User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 44

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 03:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  Geoffrey (archbishop of York), which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 12 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fae's question
How embarrassing to have missed that - Real life has been a bit busy but I was sure I was watching that page. I'm a supporter of LGBT issues although rarely involved in them. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion of my edit to Geoffrey (archbishop of York)
Hello, Ealdgyth. I think you may have misinterpreted my intention in adding the template to the article in question. You are certainly correct that the template isn't necessary; however, the Manual of Style clearly states the abbreviation "c." should not be italicized: "To indicate approximately, the abbreviation c. (followed by a space and not italicized) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx." My reason for adding the template, then, was to remove the improper italicization. I also believe the template is preferable to a wikilink, as hovering over the term reveals for what the abbreviation stands, thereby saving the user a click. Thank you. —zziccardi (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And i utterly detest the template because it's not intuitive that hovering over it WOULD give you something different. If you want to remove the italics ... that's one thing, but templates are just a pain in the behind for this sort of thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside - the italics indicate a loan-word/foreign word that might not be familiar to the reader - so ... we remove the italics because the reader is supposed to be familiar with the word because it's become so common in normal English usage - but then insist on inserting a silly template that puts a weird underscore under the word (which we do for no other word as far as I'm aware) because we need to tell the reader what the word means? Which is it? Are they familiar with the word so it doesn't need italics or is it so arcane that we have to use a template to explain it to them?? Something doesn't make sense there... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, again. Yes, I believe the italics should be removed, but if you'd rather keep the link, that's fine by me. As for the template, I disagree that hovering over the term is unintuitive. The template simply implements the  element, which has been a standard component of HTML for some time now. And as for the italics, yes, I'd agree with you that they should be used whenever a foreign word or term is introduced. I'd say circa is an exception to that practice, though, as it's now a commonly used English word. —zziccardi (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So since it's a commonly used term - we can just link to the article on it rather than use a template. (grins). Feel free to remove the italics - I was taught (and still see it used often) so I don't feel like its removal is needed, but I never edit war over the removal of the italics - I do object to the insertion of that damned template. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no problem with the link; it's only compliance with the MOS that I find obligatory. Cheers. —zziccardi (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bastard
Thank you for Geoffrey (archbishop of York), "not noted for his saintly restraint nor his even temper. ... the sheer number of disputes made the chronology much more tortured than usual", -  precious  again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on yet another fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

 * I second all of that. Happy Holidays, horse and bishop person, from the sf magazine, radiocarbon dating, and one-time Anglo-Saxon kings person.  Maybe this year we'll do more work on Bede! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How many years have we been saying we'll work on Bede?? Probably too many but... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message Ealdgyth, very much appreciated! The same to you and yours! Nortonius (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

German Crusade
Because I thought this summary of the German crusade was a stub, I felt the need to improve it. You recently reverted a improved edit under the claim of "not in source given". It is obvious you did not read the article or summary before you made this claim. I wrote:

"Emperor Henry VI of the Swabian dynasty began preparations to launch a German Crusade in 1195. The crusade began as a result of Henry VI's father, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, nullifying his own attempt at a Crusade. Henry VI called for a Crusade years after his fathers called off attempt"

Here is my evidence of why it was wrongly reverted:

1. Emperor Henry IV "of the Swabian dynasty" (my edit)

The linked article claims "Crusade of Henry VI (German: Kreuzzug Heinrichs VI.) or the German Crusade (Deutscher Kreuzzug) was a crusade launched by the Hohenstaufen emperor Henry VI".

The house of Hohenstaufen can be refereed to as the Swabian dynasty (both are correct). It was where Henry VI ruled. The German Crusade article clearly states it. I suggest you read the [[House of hohenstaufen article.

2."The crusade began as a result of Henry VI's father, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, nullifying his own attempt at a Crusade. Henry VI called for a Crusade years after his fathers called off attempt" (my edit)

The linked article claims "a crusade launched by the Hohenstaufen emperor Henry VI in response to the aborted attempt of his father, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa during the Third Crusade in 1189–90." All I did to change it was replace the word 'abort' with 'nullify'. The important information here is that Henry VI launched it in response to his fathers attempt.

Again, it is obvious you did not read the article before reverting my edit. All I did was summarize (like the article is meant for) an accompanying article correctly.

Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd better have read the article since I wrote a large chunk of it's content and sourced the section you're just referencing. I went to the book that's given as a citation (for the Crusades article) and actually checked what it says. It doesn't give any of these details. Wikipedia articles are not reliable for other wikipedia articles, so what the German Crusades article says has no relevance to what you're trying to insert into a sourced sentence. And all this belongs on the talk page of the article - not my talk page. Bring it up there... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings
Thanks, Merry Christmas and best wishes to you too for the New Year. Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year
Happy new year and happy editing for 2015 from the Anglo-Saxon and nature reserves bod. I see Battle of Hastings has not been a TFA and I think it would be good to get it on there next year. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays (unillustrated)
Thanks for the greetings. I hadn't noticed that you and I share the same tastes in reading. Have you read the new Weber book A Call to Duty: Book I of Manticore Ascendant? I just found the compilation of his Dahak series on my Kindle and am working through them. And I must read Brin's Existence, is it good? Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought Call of Duty was .. okay. There were some canon-breaking moments and the whole book didn't grab me as much as Honor or Safehold does. And in theory he's going to do more Dahak. I've been waiting on that for years and years. I haven't read Existence - it's on my list of "soon"... but I keep getting pulled away for medieval history. (Trivia - my first husband is red-shirted in Torch of Freedom - so I've been reading Honorverse wayyyyy too long... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A while at least. I enjoy listening to the Honorverse stuff via Audiobooks. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Found this YouTube video] about Existence and bought the audible book.. Thanks to you. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I read Existence earlier this year. I found it quite intriguing; Brin is at his best coming up with stuff no one else has come up with yet, and he did so here.  Interesting ffod for thought, though perhaps not as elegantly written as Startide Rising.  Worthwhile read.   Montanabw (talk)  04:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 13:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monroe Edwards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consumption. 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) 11:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year/William FitzRalph
Happy new year Ealdgyth, thanks for all your work that I've seen over the past couple of weeks as I've been editing for the first time. I've just created my first article which is up for review at the moment on William FitzRalph, the father of Robert FitzRalph. In that latter article you wrote that William was the former sheriff of Nottingham (or at least the High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and the Royal Forests). Neither your article or the page on the former High Sheriffs contains a reliable source for this, which I am searching for. The only mention of William being the high sheriff is found here. Could you perhaps let me know where you found evidence that this had been his position so that I can use it in my article? Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The source for the sheriff bit is here in the footnote to Ralph's entry. The Fasti is pretty much a solid source for this information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm blind, I've already seen that but apparently ignored the bit I needed. Thanks for the help. SamWilson989 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NO worries. I find as I get older that for some reason all the type keeps shrinking...Let me know when your draft is mostly done and I'll give it a look over (and try to figure out the review process) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been searching for some extra info on William and I've found a couple of websites that include some other information. However I'm unsure on their reliability and wondered what you thought of them. First, Second, Third. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First two are not reliable at all. Third is just the second one. Let me see what I have through JSTOR. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try this, this, and this. If you don't have JSTOR access - email me through wikipedia and I'll send you the articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, I've completed the draft with the information from those sources and I believe the draft is now complete, or at least to some degree. I would really appreciate you reviewing it, either formally so it can become an article in its own right, or informally so I can continue to improve it.SamWilson989 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leofric (fl. 1070), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bourne. 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) 08:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Burchard du Puiset
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burchard du Puiset you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)