User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 28

Uffingas
Obvious duplicate and as Wuffingas seems to be the usual name, I've turned Uffingas into a redirect. Is he really this careless? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently so. We all make mistakes sometimes... but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just like the good ole days
Featured article review/South Side, Chicago/archive1 needs a source check. Dear :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Source opinion
Would you mind taking a look at footnote 1 in Ace Books? It's going to be main-paged on Thursday; this was added since I worked on the article and I suspect it would have been removed at FAC as there's not enough information to determine that it's a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neat site, not reliable. https://www.worldswithoutend.com/about_faq.asp makes it pretty clear it's "fan written". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Caldera Bay FAC
I've addressed your source comments there. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Certify
OK, it's launched; can you go here and certify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Popularity iz you!
Did you know this? This means you have earned this:

And can add your name to the list here: Centijimbos (It's a fun bunch, you should!)   Montanabw (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 
 * Amateurs, the pair of you. – iridescent  00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ping
Ping. Your opinion is obviously the most important, as you're the one who would have to spend your vacation shooing away every Randy who thinks The Last English King is nonfiction. – iridescent  00:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the "comments" and "suggestions" I get for all my effort on William? It's enough to send an editor into retirement... I've already suffered through one TFA this month, isn't it against some law to have two in the same month? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look on the bright side dammit. It's got to go sometime, & Dec 25 gets the lowest views of the year, every year. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Amphibian FAC
You made various comments on sourcing at the Amphibian FAC and struck out most of them when we resolved the issues. Would you be able to revisit to deal with the final 3? This FAC has now been nominated for a month and I think its final success is not assured. When one has put a lot of effort into an article, it would be disappointing if it failed at the final hurdle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 5 December 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) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: William the Conqueror
This is a note to let the main editors of William the Conqueror know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 25, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 25, 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 delegates, , and , 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 the Conqueror (c. 1028 – 1087) was the first Norman King of England. He had been Duke of Normandy since 1035, although his illegitimate status and youth caused him difficulties and he did not secure his hold over the Duchy until about 1060. In the 1050s and early 1060s William became a contender for the English throne, then held by his childless relative Edward the Confessor. Other potential claimants included the powerful English earl Harold Godwinson, who Edward named as the next king on his deathbed in January 1066. William argued that Edward had previously promised him the throne, and that Harold had sworn to support William's claim. William invaded England in September 1066, defeating Harold at the Battle of Hastings, and was crowned on Christmas Day 1066. Several unsuccessful rebellions followed, but by 1075 William's hold on England was mostly secure. William's final years were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. In 1086 he ordered the compilation of the Domesday Book, listing all the landholders in England and their holdings. He died in September 1087 on campaign in northern France, and was buried in Caen. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Feeling left out?
See what happens when you miss a meeting of the cabal. OK, no money for Ealdgyth. Agricolae (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Drat! I'll have to make the next super-sekret-cabal meeting then... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You may feel left out now, but imagine how dirty and used you'd feel after a couple of years in what's usually termed "Big MedSchol". Sure, you'd have enjoyed your fancy cars, smart offices and annual so-called "bonus", based on how many words you'd put out and how many times you'd appeared on TV, but really sown up in advance in a cigar-smoke filled club in Manchester; you'd have bought rounds of champagne with the six-figure transfer deals... but behind the scenes, away from the bright-lights of the medieval scholarship partnerships and professorships, it's a different story... For every "ibid" entry in one of those Oxford University Press publications on the Church in 8th century England, there's dozens, hundreds even, of oppressed scholars, working away in fear of their lives in the back streets of Cambridge and Durham, removing stray North American commas and polishing references. Trust me, Ealdgyth, you're well out of Big MedSchol. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 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) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings
...and of course to you. I started Gesta last night, thinking we had about half a dozen... Ha! Anything I've missed? Let me know what the book's like, if you got it. All the best. I'll try to keep an eye on King Billy when the excitement gets too much. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just ordered the book - we'll see what it's like when it arrives. I picked up a couuple of books yesterday in Indianapolis on the Crusades, which I'm thinking might be next on my list of "get to GA" status - just got to decide if I'll work on it during the Core Contest or take up History of the World for the Core Contest and keep Crusades for just the WikiCup. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy holidays. Hope you have a productive 2013; and perhaps we can finally collaborate on something - or even do another section of Bede? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Only one that comes to my mind in my holiday haze is Gesta Guillelmi Ducis by William of Poitiers. But it's still a redlink. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirected to William of P under 3 variants. His boss seems pretty quiet so far. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Billy the Bastard's been semi-protected for a few months, so that keeps down the random vandalism.. thankfully. Appreciate all the folks who are watching though! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't too bad at all - obviously the best day to mainpage! Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

...
"Season's greetings to you and yourn" Ning-ning (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my edits to William the Conqueror
I added sources regarding the Battle of Dinan section on William the Conqueror that you reverted a few times, if I need to add more just give me a shout. Also, I added links to the relevent sections of the Bayeux Tapestry that are describing the events, I'm not sure if I can do that but they're pretty self explanatory as well. Some more "good stuff" on the subject that I found is here. Also, just curious but where's the guideline saying that non contemporary images cannot be on certain articles? I think I missed that one. thanks,  dain   talk   23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "rule" but you might have noticed that the article is a featured article - that means it represents our best work - and putting in a late 19th century statue of William really doesn't tell us much about William, does it? It can't possibly represent him as he looked, the clothing isn't accurate, he likely never held a copy of Domesday book and it doesn't tie into the article at all. Better to use either contemporary or close to contemporary images of him or images of places he built/fought/etc. That gives the reader a better guide to him or his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a featured article - you've not given enough information to actually identify the sources you've used - can you please try to conform to the actual style used inthe article. And remove the references to the Bayeux Tapestry - this isn't an article on the tapestry and having superscripted references to them is not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh okay, I assumed that putting that picture in the "Legacy" section was okay and I saw a lot of other Norman articles like Rollo with relatively the same statue's in their main infobox so I thought it would be okay, I apologize. By "you've not given enough information to actually identify the sources you've used" do you mean add them in template:cite format, or is there something else? Can I put the links to the Bayeux Tapestry as a reference instead of a sup/link, or is that not acceptable either? thanks,  dain   talk   00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are a good example Dainomite of why TFA has become such a tedious misery. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course, the whole weight given to this little episode is way undue weight but ... you know how my hands are tied - lest i be accused of ownership or something... never mind I sweated blood getting the article into decent shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's become endemic. Perhaps you remember all the fighting over that bloody V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask in the Guy Fawkes article? And now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging, because he's too lazy to go to a fucking library and check for himself. Pardon my French and all that, but it does get on my tits. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alarmed by the mental image of Malleus with a ferret on his tits.... As penance for the TFA selection, I've joined in the discussion on the Bastard's talk page and undone the edit in question, because self-published books just don't cut the mustard. BencherliteTalk 00:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even gotten that from Malleus' statement before you chimed in there Bencherlite - thanks for nothing. Eeewww... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being newer and attempting to contribute to an article, you dont have to WP:BITE me though.  dain   talk   00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried hard to NOT bite you ... but readding the information three times was not a good idea. You should have gone to either my talk page or better yet the article talk page after the first revert. The second and third addition (and the third addition with a self-published source even! and without even an attempt to conform to the style of the article!) were just as annoying as being bit as a newcomer. Being a newcomer doesn't excuse someone from the rules. Nor are you that "new" - you've been here since July - that's plenty of time to learn that iUniverse isn't reliable and to learn about 3RR. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Dainomite, you have rollback rights, so you can't say you're a newcomer (and you're not being bitten either). BencherliteTalk 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you Eald, I meant Malleus (hence my 2 colons to his 1 colon) in regards to his "You are a good example Dainomite of why TFA has become such a tedious misery" comment because I felt bitten in the sense that it was a needless jab at me for attempting to expand a bit of an article. Eald you have at least provided constructive feedback on what to do and how to improve and I thanked you for it. I mean newer in the aspect of contributing to expanding existing articles instead of creating fringe articles or running AWB or Huggle. I haven't contributed very much in the arena of expanding articles.  dain   talk   00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your additions ARE a good example of why it's a royal pain in the butt to have an article you've sweated blood over on the main page though. I'm probably as close to a subject matter expert as you'll find on Wikipedia for this time period - but that cut no mustard with you - you just kept re-adding, without even the courtesy of an edit summary. Imagine that multiplied by ten or twenty times, with plain vandalism spread mixed in, and you begin to see why it's a pain in the ass. I spent a good couple of months reading and rereading sources, determining what the current "best sources" written by scholars who are expert in the field are, finding more sources, adding information to the article, polishing the text, having others polish the text and ... for what? So someone who's read some self-published book written by a high school teacher can come in and add some pet theory without any regard for what other scholars think? (And no, i'm not really wanting to bite you, but I'm trying to explain why this is annoying.). Malleus is just trying to protect me, I suspect. After so many fights over stupid stuff that people think is needed in articles, it gets really really old. (And Malleus, we won't even go into the annoyance that has resurfaced at Middle Ages - where I'm going to have to go through ILL again to find some sources to figure out what some drive-by-editor has re-added back in ... since he didn't bother with actually identifying the sources he's trying to use... (sighs)) Understand that actually working an article up to a good status is hard hard work and it just waltzing in and adding something to a featured article because you want to start adding to existing articles isn't exactly the best way to go about learning how to write articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right Ealdgyth, I was. I'd have made a surprisingly good medieval knight I think, on my white charger with my armour glinting in the sunlight, fearless to the point of stupidity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yeah, right. White charger and gleaming armor - that's so NOT what knights were like. Think ... dirty smelly short folks on short dumpy dirty horses wearing ring mail. And raping peasants and stealing from each other... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have been different. I'm not short, I bathe every year whether I need to or not, and I'd have got myself a big horse. But probably if I'd managed to steal enough from my fellow knights I'd have got myself a suit of black armour, so it wouldn't really have glinted in the sunlight I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I didn’t know featured article maintenance as well as my actions were such a pain in the ass. Dually noted,  dain   talk   00:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dainomite, I hope you don't take it personal. When you play in the big leagues (FA) then you have to expect to get a little dirt on your uniform from time to time, but it is just part of the process.  These guys may not be subtle, but they know what they are talking about.  If they are bothering to tell you what you are doing wrong, that means they think there is hope for you yet. ;-)  Take it in stride.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw the reply
But I replied to you earlier about Billy.

(If you want either a frightening or inspiring statistic, depending on how you look at it, the four minor edits I just made to see if I still had AWB access have doubled my edit count for 2012. I'm not sorry to be out of this place.) – iridescent  22:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello Ealdgyth, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup
Hello, Ealdgyth, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholas de Sigillo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal chancery (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) 11:06, 2 January 2013 (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) 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for taking the time to review Spanish conquest of Petén, and for responding quickly, all the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I always enjoy your articles - I learn something new with them! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Ealdgyth, Thank you very much for the replies to my horse questions. While I don't recall us ever interacting directly, I've been aware of you and an admirer of your work for a long time. I've enjoyed a lot of the English/British royalty in history work you've done. I had forgotten that you also did a lot of work on the horse related articles. (my memory just isn't what it used to be. :/). Anyway - thanks again, much appreciated. — Ched : ?  02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - I've been quite silent with horse stuff lately ... I keep getting sucked down medieval articles instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, E. By the way, can you help me PROVE that File:Astraled.jpg was published prior to 1923?  Had to have been, but not sure where.  Appears to be the one photo we have to clean up prior to a FA nomination.  The oldest horse, ironically...   Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and because you do the money stuff on horse biographies, we have a Pounds to USD conversion that probably needs a template so it is measured in 1918 dollars: £2727 ($4432.19 USD).  (Blunt's fire sale to Maynesboro) Montanabw (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Template: Inflation should do it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you check Brown's catalog for the picture? Or what's his name... Borden's book? Also did it appear in a Crabbet catalog? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have those sources, thought you might, or would know where they could be found? I'm betting Crabbet catalog or Brown's catalogue, but how to access? Montanabw (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have them either - ILL? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Would this help: http://www.wikihorseworld.com/pedigree/01e3492a/8227/details.htm says that the horse died in 1923, so the picture HAD to be taken before no later than then.?? — Ched : ?  20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OOPS ... reading too fast ... "published" .. not "taken". — Ched : ?  20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the trap I fell into also, I KNOW that photo was published, somewhere, but finding it -- all my books containing it are more recent and don't have a definitive statement like "Person X published it in his book in 1922..."  Montanabw (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try this first ... if he can't help, perhaps User:Royalbroil may know. — Ched : ?  22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Has anyone tried the google.com image search feature? For me that search returned 39 results not all of which are relevant of course. Bascially, download the image to your mac (or PC) and navigate to google.com using your favourite browser (Safari of course) and then click images in the top menu bar. Now click the camera icon within the search bar and upload the image to google and et voilà -- Senra (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We got the image, but we don't have a source for where it was first published; the horse died in 1923, so obviously the photo was taken before then, and while we are pretty sure SOMEONE published it prior to 1923, I'm having trouble verifying that. I guess worst case we make it Fair Use, but it would be nice to do GDFL-CC if we can.   Montanabw (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a picture I once saw in a 1935 book by Lady Wentworth (don't have it anymore unfortunately). If you need a definite PD replacement, here is Astraled with Spencer Borden (poor quality though) and a little more on his life.  Froggerlaura  ribbit  02:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Great piece and written by Spencer Borden, no less, AND he mentions WR Brown and the endurance testing! GREAT source, thanks for pointing it out to me!  Doesn't solve my dilemma with the photo, but I've emailed WKK library at CalPoly to see if they can help.   Montanabw (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

GSB??
GSB Volume 15 Page 526 1900 bay stallion by Mesaoud x Queen of Sheba Bred by Crabbet Arabian Stud, Sussex, England Imported 1909 by F. Lothrop Ames, Boston, Mass.
 * Astraled AHR 238

Any possibility that the GSB has a photo?? 1910 USA stud book? Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * American Stud Book and the General Stud Book do not run photos. I don't know about the British Arabian registry - but neither the GSB or the ASB will help. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Damn. Well, I'm asking Cal Poly if they have anything, here's hoping.   Montanabw (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Duchy of Brittany...
...don't know if you're interested, but we've got an enthusiastic and well-intentioned IP editor for the early medieval period over on the Duchy of Brittany. Only challenge is that he's finding it really difficult to get his head around how to use secondary and reliable sources. If you fancy taking a look on the talk page, anything you can do to help explain how best to use sources and material would be useful I think. He'll probably be an asset if he can master this and stick around. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nicholas de Sigillo
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Prizes!
  Pony!

Congratulations! For long time dedication to horse articles and patience with crazed horse editors, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, I never wanted a pony. Even at a young age, I wanted full size horses - I must have known subconsciously that ponies are actually mean little buggers lurking in small sizes. I've yet to meet a pony I'd let any child near, quite honestly. They usually are spoiled rotten and/or rotten tempered things that'll bite you faster than you can turn your back on them. My son learned to ride on full size horses and I've never ever ever regretted that! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was also always more fond of horses than ponies. However, we actually have a pony right now that is one of the nicest I've ever met - super trustworthy, and one of those that can hang out in a pasture for six months, then you can toss a kid on her and take them for a ride and she won't even twitch. It probably helps that my best friend is 5'2", so fits on any of the small horses/ponies at the barn and is willing to re-teach any lessons un-taught by kids who think it's funny when the pony trots back from the arena into the barn... Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wanted a "real horse" too, though I did have a shetland for awhile and he was about half-evil, though mostly just hadn't been handled right. He came around, but I learned to lope on a real horse before I could get him to lope without bucking me off, though eventually, I won!.  But non horse people like ponies, so consider it a glorified barnstar!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Carrots!

As a previous recipient of the Pony Prize, here are some carrots for your pony, though recognizing that you don't really like ponies, but horses also like carrots. We want to continue to reward good behavior, but we don't want your pony to have too many calories! Montanabw (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyedit
Hi Ealdgyth! I pinged a copyeditor a little less than two weeks ago so that I could get an outsider's opinion and suggestions for 2005 Qeshm earthquake. He hasn't yet responded, and the FAC (relevant link) has been sitting waiting for a looksie from an uninvolved, non-earthquake writer. Is there any chance you can spare some time to look it over (and likely provide suggestions)? If not, don't feel obligated, it's obviously not the end of the world. It is a rather short article, though... :)  ceran  thor 22:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eyre (legal term), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cumin (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) 11:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cabell Breckinridge
Sorry about the delay in responding to your comments at Talk:Cabell Breckinridge/GA1. All of my GACs, my FAC, and an open PR all got comments at about the same time. A few of my responses still need follow up from you. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check in tomorrow morning ... I'm taking the evening easy, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be pushing so close to my 7-day window. Pesky real life. hehe. I think I'm all finished now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Susanna Cole
Hello, and thanks for picking up the GA review for the subject article. I've addressed your comments, which can be found at Talk:Susanna Cole/GA1.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Henry I....
Right, a new year, a new king! Will start to pull some material together... Do you have any advice on good source material? I was thinking of starting with Hollister and Green's biographies and working out from there. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll want those, yes. Also Brett's The English Church Under Henry I, the ODNB biography - which was by Hollister, you'll want to read both bios of William II - Barlow's and Mason's - for two more views on his machinations during his brother's reign. Aird has a bio of Curthose that's worth reading (I still haven't managed it...) for yet another look at the sibling problems. Southern's and Vaughn's bios of Anselm would give you a "ecclesiastical" outlook. Crouch's book on the Beaumont Twins would be good as well as Green's Aristocracy of Norman England, Newman's Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I, and Green's The Government of England Under Henry I. Barlow's English Church 1066-1154 would also be useful. Morillo's Warfare under the Anglo-Norman kings would be the starting point for military history. Hallam's second edition of her work on Capetian France would probably be best for the "French perspective"... The usual overviews - Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, Huscroft's Ruling England, clanchy's England and its Rulers (3rd ed), for the "overview". Henry I's a growth industry in the historical world for the period 1066-1250 or so. He only trails Stephen in terms of disagreements between historians ... (well, okay, Anselm's up there too, but I ain't touching Anselm at all.).
 * I suppose this means I need to get cranking on William II, huh? I was actually planning on working Middle Ages up to FA, as well as Norman conquest of England and cleaning up Battle of Hastings. I always get depressed working on William II - he got such bad press. Henry I was just as nasty to the church and the nobles, but... William got the bad press and Henry's treated like a god on earth. Ah, well, that's historian for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Getting the Middles Ages to FA would be pretty cool... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's close. I even have most of the books I'd need, just need to crack down and do it. I keep chasing rabbits down holes (Or in my case ... obscure Angevin officials ... or odd forgotten judges). I'm trying to decide between Crusades or History of the World for the Feb. Core Contest... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Has to be the Crusades, surely... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2013 (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) 14:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Reginald de Warenne
 Harrias  talk 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC - Lady Saigō
Hello, The article Lady Saigō, an article you reviewed for GA status, has been nominated for FA status. Your comments on this nomination would be greatly appreciated at Featured article candidates/Lady Saigō/archive1. Thank you. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick question for you Ealdgyth
I was just wondering howcome certain monarchs go by their regnal name and some go by their "common name". A few examples William the Silent/ William I of Orange, William the Conqueror/William I of England, Richard I of England/Richard the Lionheart. Just curious what determines them, thank you. —   dain -  talk   12:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Usage in sources - we used to go exclusively by regnal numbers but it was pointed out that this conflicted with WP:COMMONNAME - so it was changed to allow for "nicknames" when that nickname is the common name in usage. For your examples above -the two Williams are almost exclusively known by their nicknames but Richard isn't usually given that name in scholarly sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ohhhh, I see. I appreciate the very swift response! Thank you. —   dain -  talk   12:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of these have been the subject of long talk-page arguments in the past, though they are mostly settled by now. See Talk:Richard_I_of_England/Archive_2 for example. Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is the guideline; that has 23 archives of talk as well. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes that seems like quite the headache to deal with. >.< —   dain -  talk   14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gervase de Cornhill
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I had totally forgotten I'd done that PR - I had to dig into the Article History to find out what/when/why! I'll TRY to get to it's FAC, but I make absolutely no promises, my life is completly insane right now and I can't promise anything. What wiki time I have is devoted to the WikiCup and trying to get ready for the Core Contest. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally understandable; no pressure :). On the WC and CC front - if/when you need a reviewer.... and I've not forgotten our joking about a Magna Carta GA or FA. Mwahahah, etc. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with overlinking "barrister"? I'm almost offended not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the rest of the profession! BencherliteTalk 15:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikicup
Hey, noticed you were in the Wikicup. Big admirer of your article work. Good luck! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry de Cornhill (sheriff)
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grammarian (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) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (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) 15:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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) 00:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)