User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 30

Osbert fitzHervey
I just nominated The Man in the Moone at GAN, so in the interests of fair play I felt obliged to review two or three others in return, and yours popped out at me so to speak. Bad luck. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Æthelgeard
Back in 2007 you created a stub article about Æthelgeard, who is listed in the 2nd edition of the Handbook of British Chronology as a bishop of Cornwall, but he is not listed in the 3rd edition, and I have posted a comment at Talk:Æthelgeard suggesting that the article be deleted. Any views? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the PASE ... that'd be definitive. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have. I can't find him there. Or on Google or Google Scholar. Anything else I ought to check? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If google scholar don't have him nor PASE nor HBC 3rd, it's safe to delete. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To repeat what may not have been clear, there are 5 confirmed people by that name in PASE. The articles should be about them, and mention him as another unconfirmed possibility. .  DGG ( talk ) 13:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conrad III (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) 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Medieval and Middle Ages
Chaps, I spotted some comments on the talk page of that article that don't really seem to have been addressed. Do you think there's a convincing reason to keep the article at its current name, rather than rename over the redirect at Medieval history, in line with our other articles on Ancient history and Modern history? And while we're at it, perhaps Early modern period should be moved over to Early modern history? Go easy on me if I'm being stupid. It's my normal mode of operation. --Dweller (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Middle Ages is a distinct concept ... read the rest of the comments where it's pretty clearly shown that "medieval history" is not something concrete like "ancient history" or "modern history". "Middle Ages" is a period of history pertaining to Europe. Full stop. "Medieval" is occasionally used for other regions but it does NOT fit into the same time frame for the same places. There is plenty of coverage for Middle Ages and it has no bearing on whether or not there is a "medieval history' article (which I would be against, quite honestly - that periodization isn't accepted by most historians yet) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the reply. Are you saying that the concept of "Middle Ages" is one that is solely European, while "medieval" is worldwide? If so, surely Medieval history shouldn't redirect there. Also, on the time frame. Are you saying that "Middle Ages" is universally defined for all places in Europe, but "Medieval" wildly differs for different places? Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, the lead for "Middle Ages" strongly implies it's a synonym for "Medieval", thereby also implying that the latter is European-only) --Dweller (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Middle Ages, as used by historians, is only ever applied to Europe and in a smaller way to the regions touching it. Medieval is usually meant as the "middle age" and without qualifiers is usually understood to mean Middle Ages. But there is also the usage of say "Medieval Japan" ... which does NOT correspond in dates with the Middle Ages. The same applies for other uses of Medieval combined with a region - Medieval China, Medieval Ethopia, etc.  which usually means that it applies to A middle period of that regions history, but not one that actually corresponds to the MIddle Ages (of Europe). Note that the regional meanings are secondary to the primary usage of medieval in terms of Europe. The term "medieval history" should indeed redirect to Middle Ages, as it's without qualifiers. So to answer your questions - No, medieval isn't necessarily "world wide", so no, I'd say "medieval history" is redirecting to the correct spot right now, yes, Middle Ages is defined to Europe, and yes, IF medieval is used outside of Europe (It's not univerally used ... I don't think it's applied to many African or American regions) it wildly differs in time frame. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking so much time to respond. I've read that three times and am still scratching my head, but that's most definitely more to do with my limited brain and the time of day (night) locally than any shortcomings on your part. I'll take another look at what you say when I'm refreshed. Incidentally, in the history dept at my redbrick uni in the early 90s, "Middle Ages" was a totally deprecated term. Anyway, thanks again. --Dweller (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not among medievalists (grins). The words are really interchangable. Basically, you can call it medieval if you like - but "ancient" history isn't something that ends at precisely the same time around the world ... so it's impossible to set up a division of history that applies across ALL the world for all times. We're safer using "Middle Ages" than "medieval" though because it's clear that "Middle Ages" only refers to Europe while we would get mired down in deep debates if we tried to write an article on "medieval history" - there are no secondary sources that agree on what time frame we'd include if we tried to include anything outside Europe. Note that the "Cambridge Medieval History" doesn't even begin to try to discuss things outside Europe and the Levant. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should leave things as they are, though I perhaps don't agree on the range of other "medieval" periods. Given none of them have indisputable & clear beginnings & ends, the ranges are very broadly similar - "Medieval Islam" stopping with the later Ottoman conquests of the Levant (say 1515) or less often with the Mongols, "Medieval India" stopping with the Moghuls (say 1526, though with a minority including up to 1707), "medieval Japan" with the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603), & so on - the start dates are all perhaps more complicated. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Medieval China is really a bit different: generally held to start with the end of the Han Dynasty in 220, & ending either at the start in 960 or the end in 1279 of the Song dynasty (eg p. 172 here). Actually we should set out these different "medieval" periods somewhere, as they are often used without much explanation or consistency. Maybe take over medieval, medieval period or medieval history, all now redirecting here. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to... I'm going to be mired down in Crusades for a while, and I need to do Agriculture in the Middle Ages also.... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Far more important, especially the latter. We have some rather magnificently unreferenced, but reasonably sound at first glance, coverage at Periodization, History by period and List of time periods - not a reference between the lot of them, with tags going back to 2006. Life on the Old Frontier! Nothing specific on this though. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Æthelgeard
Hi, easy to see how confusing it can get! I've found further details and found that the other one refers to Æthelhard of Kent.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  08:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design
We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

George Wilkes
Hi Victoria, I started the GA review on George Wilkes and would like your thoughts on a few points. It looks good so far--thanks for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled
Hey Ealdgyth :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 24 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) 13:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages
Lead
 * "Controversy, heresy, and schism within the Church paralleled the warfare between states, the civil war, and peasant revolts occurring in the kingdoms." What civil war? Should that be "civil war" rather the "the civil war"?
 * Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a couple of citation needed tags right at the start of the New Societies section. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. They are covered by the cite at the end of the run of sentences.... I love people who tag things without bothering to ask questions or anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Rise of Islam
 * "The Islamic conquests only slowed in the middle of the 8th century." Not sure what that means; only slowed to speed up again later, or didn't slow until the middle of the 8th century? Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to "stalled" instead of "slowed" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Trade and economy
 * " In the northern parts of Europe, not only were the trade networks local, but the goods produced were simple, with little use of pottery or other complex products." I can't quite match the ending of that sentence with the beginning. "Little use ... of complex products" by whom in doing what? The goods produced made little use of complex products? And is pottery really such a complex product? Malleus Fatuorum 09:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried to make this clearer ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Scholars, intellectuals and exploration
 * "Commercial secondary schools spread also ..." Why the "also"? We don't seem to have mentioned anything else up to this point that has spread. Malleus Fatuorum 10:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the "also" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (I'm about halfway through now, should have this finished by tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC))

New kingdoms and a revived Byzantium
 * "Their efforts culminated in the coronation in 962 of Otto I (r. 936–973) as emperor." Emperor of what?
 * despite the context and link piped to Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor should be said I suppose. Done Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like Johnbod got this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Society and economic life
 * " Monks always remained a very small proportion of the population throughout the period, usually less than one percent of the total population." Is that one percent of the total population, which seems rather high to me, or one percent of the total number of clergy?
 * No, what it says. Monks invariably form well over 1% of the casts of novels and dramas set in the Middle Ages, going about their usually evil ways, so the point is well made imo. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's total population. By the late middle ages, something like a third of the population of England could be considered to be in some sort of clerical orders, or so I recall reading somewhere. It was pretty insane the number of priests that existed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Crusades
 * "Further crusades were called to aid the crusaders, such as the Third Crusade, called to try to regain Jerusalem". That makes very little sense to me. How do you "call" a crusade? And how do you call a crusade to aid the crusaders?
 * Good points. 1) You wrote the Pope & Emperor a letter, & they tried to whip the royalty & bishops up into doing something about it, or not. 2) The lack of a clear term, other than "Franks" for the permanent residents of the Crusader Kingdoms, as opposed to visiting crusaders from Europe, is always a pain in writing about the Crusades. Maybe "A series of appeals were made to Europe for new crusades help the kingdoms..." or something. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The traditional term used is "preach" or "call" a crusade. Presumably as a parallel to the "calling" of a person to priestly orders. In writings for non-specialists, I try very hard to avoid using the term "Franks" for those inhabitants of the Crusading States in the Holy Land - it is wayyyy too confusing to non-historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We could go "Further crusades, such as the Third Crusade, were called to aid the Crusading States." if that works better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "appeals" from the Frankish states at head of government level almost always preceded the "calling" in Europe (and sometimes were not taken up at all), & I think a hint of that idea is useful myself. "calling" might need explanation. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, you're not talking to yourself... I've just been run ragged in RL ... hoping to find time this weekend to plug at these. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've found this extremely hard going. Maybe we should pick this up again when you've got more time to devote to it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the prose that bad? If so, I'm sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The prose obviously isn't that bad, but it's a long article to get through and maybe I'm being too demanding. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you're not. Email incoming. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Technology and military
 * "Transparent glass made possible the science of optics by Roger Bacon (d. 1294), who is credited with the invention of eyeglasses." I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there. Perhaps something like "... made possible developments in the science of optics by Roger Bacon ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Took your wording, it's much better than mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK Ealdgyth I've finally been through the whole article now, and that's it from me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, i went through and checked a bunch of the citations I inherited, and that required me to fiddle with the prose in the first section. Also double checked all the citations to make sure they were consistent. Going to sit on this overnight and let Johnbod poke at anything (I know he was wanting to fiddle with the Jews illustration ... did you find anything better?) before getting it nominated tomorrow sometime. I will be SOOO glad to have this off my plate. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't wait for me - I'll suggest something later. I'm actually busy in that line of country, as it happens - worth a link? Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Long-tailed Ground Roller FAC
Hello. I’d like to thank you for reviewing the Long-tailed Ground Roller’s FAC nearly a year ago, and apologize for having to step away from Wikipedia prior to the FAC’s completion to deal with my studies. I've gone through all of the old commentary and believe that I have resolved it. I’m confident I have the time to finish the FAC, and I have re-nominated the article here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could give the article another look. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (May 2013)
Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Seconded. It's very kind of you to include me as one of the nominators Ealdgyth, but I really don't think I deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you both, but we all know it'd not be near as good if you didn't follow along behind me and whack out my commas and figure out where I've phrased things badly. Just like it was important that Johnbod wrote the artsy sections, as I get totally lost in them! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Be fair, I let you keep most of your commas this time. It's a pity there isn't a lot more of that kind of collaboration. Drmies, for instance, did almost all of the work on various editions of my other FAC nomination ( I know, I know, I'm sounding like a big head ), The Man in the Moone, which frankly would have bored me rigid. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll call you a phony for that remark, sir. Or maybe that's the mark of good collaboration: I thought that you did all the boring bits! Drmies (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll call that the mark of a good collaboration; we each did the bits we enjoyed and left the rest to someone else, and luckily there was a "someone else" to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to do on small subjects though... unless you're talking copyediting someone else's research (and the gods above know I need you for that). We make a pretty fair team for that... and I sincerely enjoy working with you. I enjoyed working with Agricolae on William the Conqueror - and with Mike when we've worked together. It's just that finding folks that fit that missing niche is sometimes very difficult. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's sometimes very difficult to recognise what that missing niche is. Which is why I enjoy working with editors such as Parrot of Doom, who'll often say "I think you need to cover this as well", and just as often add it himself. I still have ambitions to do for information technology what you've done for Middle Ages, but we'll see. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm more thinking content-wise .. I can think of no better and more enjoyable to work with copyeditor than you. But I would never touch a fiction book article... I remain in awe of you and Drmies being willing to tackle that sort of thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was once scared stiff of that as well, but Awadewit put me straight and I've never looked back. And of course the much-maligned Giano has been, and remains, a great help with architecture articles. There really is collaboration here at Wikipedia, but it's not among hundreds of thousands, or even thousands, it's little more than a handful. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The three of you are heroes. I cannot imagine the work it must have taken to get this article into shape. This is one of the most ambitious things I've seen done on Wikipedia. I hope it makes to FA, and I will review if I have time, but regardless of the outcome, I wanted to say how impressed I am at the work you all have done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only half joking that I have History of the World and History of Europe in my sights... but as a total aside ... what the heck is this worth? Glad to know that 9000 edits or 2 FAs is "wow" when folks like Wewalt and Brian are left off... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That editor retention thingie is really only for new and hitherto unrecognised editors, not superstars like Wehwalt or Brian. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If I'm a hero Mike it's only because of my stamina in having read through the article so many times. More like a willing serf really. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been moved to comment on an article I've stumble across for quite a while now, but Middle Ages is a tour de force. As someone who is now, primarily, a Wikipedia reader here, I sincerely thank you (and everyone else involved) for the effort you put into this. I'm deeply impressed. --The sockpuppet of happiness (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you... mystery reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a question for you Ealdgyth. Like you, I very often help others to get their articles across the GA/FA line, but I rarely if ever consider my efforts when doing that to have been "significant", as I've always felt that "significance" is a content thing. So my question is this: at what point does comma shuffling become "significant"? Malleus Fatuorum 10:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The goal of a Wikipedia article is not just content, it's easily understood content. Accurate and impossible to understand is no better than well-presented but weak content.  Anyone who makes it easier for readers to get what they came for is doing significant work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mike. Oh, if someone only does a superficial copyedit ... it's not a big contribution, but your copyedits always involve more than just fiddling with the surface. You make sure that the prose actually makes sense, and is comprehensible to the non-specialist. That is a big contribution to any article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to chill out and trust me Ealdgyth. When it comes to commas and hyphens I'm very rarely wrong. In fact I'm very rarely wrong full stop. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL.. that wasn't panic, it was just calling in the expert! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain I learn more from you than you do from me. Otto II being a prime example. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The real killer with this article is that I don't really have anyone any more that can review the contents of it. I would normally have bugged Deacon for a review but ... there isn't a pure medievalist editing any more. Adam's the closest we've got... I should probably drop him a line. Also Agricolae... but ... they both specialize more than this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't really have anyone any more that can review the contents of it". Jeez Ealdgyth, where were you brung up? Ever heard the old "Where's the library at asshole" joke? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally missed that... sorry for my yankeeness! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages and Crusades articles
Hi Ealdgyth, I noticed! I've been watching them both. Very impressive. I was intending to start on the crusades article myself, but the challenge seems insurmountable...I'll happily let someone else take a stab at it :) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to pitch in once it's a bit more ... cited. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Images at Middle Ages FAC
Hello Ealdgyth, i fixed some (all?) of the remaining image links - i hope, you don't mind :). If you need more tweaks, i'll be glad to help. GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * thank you very much. YOu realize that you've just set yourself up for more image questions in the future, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do, but no problem. You and your co-noms have your hands full with the non-image points already. Just ping me, if there are any additional questions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (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) 13:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's live
Brought Bazy Tankersley out of the sandbox today. More source material than I know what to do with... feel free to throw in some stuff if you need a break from the Middle Ages. Trying to figure out if we have any copyright-free images of Indraff that can be added to the article, gotta be SOMETHING with a photo of him published pre-1978 without a copyright notice because he died in what, 1963 or so? Anyway, the article is image-light on horses, which is absurd because there are images floating all over the web, anything you can do to lend a hand would be more than welcomed. Montanabw (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect Middle Ages will keep me busy for weeks... sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood. Maybe just watchlist it for vandals, it will probably run at DYK in a week or so once the hook is approved.  Montanabw (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuthbert
Czech, Slovak? Czechoslovakian? Scots, North British? Portuguese, Iberian? Canadian, North American? The man was a Northumbrian Angle, he was not a Saxon. Anglo-Saxon is a generic term for the early English in Britain used for ease, it does not denote which kingdom Cuthbert belonged to, one that had more akin with goidelic Dalriada than the Wessex of Alfred. I'm putting it back. Brendandh (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You need a freaking source. The ODNB specifically states that his background is NOT known, so you need some source that specifically gives him a Northumbrian background before you contest what the ODNB is saying. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just being Northumbrian wouldn't make him an Angle. At that date no-one distinguishes between the alleged tribes any more. No-one. Except you. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

TPSs....
Looking for a pdf of this article if anyone has access? (Roger Norreis) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this article (ignore the french, it's in English). (Also Norreis) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this one (also Norreis) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this one (Roger fitzReinfrid) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First and fourth, do you still have the same email address? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I do. Thank you! JSTOR is great, but it doesn't always cover everything I need... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 8 May 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) 11:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=554173467 your edit] to Crusades may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Something I think we need to address
Following on from the "emperor of the west" discussion I've noticed that we're not consistent in "empire" vs. "Empire". For instance, in the Byzantine survival section we have "... many of the difficulties faced by Justinian's successors were due not just to over-taxation to pay for Justinian's wars but to the essentially civilian nature of the empire, which made raising troops difficult", alongside "the Persians ... managed to control large chunks of the Empire". Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, how many WikiCup points are available for this monumental task? Squillions I hope. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I get 5.6 times for this one. Although to be fair, I'd probably have done it anyway... the subject is pretty near and dear to my heart. And I did want to show that you CAN take a big beefy huge topic article through FAC. And NcoE will be just about as bad... As to the empire thing ... whatever you think is best. (I'm still boggling at the fact that people don't know what the Hagia Sophia is...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we're consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William of Blois (poet)
Hello! Your submission of William of Blois (poet) 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. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages...
...Almost there - just working through it a bit at a time. A tremendous article, btw, I'm deeply impressed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And now it's listed. Fantastic, Ealdgyth, and congratulations on an excellent job. I can't tell you how proud I am that I am on speaking terms (I believe) with an editor like you. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it hasn't passed yet... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops--hope I didn't jinx it. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William de Warenne (justice)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

William of Blois reversion
Crickey that was quick! Actually, I was about to revert myself before reinserting the information down below, but I am happy to leave that to you. In fact it is quite clear his abbey was in Sicily if you follow up the references in Guglielmo di Blois (this one, for instance), or just do a google search on Guglielmo di Blois. By the way, I was also going to wikilink immured, which many of our readers won’t understand: presumably not execution by Immurement, but rather Anchorite.Ian Spackman (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. The Italian Wikipedia also has an article on the Castello di Nelson which incorporated the abbey. English language sources about that must be numerous and might be worth following up. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually the 1962 article on Peter of Blois is pretty clear that the exact abbey that William was abbot of is unclear. It discusses the difficulties in some detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, then our article should reflect that uncertainty. By the way, is it Maniaci or Maniace? Or Matina (as in Abbazia di Santa Maria della Matina, Calabria) which according to William’s Italian wikipedia article is the one identified definitively in Lynn Townsend White, Jr., ‘For the Biography of William of Blois’, in English Historical Review, no. 50, 1935, pp. 487–490. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good freaking gods. Sorry, this stupid little article is eating more of my time per word in the article than my featured article nomination of Middle Ages. A 1962 article would pretty clearly trump 1933 or 1935 articles, wouldn't you say? I'm trying to get to working on the article... but it's pretty busy here in real life ... I can't always get to Wikipedia quickly. The 1962 article states that the exact location of the abbey isn't clear - and builds on the previous articles to point this out. Early articles identified the abbey as Matina but later works don't definitively identify it. I'm still trying to read through the various bits and pieces. Also, when you add sources to an article - it's important that you not disrupt the already existing references - your addition implied that the phrase "in today’s Province of Catania. " was sourced to "Sharpe Handlist of Latin Writers p. 754" which it was not. Also, it's helpful to actually conform to the style of referencing used in the article already when adding information. Also ... "Angelo Monteverdi, ‘Guglielmo’, in Enciclopedia Italiana (1933)." doesn't allow a person to find that source ... we need page numbers and publishers to find things and judge their reliablity. Note that William's authorship of the Alda, which used to be considered solid, isn't quite so solid any more - see Sharpe's Handlist, where it's listed as a possible attribution to William, not as definitive. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment
Hello there. I am messaging you concerning an article you reviewed for GA in March 2009; Dimitri Marick. I have nominated the article for a community reassessment as its current state does not meet the good article criteria. Your opinion would be gladly appreciated. If you get a chance, could you contribute it to the discussion here? Thank you! Regards,  Creativity  97  22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. It's changed greatly since I reviewed it 4 years ago. I think I'll avoid dealing with it, as I generally no longer do fictional GA reviews. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See what I stated in the WP:GA reassessment of the article; it's mostly the same. Its structure was recently changed by Creativity97. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages revisited
Now this has been running 19 days or so, when you have time I'd maybe start working through & saying whose comments you think are all dealt with, & asking them to say what they think. Clearly the support is there, but the FAC is such a tangled monster people will need a bit of shoving now. I think only you should/can do this, but let me know if you disagree. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My son graduates high school this weekend and the stepdaughter is being a crazy teenager at the same time. I hope to find time to deal with the FAC Monday ... I should be able to. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've pinged folks and asked that they revisit. Also whacked on a few more things... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William of Blois (poet)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Once more calling out ...
Anyone have this article? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also - L. R. Buttle "The de Tanys of Stapleford Tawney" Transactions of the Essex Archaelogical Association ns 20 (1930-31) pp. 153-172. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to self - Hasculf de Tany in Roger le Poer. See Keats-Rohan Domesday Descendants p. 730. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ealdgyth, just diving in here but I've got the first of those if you like, if so would you want it sent somehow, or do you just want a quotation, or…? Nortonius (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Email works. Email me first and then I'll reply and you can send it Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Email sent! Nortonius (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It appears I really really need that Essex article... pestilence. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I so know the feeling – I had a rummage for that too, but no good, sorry. I've only seen it for sale, I'm afraid, though I've been known to go that route… I've had some spectacular results via WP:REX, even if it can take a while, but I'm sure you know about that. Good luck anyway! Nortonius (talk) 18:13, 21 May 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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  horses and people who made history

Thank you for expanding our knowledge of exceptional horses, books and people, and their place in history, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (12 November 2008, 10 March 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC) A place in history, such as the Middle Ages: a year ago, you were the 133rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Breckinridge
Political career of John C. Breckinridge, which you reviewed for GA status, is currently languishing near the bottom of the list at FAC with two supports and no opposes. I really don't want it to fail for lack of !votes and have to start the review over. Would you have time to take a look in the next few days? I know it's a holiday weekend, and I may not be around much myself, but if I could get some comments there at least to show the closing admin that it isn't destined to languish in perpetuity, that would help. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Someone else jumped in with a review at the last minute that got it promoted. Still appreciate your quick GA review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Asking again...
This article - any one have access to? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geoffrey Rufus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speculum (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) 12:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Henry I...
I know that he's not your favourite ruler... (!) but if you fancy commenting at Featured_article_candidates/Henry_I_of_England/archive1, I'd value your opinion. :) I'm just beginning the slow, hard slog of pulling together something on Henry III. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Time to request semi-protection on Middle Ages?
As the title says.

And as for the lead image, my view is that it demonstrates the skill of craftsmen working in the early Middle Ages in a way that no later castle or illuminated manuscript could ever do. Eric  Corbett  17:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not at home ... Just brought the tablet with me so I really can't do much beyond check in periodically. Should be available again Wednesday. I'm good with semi protection if you are. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm getting fed up with reverting daft IP edits, so I'll see if I can find a sympathetic admin. Eric   Corbett  19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You rang? BencherliteTalk 20:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, thanks. Eric   Corbett  20:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}