User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 45

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) 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Burchard du Puiset
The article Burchard du Puiset you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Burchard du Puiset for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Stalkers...
Anyone find me this article from Northern History in 2006? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have mail. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the reference tags
Thanks for fixing the reference tags for Hugh de Grandmesnil. I will look at how you structured it to learn so I don't make the same mistake again.24.11.170.191 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Walter de Clare
The DYK project (nominate) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Monroe Edwards
Harrias talk 03:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry of the Godwins
Hi Ealdgyth. Any feedback at Peer review/Ancestry of the Godwins/archive1 gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking now... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth, That's very helpful. BTW Norman Conquest does redirect to the English one. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, it used to not (or so my aged brain seems to think... it could be wrong) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And again
Your favorite thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mustang#Capitalisation_of_Mustang   Montanabw (talk)  06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NOt walking into that one .. ugh. If that makes me chicken... bwwagawkkk.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. (But yes, you ARE chicken) But hey, JLAN an I are on the same side, so really, it's at least worth getting out your popcorn!  Montanabw (talk)  22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did enough nasty crap last year with the whole Bulgarian-sockpuppet stuff at Middle Ages to fill my quota of "in the trenches" for years... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, it never fucking ends. Dig in and help your friends, eh.  Email me any time you need a hand and I'll be glad to help. But now we have someone at the Mustang dab wanting everything to go do parenthetical dab.  I'm so sick of this bullshit.  I'm seriously ready to fucking quit.  Sick of these stupid trolls who live in their mommy's basement and have no life other than to trash content contributors . Fuck them all.  Montanabw (talk)  03:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter de Clare
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walter de Clare 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) 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

William Pantulf DYK Nom
Hello, I reviewed your nom at DYK. It looks great and meets standards but I had one small question about the article. Please see it here. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter de Clare
The article Walter de Clare you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walter de Clare for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Peter de Maulay
Harrias talk 13:14, 25 January 2015 (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) 05:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict
Well, I know you hate conflict, but Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) has a dab move that really does need your input. I lost the capitalization battle at Mustang and I am frankly terrified at what that can of worms may open. If I have to keep fighting these battles for quality control all my myself, I may just give it up - if no one else actually cares - why should I?  Montanabw (talk)  02:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have input to offer there... I have no opinion. I long ago decided that I wouldn't get worried about DAB practices - because otherwise I'd never get anything done. Trust me, if I did, I'd have to worry about a lot of crap that's just as petty as the stupid MOS crap that comes around. It's better for my blood pressure. I truly do not have an opinion on things... and it's not a good idea to get drawn into supporting folks just because you like one side's people better. True "quality control" is the content. While presentation is important - the real fight needs to be over the content... making sure it's NPOV and correct. If some idiot who never really contributes content but just kibbitzes from the sidelines about trivial presentation issues swoops in and makes a mess... put up a fight but if you lose, oh, well, it's the content that matters. And chances are good you'll outlast the kibbitzer anyway... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, on this dab, the drama is now over parenthetical disambiguation after we all spent years getting 400 breed articles to be consistent and someone wanted to start that all up again, arguing that "Mustang horse" is a "made up name." But if you don't want to poke the hornet's nest, I do understand and you don't have to care.  But sad to say, too many kibbitzers seem to have more staying power than I'd wish.  Not all, but enough to be annoying, and I know about the blood pressure thing.  And it's a particularly hard fight to fight without allies against a herd of orcs or trolls or whatever.    Montanabw (talk)  06:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Help???
Anyone have this article from a book? Brepols has a pdf online... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

John Appleton
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for looking at the GAN for John Appleton - I was leaving this for to respond to as he is both the inspiration behind the article and its single largest contributor of content. Unfortunately Michael seems to have stopped editing on January 5.

It's been a couple of weeks since your review, and the time for comments is well and truly up. But if possible, can I request that the review be left open another couple of days? I did the peer review for this article last year and still have the sources somewhere about the place. If I dig these out again I can hopefully address the points you raise. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant to fail that - I even put that on the review page ... but it appears to have not been totally finished. HOw about I finish off that detail and you find and fix the issues, and ping me when you renominate it. I'll do a second review then. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems, thanks. I agree the article needs some work. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On your "copy edit"
Hi, a few months ago I put some information into the article on the Gregorian mission. You removed the information but seemed to have accidentally typed in the edit summary that it was a copy edit. Could you explain why you removed it? Bosstopher (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure... sometimes glitches happen. However, looking at it... what does it really tell us about the mission itself or the cult of the saints involved in the mission? It might be useful an article on Gregory - but it's a very poor fit where it is. It's tacked on to the information about saints cults ...it's not clear what "instructions" it is referring to - since the paragraph is concerning Bede's approach to Gregory's imputus to the mission - nothing about Gregory's instructions is mentioned there. Also - if Gregory's instructions were really considered canon law by the AS church - why the hell did they not move the archiepiscopal see to London? (And later allow a third archbishopric?) I've never seen anyone else say that the instructions were considered canon law by the AS church ... Lastly - and this is a pet peeve - it's a featured article. Is it THAT difficult for people to actually conform the citations to the style used in the article ... rather than just putting it in however? The article has a pretty clear style - short citations with author's last name, short title of the work and page numbers in the text and then a fuller reference in the references section. It makes more work for the editors maintaining a featured article (which must have a consistent citation style) if folks can't be bothered to at least try. All in all - it's not a very good fit. I'm not sure why you thought it fit there well at all. (And it would fit better in an article on Gregory than in the mission article also). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. Really sorry about the citation thing, it completley failed to occur to me at the time. The edit was the result of trawling through old essay notes trying to find something to put into wikipedia, which I guess isn't really the best way to go about editing. I guess I'll try and trudge up the book I got that from, and see if i can find more information on it to put in the Gregory article instead. Bosstopher (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * When I worked up the mission article - I think I read just about everything I could find on the subject. I'm sure I missed minor mentions in some works but... I read a lot. And I've worked on a lot of articles in the time period, so while it's not a specialty (I like the Anglo-Norman period better), it's an area I'm pretty familiar with. I'd have run across the idea of it being canon law if it was a common theme. It's not a big worry - but I maintain a number of featured articles and good articles and it's just ... a lot of work... when you've got so much to watch out for. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That time again...
Anyone have access to this from PNAS? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * New Scientist?
 * Also from New Scientist? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparantly I like New Scientist. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nos. 3 and 4 on their way to you (unless you've changed your email address?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NOpe, got them. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style
Any comments on Hermeneutic style at Peer review/Hermeneutic style/archive1 gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try. I owe a FA review for Edward II also... ugh. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

RS Question
Hey Ealdgyth, where does http://www.theequinest.com sit in the realm of WP:RS for wiki? This question per. Seems we had issues about using the site, but I can't recall why. Help? Montanabw (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say ... no. The about page doesn't give names or anything. Looks like a personal site to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for William Pantulf
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2015 (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) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Brace for drama
And you are going to be in on this one, dearie! See Someone reverted this individual and warned him, but if s/he wants to kick up a fuss, well lovely. ;-)  Montanabw (talk)  18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. And by the way, you rock!   Montanabw (talk)  03:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a hypocrite!
Regarding your edits in the Lipizzan article: A few weeks, ago you insisted on the alphabetical ordering of languages with the following revision note:

"alphabetize - so it's fair to all the various countries"

Fair enough. Yet when I alphabetized the breeding associations, you reverted the edit with the following comment:

"nationalistic "must have first" ordering"'

However, the only difference between the two alphabetized lists was that you apparently didn't like the resulting order of the alphabetized list in the second instance. In other words, you only seems to care about "principles" when they go your way. You truly are a disgrace to Wikipedia.

(Oh, and you managed to revert three other, undisputed revisions simply to prove your point.)--LJU2ORD (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Ealdgyth, this editor has also dragged me to ANI over this: [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Pattern_of_abusive_behavior_from_Montanabw]   Montanabw (talk)  19:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was probably my fault. I warned him about personal attacks, and when he complained about the two of you I told him I wasn't concerned about that and he could take it to ANI if he thought he had a case.  Sorry. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oh, good gods. Go away. Austria comes before Slovenia. Trying to make sure that Slovenia is first (and also removing the "now" in "via the Lipica stud that is now located within its borders") shows that it's just more of the same that is so frequent at this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries from my end, the ANI closed and the user posted at article talk. Made me do some research I'd kind of wanted to do anyway.  What to do with it, unsure, but at least it's now out there.   Montanabw (talk)  00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)