User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 29

Main page appearance: green children of Woolpit
This is a note to let the main editors of green children of Woolpit know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 2, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 2, 2013. 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 can 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:

The green children of Woolpit is the name given to two children who reportedly appeared in the village of Woolpit in Suffolk, England, some time in the 12th century. They were of generally normal appearance except for the green colour of their skin. They spoke in an unknown language, and the only food they would eat at first was green beans. Eventually they lost their green pallor, but the boy was sickly and died soon after baptism. After learning English, the girl explained that they had come from an underground world whose inhabitants are green. The only near-contemporary accounts are contained in Ralph of Coggeshall's Chronicum Anglicanum and William of Newburgh's Historia rerum Anglicarum, written in about 1189 and 1220 respectively. Between then and their rediscovery in the mid-19th century, the green children seem to surface only in Bishop Francis Godwin's fantastical The Man in the Moone. The story also provided the inspiration for The Green Child, the only novel written by the English anarchist poet and critic Herbert Read. The main explanations of the story are that it is a typical folk tale describing an imaginary encounter with the inhabitants of another world, or it is a garbled account of a historical event. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies... you just write too many great articles! Still, I think you got January off ;-)  Unless someone beats me to scheduling 21st March, I was thinking of Deusdedit of Canterbury to mark Justin Welby's enthronement as the latest Archbish of Cantuar (seeing as Thomas Cranmer, who the CofE marks on that day, has already run as TFA). Apart from that, I don't think I've got any wicked plans to TFA-you in the near future... BencherliteTalk 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Precious again, great collaboration of three people who all received my PumpkinSky Prize already, a first! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Brown
William Robinson Brown is officially up for FA. Just an FYI. I tossed the Astraled pic for now, can always re-add if sourcing issues fixed. Montanabw (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoping you can help
Hey there Ealdgyth, I know you're extremely fond of the Anglo-Norman/Saxon eras but I was wondering if you have come across any good books regarding the Norman conquest of southern Italy. I find it immensely interesting and I would love to read up on it in more detail, if you have any suggested reads I would sure appreciate hearing about them. Cheers, — -  dain -  talk    05:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Historiography and Digital History
Hello, I was passed along here by Adam Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Bishop). I'm working on the mechanics concerning historiography (history of history) and one of our studies is to look at a wikipedia entry and consider the mechanics of wikipedia as open source historical collaboration. Many universities and school shy away from Wikipedia because of sadly earned reputations of badly sourced articles full of "bad history." Do you find as a collaborator, that many articles face the battle between popular historians with an idea stuck in their minds or that people for the most part accept scholarly research when writing their articles, or try to source as much as they can? Eirwen29 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)eirwen29 Feb 9/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirwen29 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most articles aren't that subject to that sort of problem - generally if I go in an rewrite a biography of someone, I don't usually have to fight issues of "bad history" creeping in. There are some exceptions, however. Check out the talk page of Guy Fawkes for an example of persistent attempts to add "popular linkage" to something that most professional historians wouldn't consider worthwhile. (And I should correct something that Adam said - while I"m not a practicing professional historian - I did do a good bit of study under one and could probably be considered as someone who trained as a historian (medievalist in my case) before deciding to not pursue a PhD. (I've taken probably most of the required seminar classes for a masters).) Generally, the less "important" an article is, the less likely it is to attract non-scholarly attention. The most troubles aren't so much folks trying to use non-scholarly sources, but in folks trying to skew topics towards their own pet subjects. An example - when i started reworking Middle Ages last year, it was full of information about Hungarian politics and history during the Middle Ages - because someone had filled it full of that information. This gave a misleading impression of the importance of Hungary in the total history of the Middle Ages, obviously. Does this help? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick help!
Can you help me explain at Featured article candidates/William Robinson Brown/archive1 that Arlene Magid is a reliable source on Arabian horses? I'm not being very articulate, I fear. You have more "street cred" in FA land, perhaps can help? Montanabw (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Point to her hundreds of articles in the Times and World and the Egyptian publications. That should do the trick. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried a Google search, but most things go to more recent web pages... do we have access to any sort of index?  Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't... sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not write a little article on Arlene Magid to establish her notability in the field? A stub with a list of published works ought to be enough. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. And Gladys Brown Edwards while we're at it.  And Bazy Tankersley just died, that's another bio we don't have... oh crud, more articles to write! LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 12 February 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) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Last


The term "purchase the homage" is not a term I am familar with, so I don't have an understanding of this. Can you give this to me in layman's terms? In the above article it says: ...and could if he wished, purchase the homage of the one outstanding native prince - Maredudd ap Rhys of Deheubarth - for another 5,000 marks. What does that mean (in layman's terms)? Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which of those words don't you understand? "Purchase" or "homage"? George Ponderevo (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a needed link to homage (feudal) at its first mention. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea, but does "homage" have a meaning in that context other than a feudal one? George Ponderevo (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume not - if it does that should be explained in the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Purchase" I understand, however its "homage" that's a little tricky for me. I think now I have a loose understanding of it, but if someone cares to expand (in layman's language) I'm sure it would help me. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article seems fairly clear. It is a fundamental concept in feudalism, which is a system that takes some getting used to for a modern reader. Think of it in terms of the Afghan government trying to get the homage of the Taliban, if that helps. Of course the Welsh didn't really accept the whole feudal system at all, any more than many Afghans accept the modern state. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've occasionally wondered if it's really true that so many Welsh people have the surname "Jones" because they had a Spartactus moment when they were first asked to complete a census. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Think of it in terms of the Mob in the United States - the boss of a family has the homage or fealty of the various underbosses. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Let's see if I got it, per the article. '' Llywelyn opened negotiations with the king, and was eventually recognised as Prince of Wales by King Henry in the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267. In return for the title, the retention of the lands he had conquered and the homage (respect) of almost all the native rulers of Wales, he was to pay a tribute of 25,000 marks in yearly installments of 3,000 marks, and could if he wished, purchase the homage of the one outstanding native prince - Maredudd ap Rhys of Deheubarth - for another 5,000 marks.'' If I am understanding this correctly, in other words as long as Llywelyn paid 3,000 marks per year to King Henry III he was recognized as Prince of Wales by the Welsh leaders. However to get the respect of the leader of Deheubarth (Maredudd ap Rhys) Llywelyn had to pay King Henry III an additional 5,000 "marks" besides the original 25,000 "marks" he had to pay to the king. Llywelyn was buying the title of Prince of Wales. Maredudd ap Rhys was holding out on giving Llywelyn respect as Prince of Wales (for whatever reason) unless Llywelyn came up with an additional 5,000 total marks (25,000 + 5,000 = 30,000 total). Did Llywelyn ever pay King Henry this amount?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is probably that Maredudd owed fealty to Henry III, but Henry offered to sell that homage to Llywelyn for 5000 marks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Now I am zooming in on this:
 * Maredudd owed loyalty to Henry III, but Henry offered to sell that loyalty to Llywelyn for 5000 marks - making Llywelyn Prince of all territories of Wales, including Deheubarth. A good portion of Deheubarth I understand was (and is now) a land of moor grass.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one possibility. It's hard to say without more information - and its not really an area I know much about. And unfortunately, there isn't yet a good full length biography of Henry III that we could check in. But ... David Walker Medieval Wales p. 120 says "By the treaty of Montgomery, Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was able to establish his standing in Wales on the most favourable terms ever to be extracted from the English crown. The two major issues which were agreed were that Llywelyn should hold the principality of Wales and be called the prince of Wales, and that, with one exception, he should have the homage of all the Welsh leaders. This was the position which the rulers of Gwynedd had been seeking since the beginning of the thirteenth century. (The exception was Maredudd ap Rhys Gryg of the house of Deheubarth, who as a reward for his consistent loyalty to Henry III was allowed to continue to give is homage directly to the king)." - so yes, it appears that there was an option for Llywelyn to purchase the homage from Henry III. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. That helps my understanding of this alot. Thanks... --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

HIW pic
Narrowing down finalists to replace the lead image in HIW, may want to weigh in, movement is away from medieval images due to lack of suitable ones. I'm kind of going to go with the consensus, as the finalists so far present no glaring MOS problems as far as I know, but I think you should weigh in here! Montanabw (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC request
Hi Ealdgyth, wanted to let you know that I've re-submitted Sesame Street research for yet another FAC. Thought you'd be interested, since you participated in its first FAC. I thought that both FACs failed due to lack of support, so I'd appreciate your assistance, especially since you're not at FAC as much these days. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 23 February 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) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry I...
First stab at a fleshed out article done and up on main space. Thanks for the advice on the reading! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Deusdedit of Canterbury
This is a note to let the main editors of Deusdedit of Canterbury know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 21, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 21, 2013. 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 can 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:

Deusdedit (died c. 664) was a medieval Archbishop of Canterbury, the first native-born holder of the see of Canterbury. By birth an Anglo-Saxon, and perhaps originally named Frithona, Frithuwine or Frithonas, he became archbishop in 655. The name Deusdedit, which he probably took when consecrated as archbishop, means "God has given" and was the name of a recent pope. He was archbishop for more than nine years until his death, probably from the plague. There is some controversy over the exact date of Deusdedit's death, owing to discrepancies in the medieval written work that records his life. Little is known about his episcopate. The see of Canterbury seems to have been passing through a period of comparative obscurity and Deusdedit only consecrated one bishop; the other new bishops in England were consecrated by Celtic or foreign bishops. He founded a nunnery in the Isle of Thanet and helped with the foundation of Medeshamstede Abbey, later Peterborough Abbey, in 657. He was considered to be a saint after his demise, with a feast day of 14 July. A saint's life was written after his relics were moved from their original burial place in 1091 (location of unmarked grave pictured). UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
I accidentally hit the rollback button on my watchlist and was trying to revert when you did. My apologies.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I figured it was probably something like that... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 5 March 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) 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Ealdgyth; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It's GA status beat it's appearance on the main page as a DYK - it's only in the prep area right now. Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert of Cricklade
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Gibpedia
Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh de Cressy
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Misfiled?
Shouldn't this lot be in the "masochism" section? :) Btw the British Museum has a Viking Age exhibition in about a year, which I hope WMUK will be doing a concerted GLAM effort for, with help from our Scandiwegian colleagues. Viking art is on my list. I see you are flirting with the dark side now. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wish I could get across the pond to see that exhibit. No chance in hell - mother is 80 and not able to be left alone that long. All those articles really should be written to complete Middle Ages or should be in better shape... I just don't know if I've got the energy. Yeah, I have to channel my inner-Viking somehow ... have you been watching the History Channel Vikings (TV series) show? Hubby's been watching it pretty close - I've only caught bits and pieces. The settings and costumes seem good to me, not so sure on the history part - they got my hackles up calling someone an "earl" rather than a "jarl" ... and then making him pretty autocratic. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I expect we'll get it next year, which might be rather clever of them with the exhibition. Or it's on the paid channels which we don't get. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely a paid channel - History Channel is rather a joke here in the states at times - for a while it was the "Hitler Channel" - as that's all it seemed to cover, and now it's gotten away from "hard history" (if there is such a thing!) towards "soft history" shows. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bazy
Sandboxing... feel free to come over and play. User:Montanabw/Sandbox 5. Montanabw (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. I'm on a obscure legal people kick - Osbert fitzHervey Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh yourself, I found some fascinating stuff on her newspaper publishing career. Too bad her book is $200 bucks, I'd kill for having the dates she lived where, the ranch moved around a bit in its early years.   Montanabw (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Alfred the Great
Have you seen the report that the body of Alfred the Great may have been discovered? Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nah, I hadn't seen that. I'd be more interested if they did some work on those ossuaries at Winchester that are supposed to hold Rufus, Cnut, and a bunch of other kings... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:53, 27 March 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) 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Fornham
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

on what i know
dear ealdgyth,

i think youre questioning my ability to find the right picture for an article. all i ask is that you leave the picture for Pope Gregory I alone so i don't have to monitor it. i was the first person to put it there, and it was there as the offical picture for the article until October 2012. i'm just trying to make the article the way it was, with the picture, not its text. so please, just leave the picture alone, and edit the article's text all you want. just not the picture.

sincerely, class clown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.185.201 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a wikipedia and others have changed the picture. Its up to you to go to the article talk page and convince everyone WHY the picture should be of a misleading 17th century portait. It's very unlikely that Gregory looked like that nor that he wore that sort of costume. There is no such thing as an "official picture" for a wikipedia article - and it's honestly better to have a medieval illustration so that readers don't think we know what Gregory looked like - we don't and some 17th century imagination by an artist is misleading to the readers. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with it further down the article, but I agree a (roughly) period image is best for the lead. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

again
i dont think you realize what i'm trying to say. i'm just editing the picture of one article, and that's it. is it that hard to leave this one picture i'm trying to keep on an article alone, because apparently you're not understanding that. if you can really justify this, you might as well message me your reason than just reverting my edits.

in paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.185.201 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This belongs on the talk page of the article. It's not just myself that is reverting you - there are at least five other users disagreeing with your choice here. YOU need to take it to the talk page of the ARTICLE. Not my talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good gods...
165 .. how'd THAT happen? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sinister... ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

24.146.185.201
Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.185.201 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England, things I don't understand

 * "Estimates for the forces range from 7000 to 8000 men in total with 1000 to 2000 of them cavalry, 10,000 to 12,000, 7000 infantry and 3000 cavalry, or 7500." Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I hope. It's really kinda hard to express all those different force numbers... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're trying to say now, but it doesn't seem consistent with the immediately preceding sentence:"Figures given by contemporary writers are highly exaggerated, ranging from 14,000 to 150,000", as none of those estimates are for either 14,000 or 150,000 men. Are these modern estimates as opposed to contemporary estimates? Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh. Yes, they are. Modern historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I did take out a stray ")" that insisted on sticking around... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Copsi owed his death 1068 to Osulf, his rival for power in Northumbria." What does "owed his death to" mean? Did Osulf kill him? Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Probably too much thinking going on in my brain. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking can be dangerous. I should be able to finish reading through by later this evening. When are you thinking of going to PR? Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of milhist's A class instead, honestly. I've had Middle Ages at PR for what.. a week now? And nothing? There's a limit of one article at a time at PR now... so A-class is looking pretty good as a tuneup before FAC. I just did an incredibly long GA review - I'm too bushed to even consider doing a tit-for-tat PR right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All the review processes seem to struggling ... anyway, I'm done now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How did you like it, anyway? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it very much, I think it's great. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Osbert fitzHervey
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Burchard du Puiset
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Norman Conquest
Thanks for making Template:Norman conquest of England. In retrospect, kind of obviously needed! However, I'm puzzled by your inclusion of Harald Hardrada and the Battle of Stamford Bridge; in grouping the unsuccessful Norwegian invasion with the successful Norman one, it seems to imply they were related by collusion. Was this your intent, or are Harald and Stamford Bridge included simply because the Norwegian attempt came so soon before the Norman, i.e., in effect the template is about 1066 in England? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally - you get historian's discussing Hardrada's invasion along with the Norman's coming in. Most of the books covering the Norman Conquest also devote space to the Norwegians coming in at Stamford. Huscroft covers it extensively in his Norman Conquest, Thomas covers it in his Norman Conquest, Alexander covers it in Three Crises in Early English History: Personalities and Politics during the Norman Conquest, the reign of King John, and the Wars of the Roses, Bennet covers it in Campaigns of the Norman Conquest - the trend is towards trying to set the events into total context - if you don't cover the northern events, it doesn't make much sense why Harold Godwinson lost. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, also obviously in popular books. And I'm sure I've seen collusion suggested in print at least once. But including it under the title Norman Conquest does give the picture of endorsing the view that it was collusion. I'd have set it off under previous events. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the trend is to see the Conquest as more than just "English vs. Normans", at least among historians. Huscroft's Norman Conquest is definitely aimed at the college textbook market - and reflects a growing body of scholarship that sees the events in the north as part of the whole event. I can't quite see divorcing those events that happened earlier in 1066 from the later 1066 events. The "Vikings" continued to play an important part in post-Hastings events also - the Danes were repeatedly in and out of England for the next five years or so, trying to reclaim the throne. Probably better to just go by what the historians are doing and leave it more inclusive rather than less inclusive. I'm sure we're missing events, persons, etc that could go in the template too. It's still a very rough draft ... I just needed to get something on the board to start working with. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Norman Conquest didn't take place on a single day in 1066, it was the culmination of a series of events that began before the Battle of Hastings and went on well after it. Hardrada's inclusion is important insofar as it provides some insight into why Harold lost the Battle of Hastings. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cnut
I'm interested to know why you say that Cnut wasn't a Viking. It's good to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Viking age is pretty much done by Cnut's time - there are still some bits and pieces, but Cnut's really more a king conquering than a Viking-a-roving. yeah, some folks classify him as a Viking (see the title of Lawson's biography of him Cnut: England's Viking King) - but the big days of true Viking raids are gone. Cnut's invasions were much more organized and planned as a kingdom supporting his invasion. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert of Ghent
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William of Canterbury
Hello! Your submission of William of Canterbury at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. I hope I'm not going to make you rally cross by using this template on your talk page? A very minor point but to totally belt and brace the DYK hook, I think a reference needs to be placed where I have (temporarily) inserted a template in the article? Otherwise, it looks ready to go to me. (Oh, no, now I've put another template within this template, so will definitely be taken to task and given a smacked wrist.....)   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  12:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph de Warneville
Allen3 talk 08:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping!
Hi,

Just letting you know I've responded to your comments at Talk:Fishing Creek confederacy/GA1. King Jakob  C2 00:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out in the morning, when I'm awake ... I'm exhausted after a day of gardening here... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Right Reverend Fairfax Harrison, Grand National winner?
Fairfax Harrison is one of yours too? Such a range of interests you have! Anyway, with my getting-to-be-traditional apologies to you, Harrison will be Today's featured article/April 20, 2013... He had been sitting patiently in Today's featured article/emergency waiting his call to action, so I thought it was time to use him. Regards, BencherliteTalk 08:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Roger le Poer
Materialscientist (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Fairfax Harrison
This is a note to let the main editors of Fairfax Harrison know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 20, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 20, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fairfax Harrison (1869–1938) was an American lawyer, businessman, and writer. The son of the secretary to the Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Harrison studied law at Yale University and Columbia University before becoming a lawyer for the Southern Railway Company in 1896. By 1906 he was Southern's vice-president of finance, and in 1907 helped secure funding to keep the company solvent. In 1913 he was elected president of Southern, where he instituted a number of reforms in company operations. By 1916, under Harrison's leadership, the Southern had expanded to an 8000 mi network across 13 states, its greatest extent until the 1950s. Following America's entry into World War I the federal government took control of the railroads in December 1917, running them through the United States Railroad Administration, on which Harrison served. Harrison struggled to keep the railroad afloat during the Great Depression, but by 1936 Southern was once again showing a profit. Harrison retired in 1937, intending to focus on his hobby of writing about historical subjects including the roots of the American Thoroughbred horse, but he died three months later in February 1938. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Kharma is a bitch. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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 a link pointing to Coinage


 * Roger le Poer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Adelelm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:22, 9 April 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) 12:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William of Canterbury
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just in case...
Hi there! I saw your name high on the JSTOR waiting list, so presumably you'll have access soon. Meanwhile, if there are things you need, I have temporary (and perhaps not quite complete) access. I remember that you were once kind enough to send me an article; it would considerably please me to be able to return the favour. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I got access in the first round. It's been wonderful, I must admit! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I got HighBeam and Questia, both of which I've found really useful, but no JSTOR. May I ask you from time to time to look something out for me? Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Political career of John C. Breckinridge
Per your request on Wehwalt's talk page, just wanted to let you know that I've listed Political career of John C. Breckinridge at GAC if you still want to review it. Thanks for the offer. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aiming for FAC with this article? If so, I'll step up the review as sorta a PR-GAR-pre-FAC check if you'd like... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect FAC will be the next stop, so feel free to apply increased rigor. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all of your concerns at Talk:Political career of John C. Breckinridge/GA1 now. Thanks again for the quick and thorough review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now at FAC. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)