciate it, thanks.Bearpatch (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have offended you, it was not my intention. I do, however, see quite a lot of people editing who do NOT clean up after themselves, and who may or may not realize that it's very annoying to have to clean up continuously after people. Again, sorry to have offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

William the Conqueror
I was going to have a go at the GA review, but was rather beaten to it. I noticed your comments on Brian's page. If it would be any help, I would be happy to have a look, as I'm rather fond of the chap, but I have no wish to tread on anyone's toes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do! Or you can tackle the GAN for Middle Ages if you're still feeling mascochistic... Both of those rather major articles need all the eyes on them that I can get. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a few comments to start off with for William, and I might be tempted by Middle Ages if no-one gets to it in the next day or two. I may be masochistic, but both articles look really good and are a pleasure to read. It is remarkable that you were able to produce such high quality on two complex topics at the same time! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For articles of this size, peer review may be useful. I'll try to take a look through them myself at some point. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I plan on PR too - just need to get Ralph Neville out of PR first. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Magnus Olafsson/GA1
Hi Ealdgyth. I took care of the points you raised. Thanks alot for reviewing it. I can try and work on some maps for you. I'm not skilled in working with SVGs though, all I can really do is add text, change colours, and simple things like that. They can be fun to do though. What kind of map do you think I could help with?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the maps, what I'd love a less cluttered version of File:843-870 Europe.jpg, and good "all Europe" maps of about 1100, 1300 and 1450 or so, with their sources given. We just don't have any. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would these three Carolingian ones be ok to follow ?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those would be good. Boundaries are very inexact in the Middle Ages so we just need something approximate. Thank you! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How are these?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazing! WOW! Thank you thank you thank you! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And already placed in Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tichborne case PR
I'd be grateful if you could take a look. I've tried to find other non-Brian-related articles awaiting peer review, but unless you want something completely different, there isn't really much in your areas of interest at the moment. I'll watch  what comes in, and keep you posted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I picked up William T. Anderson also .. I had distant cousins would were involved in that bloody mess in Missouri. Will tackle Tichborne shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review
That was a nice surprise this morning, I'll get cracking on it later. Interesting to hear about you distant cousins in Missouri, I live nowhere near there, so it almost seems like another world. BTW, I am really impressed with the work you've been doing on Middle Ages and William the Conqueror, that is really amazing. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, it was a pretty decent article. If you want me to look at it again, drop me a note here, I've unwatched it and the PR. My cousins were actually from Arkansas, but family rumor is that one or two of them went up to Missouri to "help out". This is the "unreconstructed confederates" side of the family. I actually had two different branches of my ancestors fighting on different sides at the Battle of Vicksburg, which made visiting the battlefield a bit surreal! What's your plans after Bill? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Welcome!
You been a busy little work horse, but you'll score higher on WP:DPL if you pick pages with points :-). — Dispenser 05:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This assumes I've been doing it for the points... some I've been doing for pure cleanup on things I'm actually writing articles on. I'll do backlinks and links for the "bigger" articles just to clean up stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Varaville
Orlady (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Balian of Ibelin
Did Balian ever serve as a Knights Templar?--74.34.86.120 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited William the Conqueror, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert of Gloucester (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. Read the FAQ* Join us 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) 09:34, 19 April 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) 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Middle Ages
I think we can add more things in the article, for example the political events (wars, birth of the national states, etc.). also we can make longer the section about 1300-1500. what do u think about? --Frog Splash 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is already pushing the limits on size, honestly. There are some more things I will be attempting to add in after I do some research, but we don't want to overload the article with too much political stuff without also having cultural, social, and other aspects. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your work is superlative, the net needs better information about middle ages... I'm tryin' to do the same on the italian wikipedia. however i think that you can put more information about the economy in the middle ages, the reconquista and the medieval commune ;) --Frog Splash 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh? i'm waiting for your reply ;) --Frog Splash 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still working on the article ... research continues. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

st alfege
Hi,

I noticed you had to remove my unreliable source - actually i agree completely it was unreliable.

i was wondering whether you have any suggestions on this; i want a citation to justify saying that saint is venerated in the eastern orthodox church.

the thing is, it's only very recently that orthodox have started specifically pointing to these old english or other local, western european, saints, as their own. e.g. saint chad of lichfield was prayed to in the last orthodox service i went to, in walsall, where the priest is english and a number of the congregation are converts..

generally orthodox say that each saint from before 1054 must also be orthodox because then it's before the schism, and all in communion.. Eugene-elgato (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source for that information, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thank you for thinking about it - think i will bear st alfege in mind as the first thing i edit once there is a reliable source, that adequately covers this concept that any pre-1054 saints are pretty much automatically orthodox.. even better if it specifically covers alfege. Thanks againEugene-elgato (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion sought
Hi, Ealdgyth. Seeing as you have extensive knowledge of Anglo-Norman history - a period which also intersts me, I am curious as to the genetic input of the Norman Conquest to the British Isles. I read that the Breton genetic contribution was very high as one-third of the invading army under William the Conqueror were Bretons, who were celebrated for their skills as archers. In fact, I traced Anne Boleyn's maternal DNA directly back to a Breton noblewoman. What are your opinions regarding this? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Neville
Just a final few silly little things:


 * Royal service and Bishop of Chichester
 * "Neville was keeper of the royal seal under the new king, Henry III (r. 1216–1272) from about 6 November 1218. He had been at the royal court since May 1218, and was given custody of the seal as soon as it was made up for the new king." I don't much like that "new king ... new king". Can we just drop "for the new king" from the end of the second sentence?


 * "One of the first documents subsequently sealed was a declaration that no charters or other documents would be granted in perpetuity until Henry attained his majority." Can we do anything about that rather awkward "documents ... documents"?


 * "Neville received a papal dispensation for his illegitimacy on 25 January 1220, on the advice of the king ...". Might "recommendation" be a better word than "advice" here?


 * Lord Chancellor
 * "The king attempted to deprive Neville of his office in 1236 ...". Should we make it clearer that the office in question is Lord Chancellor, not Bishop of Chichester?

And that, I think, is that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I got all of these... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem is that "records" aren't granted in perpetuity. If you don't like "warrants", what about "rights" maybe? Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rights works... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Ralph is set to go now, good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankee! We got our auger blade un-buried today so it's been productive. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh de Neville
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tichborne case/archive1
No longer in need of a general review. But if you could put on your former garments and run over the sources, that would be much appreciated. Sources reviews aren't taking place at FAC for the moment; I'm about to knock a few off myself. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work through a few ... and get Tichborne .. if you'll get Neville... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

William the Conqueror's son-in-law
Ealdgyth, as a Saxon, you probably resent any mention of William.

But, if you are in a charitable mood,

The article on Abbey mentions an "Earl of Warren" in a passage lifted from 1911 Britannica.

A different article at 1911 Britannica, not "Abbey", says, "earl of Warren (William the Conqueror's son-in-law)".

That is why I was there earlier, fixing the punctuation.

But there is no obvious son-in-law who bears a secondary title of Warren.

According to 1911 Abbey, this Warren floruit in AD 1077.

Do you have a guess? Varlaam (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's wrong. There was an old theory that Gundred, Countess of Surrey who married William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey was the daughter of William but this has been disproven. So you can remove the "son-in-law" part. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:43, 1 May 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) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Horse Racing
Dear Ealdgyth. Can you please take a look at the Thoroughbred Horse Racing/Horse Racing Project talkpage. We are having problems renaming the project to include harness racing and quarter horses. Help please.  Tigerboy1966  18:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hugh de Neville
I looked at the GA review just as I would have done were it a pre-FAC review, so as far as I'm concerned Hugh's good to go as soon as Ralph clears FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL ... I hadn't even thought of nominating him for FA... I'd need to do some more research first... I basically wrote the article based on what I had at the house... nothing from JSTOR or similar databases, etc... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As ever, I leave the issue of content and completeness to you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, the statement "basically wrote the article based on what I had at the house" is kinda scary that I HAVE enough at the house to write pretty much a complete biography of someone... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehehe! Not at all. So long as there's still enough room in the house to contain the air that you need to breathe, enough foot-space to be able to get from one room to another, and somewhere to lay your head to sleep, I'm not sure that it's possible to have too many books ;P  Pesky  (talk ) 09:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was always my dream, to buy a bookshop and then take most of the stock to be pulped. If you think this is unreasonable, go to Camilla's Bookshop in Eastbourne. Their method of working is to list the useful or interesting books on the internet, hide them where the walk-in customers can't see them, and to clutter their premises with the remaining trash. Ning-ning (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read Good Omens by Gaiman and Pratchett? They describe used booksellers rather well in that, I've always thought... I just don't even bother with the pretense of having a shop. 7000 volumes and counting... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh! I've decided, when I get my farm, that I need to get hold of a hundred or so scaffold boards, and build an entire-house library.  Bookshelves on every available spare bit of wall, up to ceiling height.  With one of those cool ladders-on-wheels-and-rail in each room.  Pro-tip: remember the spaces above doorways can be used for shelves for less-used books and so on ;P  Pesky  (talk ) 12:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In case you miss it-
-I've added a few more thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Descendents new show
I am suprised A&E, Biography, and Documentary Channel, have not made an idea to produce a T.V. series of ordinary people who share their stories of famous people or leaders they are related or directly descended and narrate an hour episode about those people. Excellent examples are these two facts can combine to make an episode, such as a descendent of Genghis Khan, and this man man who is a direct descendent of William the Conqueror and explains informatively about the king, he himself almost looks exactly like him. I hope there would be more ideas about this ongoing plan, however, the ones who are descended from infamous people or leaders, such as Jack the Ripper, may have the right not to show their faces.--74.34.86.203 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simon of Southwell
The article Simon of Southwell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simon of Southwell for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP T C N 08:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review for Soedjatmoko
Hi Ealdgyth, I've replied at the review. Thanks a lot! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Western Jackdaw
You made some comments on the references of the FAC Western Jackdaw. Casliber and I addressed the points you raised and you struck through most of them. There remains one outstanding reference that you thought "marginally reliable" and described as "iffy". Since then I have replaced that reference with one from a completely new source (currently #79). Please could you have another look. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Errr... I struck it on the 13th - here. I didn't review for prose or anything like that so I won't support... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Neville
Hi,

I'm very sorry and hope that its fixed to your satisfaction. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries! Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

De Neville
Hi Ealdgyth, sorry, I didn't know you disliked the template. I just wanted to fix the format you had ( circa (c.)) which seemed a little bit much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I hate that templates silly looking underlining ... just looks out of place (and I hate popups too but that's another ball of wax entirely...) I'm just getting crotetchy in my old age... (and the two hours of planting beans in the afternoon sun today didn't help!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I'd forgotten that the template included underlining. I reviewed the FA nom, btw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. I'll get that in the morning, I'm halfway to bed here.... just fiddling around on the net watching Pawn Stars... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

William the Bastard
Hi. Following my hamfisted and unhelpful help in the recent past, I wondered if I could make amends. Would a third party copyedit be helpful? --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... always. Just be careful of the citations ... don't move stuff around without moving the supporting citations... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to take a look through the last few sections in the coming days! J Milburn (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to. Fascinating character. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert at will anything I do which you don't like. I'll try to make just one change at a time, to keep it easy to follow and undo. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a look as well in the next day or two. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consolidation of power
 * There's some inconsistency in the capitalisation of titles, for instance "Another problem was the growing power of Geoffrey Martel, the count of Anjou", and "... although his conflict with the French king and the Count of Anjou continued until 1060". I haven't checked all of the article to determine how widespread this is.
 * This is a problem with the MOS - it says to decapitalize all over .. so we get "Geoffrey Martel, the count of Anjou" when "count of Anjou" is an adjectival phrase, but "Count of Anjou" when it's referring to a specific person and thus is a proper noun. I don't write the freaking stupid MOS - I just have to deal with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the MoS says almost the complete opposite: "When the correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write' Louis XVI was King of France' but 'Louis XVI was the French king'. Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I"ve had any number of people correct me when I've tried to go "Geoffrey Martel, the Count of Anjou" over the years. I honestly don't care, I just got tired of fighting the issue. I'm fully expecting one day to wake up and see that ALL capitals have been depreciated and we're in "e e cummings" land ... you know I trust you to fix things however is best ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you see the question on my talk page about William's exploding tomb? I always thought it was his corpse that exploded?
 * At least we haven't gone so far down that road (yet) to have "battle of Hastings" in the article. I'll have a browse through the MoS later to try and establish what it's really saying. My initial gut feeling though is that if we're writing about the title in general it would be "count of Anjou", but if we're writing about a specific individual it would be "Count of Anjou", which seems to me to fit in with the improper/proper noun distinction. Anyway, I'm not going to wade through the MoS until I've braced myself with a stiff drink, so later ... Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

cn tags in William the Bastard's article
Sorry, the tags are ugly, but useful. I'm really enjoying reading your work, thank you for doing it. I also dropped a suggestion on the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A recurring problem
This kind of thing is a recurring problem here, and I've got no idea how it can be stopped. I've been looking closely at another article recently, and it's amazing how often the sources don't say what it's claimed that they do. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC) When I was new to FA, I was told to include a citation for every claim, even if there are three consecutive claims from the same source, because you have no idea if a future editor will intersperse new material or move your sentences around. I think it's wise advice. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, that was me. Sorry for troubling you with the added info. I was far from finished; it was late at night. But I won't disturb it further. Good luck! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that if you source it then Ealdgyth will have no complaint. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have shoved stuff in and went to bed it it had been at FAC, but it's at PR. I planned to fix everything carefully, of course. I usually spend a long time – several days & ndash; fixing things. I look up sources very carefully, struggle over best wording, etc. But it does take time. Anyhow, good luck! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My other point here though .. is what good does all that detail do? We're in a legacy section on Willie - what we want to cover is the end results. For that, and for that paragraph, the important thing is that there was fighting between the brothers. The pesky details of who invaded when and what treaty was signed are really not that important for Willie. What's important is already covered. The article's already 10,000 words or so, we need to be careful of not getting too mired down in details. Amazingly enough, I've spent more than a few days over the article - reworking it from pretty much scratch, and I've struggled throughout with keeping the level of detail to what's important for understanding William. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)As a rule, I always start at the last section and write upward. I often find that things get sketchy and sloppy at the end, as both the writer and reader begin to lose interest. Peoples' focus just doesn't stay as sharp. For example, and I am not poking you here, I saw some strictly mechanical etc. goofs in the version of the legacy section I was poring over... As for the new info.. I understand and appreciate your point and I know that many people agree with it. I personally, however, just think that "the Conquest changed the language" needs another phrase or two and a wikilink (especially the latter), as do several other of the changes you mention, and other passages as well. You never know when some bright-eyed ten-year old will discover a love of linguistics through reading Anglo-Norman language or similar. I simply see things differently than you do. The article is not an article about William; it is a hallway full of doors to new worlds of information. Certainly we have to pick and choose which of those doors we expose to the reader, since just as certainly the article must have some length restrictions. We can't expose every door. However, exposing none of them leaves us a bit bereft. And finally, as for the length of the article, it is not completely inconceivable that it could be trimmed a little.
 * Having said all that, I apologize. I won't get in the way of what you are doing... Good luck! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's crap advice, a bit like never leaving your house in case you get hit by a falling roof tile on your way out the door. And more seriously it doesn't help with the kind of thing we saw here, where material was inserted in such a way that it appeared to be covered by a pre-existing citation, which is a much more likely scenario. Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I, on the other hand, think both of you are wrong. Dweller would have us add to many cites (malleus is right there), but Malleus would have us bleach away every blemish the instant it occurs rather than consulting and sorting things out. Good night! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I look at it this way; when my car breaks down I don't feel compelled to initiate a discussion and wait for consensus to emerge before taking it to the garage to be repaired. And don't forget that it wasn't me who removed the material being discussed here. Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! best of luck with your article! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would say that you're both right, but that it depends on the context of the claim being made. For claims that are either uncontroversial, or very easily checked, single citations at the end of the paragraph are fine. For claims that sound improbable, or which might be difficult for other readers to check without it being clear exactly where they've been taken from, every separate fact ought to be cited. For contentious claims or things which may seem counterintuitive to readers, I'd go as far as to say each fact should be cited to multiple sources, even though it makes the articles look messy—look at the referencing on Tarrare, for instance, where it needs to be hammered home that all these improbable claims are accepted history, not a single writer's opinion. – iridescent  11:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Gibson on Lanfranc
In a talk post last year, you wrote, "I'd suggest consulting Gibson's biography of Lanfranc". The article doesn't cite it. Do you recall the title, the author's full name, or other clues to the intended work? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll follow up on it. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:29, 19 May 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) 16:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Miss Meyers
This is a note to let the main editors of Miss Meyers know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 24, 2012. 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:

Miss Meyers (1949 – March 1963) was a chestnut-colored American Quarter Horse racehorse and broodmare. Her sire was American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) Hall of Fame member Leo, and her dam was Star's Lou. Miss Meyers raced from 1952 until 1955 and started 59 times. She was also the 1953 World Champion Quarter Running Horse. In her career she won $28,725 (equivalent to about $249,000 as of 2012) on the racetrack as well as 17 races. As a broodmare, she produced the first AQHA Supreme Champion, Kid Meyers, with AQHA Hall of Fame member Three Bars, a Thoroughbred. Miss Myers was the mother of three other foals and was inducted into the AQHA Hall of Fame in 2009. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of the song?
Hi Ealdgyth, you seem to know alot of fantasy and Medieval life, but I was wondering if you knew the name of the song they used on Braveheart movie where Edward II second is marrying the princess of France. The catholic marriage song is this tune starting at 0:33. --GoShow (...............) 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know it's called the Royal Wedding because it started there, but what is the original name of the piece.--GoShow (...............) 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * You lot have no sense of humour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.36.92 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I WROTE the whole article... gee, wonder why I'm reverting vandalism... sometimes this place is just plain insane. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the Legitimate Educational Charity of Wikipedia wasn't hosting a hardcore porn video of two nuns and a man having sex with a dog, people couldn't add said video to Wikipedia's precious ***Featured Articles***. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.62.27 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I'm glad you got your jollies... or whatever it was you wanted. Tearing things down is so much easier than actually building things, isn't it? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia is a bone in the throat of the internet, which uses its dominant position to block the development of new and better alternatives. What other top-10 website hasn't changed anything about its design since 2004? Discrediting it as a reference is a public service since until it loses the public trust nobody will be able or willing to design anything better. That well meaning dupes of Jimmy Wales and his sinister cult get hurt in the process is regrettable, but necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.62.27 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mixco Viejo GA review
Hi Ealdgyth - I think I've dealt with all your points on the review page of Mixco Viejo - if there are still any problems, please let me know. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert II of Scotland GA Review
Thanks for taking this on and for your helpful comments. I hope I've addressed them all satisfactorily. Regards, --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: NY 227 GAN
Responded, but please no talk page tags. ;) Mitch 32 (There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Great Sejm/GA1
Thank you for the review. I believe I've addressed all of your points. Please let me know if anything else remains. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest

 * And congrats to you as well! It's awesome what we can do when someone pokes our competitive side, huh? :) Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations as well, nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Duke of York (17)/GA2
Hi, I believe I have addressed all the problems you found with the article and was wondering if you have any more issues with the article. Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping to get to the various GA reviews I've got in the fire tomorrrow morning... RL is busy and I'm basically only able to revert vandalism for the next 12 hours or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, no worries. Thurgate (talk) 19:36, 1 June 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) 19:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)