User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 51

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) 00:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"English words were criminalised as profanity"
It's funny how, at first glance, something looks just a bit off and then the more you think about it the more outrageous it becomes. Like this pair of edits, now safely reverted. I don't know much about the linguistic landscape of 11th- and 12th-century England, but the division between Norman-speaking court and government on the one hand, and English-speaking peasantry on the other, makes such claims at the very least suspect.

Anyway, I've made a few small edits (a couple of which I had first considered two years ago, when I actually read the article), though I'm stuck at the hated "figure. Figures" problem in the third sentence of #Norman preparations and forces. I try to avoid such repetition whenever possible, hard though it sometimes is (especially with names), but anything I consider adding between the two words ends up looking like padding (or indeed, a failure of a pudding). Also, if you could please have a look at this? I'm pretty sure I've got the meaning right, but it can really confuse people, especially foreigners unaccustomed to using the same word for a royal court and a court of law (concepts quite distinct in the modern era). Waltham, The Duke of 14:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * well... at that time, there wasn't a series of stand-alone royal courts for justice. Under William and his immediate sucessors - the ultimate "court of appeal" was the royal court/entourage. The system of courts in ASE was more a framework for temporary courts empanelled as needed. I've changed the sentence to end "and a justice system based on local and regional tribunals existed to secure the rights of free men." which is wordier but also makes the distinction clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's why on some occasions it's better to be timid and defer to those who know what they are talking about. I am somewhat familiar with the later structures, of assizes and quarter sessions in the shires and the various royal courts in Westminster (as well as a spattering of ecclesiastical, Admiralty and other courts), and even remember something about mediaeval manorial courts, court leets and the like, but the Anglo-Saxon system I know next to nothing about. Thank you very much for the prompt response. Waltham, The Duke of 15:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Monroe Edwards
I've left a few comments on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 24 September 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) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello there
Salve! Guten morgen! Hallo! I just wanted to say I've seen you a few times around the Wiki and I'm a fan of your profile. However, I wasn't sure whether to bring this up or not, but it sometimes seems like you are a bit revert-happy or protective of your area of expertise. I mean, that's understandable because I'm likely the same way. Maybe it's also my relative newness. However, neutralwise I think we should work together more because I love the Middle Ages and I think I can provide an interesting Eastern Christian view to certain articles like Harold II of England. I think the synthesis would be interesting and I also could use some help. Is that OK?--Sιgε &#124;д･) 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of reliable sources and using them. And providing edit summaries and page numbers so others can check your sources. You should always use an edit summary... and always use reliable sources. We don't do "synthesis" - we report what the sources say. On Harold - we go by what the sources say - if a biography of Harold gives the Eastern Orthodox view of Harold, then that's a good indication that it needs to be in the article. But if most biographies don't cover the information .. it's probably a good sign that the information isn't relevant in the article. The idea of Howarth's that the Norman Conquest of England was a conspiracy between the papacy and William the Conqueror is generally not considered important by other historians and certainly shouldn't be stated as fact in Harold's article. Attributing it to Howarth MIGHT be allowed, but it might be WP:UNDUE also. David Armine Howarth is a popular writer, not a historian and his ideas are not always endorsed by historians, which means they need to be used carefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm? Oh, I didn't intend to insert it as fact. That's why I wrote it that it was considered such by some theologians and devoted Orthodox. I think that is an interesting and relevant perspective on modern discourse on Harold. I've actually been conversing with others about the topic, and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus; however British converts to Orthodoxy (which seems to be on the rise lately), some of them seem interested in this. I don't know if this will be talked about in the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Synod but I doubt it. Can you help me reword and source this, please?--Sιgε &#124;д･) 15:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, though, whether it's discussed at an Orthodox Synod doesn't affect whether or not it's undue weight. We're a generalist encyclopedia - we don't cover every single aspect of subjects. We base our coverage of what goes into an article on the sources themselves. If the biographies of Harold mention information, that's a good indication we should include it. The two most recent biographies of Harold are Walker's Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King and Rex's Harold II: The Doomed Saxon King. Rex doesn't mention anything about Orthodox views of Harold in his lengthy treatment of the aftermath of Harold's death. Walker discusses the cultus that developed at Waltham around Harold, but nothing is mentioned about Orthodoxy there either. He does mention Harold's daughter Gytha's marriage to a Russian prince and the outcome from that but nothing about Orthodoxy there either. It's just not important to the historians there (as an aside, neither Rex nor Walker use Howarth's work as a source, which makes his ideas even less noteworthy in the article.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Generalist we may be, but we should also at least provide a passing mention of interesting or notable viewpoints and historical perspectives, and this isn't that polemical or controversial. Also, I found these links but I can't inspect them on this work computer. Sources?
 * http://www.annunciationscranton.org/files/PDF/104_THE_FALL_OF_ORTHODOX_ENGLAND.pdf.
 * http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20FALL%20OF%20ORTHODOX%20ENGLAND%205X8.htm
 * I would appreciate any help. I believe Orthodoxy is greatly ignored via Wikipedia's often Western revisionist mindset (see WP:BIAS), I've had to tediously edit hundreds of pre-Schism saints' articles to include their mere existence of veneration by the Church. It's painful.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Same source - who is Vladimir Moss? What sorts of credentials does he have as a historian or researcher that makes his (appearantly) self-published article on the web a reliable source? He appears to be this person, who is not a historian, but a pscyhologist now turned to Orthodox writings. In short, he's not going to be reliable for this information. Googling things does not make them reliable. Reliable sources are covered at WP:RS and we favor academic works over popular historians which are more reliable than self-published works on the internet. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I need to ask more on my forum about it when I get home. I believe I can get more sources and/or verification for this. For the meanwhile, if you could help me with this I believe that would be a blessing.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 15:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am helping you. I'm not sure why you think that upholding the sourcing standards isn't "helping" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I meant like something else. I'm posting on the forum and researching responses.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Easy Jet
It's your FA, it might be useful to offer an opinion one way or the other. I'm not going to go to the mat over this, either, but I think you should express a view. Just like the fight over whether Mustang was the horse or the car, I think that defending the earlier, non-millions of popular Google hits position, is worth at least throwing in your two bits. Offering an opinion doesn't mean you have to go to the mat or waste a lot of bandwidth... and not offering an opinion often does nothing to settle the matter. Montanabw (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion though. It's not like it's that big a deal for the title to have "horse" after it. From your statement, I'm getting the impression that you think that a title not being "primary" somehow diminishes the article or the subject, and I don't share that opinion. It really does not matter to me, as long as the names stay stable. Titles, as long as people find the term they want, don't matter in the end, the content of the article matters. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In some respects, you are right. I'm just getting very tired of the WP:RECENTISM and the anti-rural, anti-agriculture tone I see on wiki. If you truly don't care, then it's not really a battle I'm going to fight on your behalf, then.   Montanabw (talk)  17:38, 15 October 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) 00:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Middle Ages page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=687493844 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F687493844%7CMiddle Ages%5D%5D Ask for help])

Lad...
Your tagging is getting a bit excessive. You're laying down templates and elitely modifying style, but you are not adding any content. In fact, I have not seen you do any of it. I love sources myself, and I know Christianity may be out of your personal expertise, but if you could help find sources for obvious statements such as sainthood that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you; remember, this Project is collaborative, not an empire. P.S. Nice horses.--Sige &#124;д･) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you stop speculating on my religious beliefs or lack thereof. I've done plenty of adding of content - most of the articles you're editing on medieval English bishops were either started or heavily edited by myself. If I was seriously concerned with your additions, I could remove them. Adding a "citation needed" tag is actually a very polite way of handling someone consistently adding unsourced information. Unsourced information can just be deleted - the onus is on the person adding the information to add sources. It isn't someone else's job to do that. The solution to me adding tags is for you to add sources when you add information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you don't like to learn new things? I mean most of these articles aren't even aware of the Great Schism.--Sige &#124;д･) 18:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally do NOT add "religion" parameters to infoboxes because they are misleading in the early time period. The bishops would be considered "Catholic" by most historians - but people come in and fight over whether they are just "Christian" or "Celtic Christian" or whatever. It's not worth the bother. As long as it doesn't say "Buddhist" - I leave the infobox religion parameter alone and worry about actual important things like dates and where they were bishops of. The articles don't NEED to reflect the Great Schism - because the subjects existed before it. (And would you QUIT speculating on other editors. You do NOT need to say "So you're saying you don't like to learn new things?" - that's just plain irrelevant commentary on another editor. Please cut it out.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically - the infoboxes should state "Christian" because "Catholic" or "Orthodox" or "Anglican" or whatever are denominations, not religions. But ... again, it's not worth fighting about. As long as it's some sorta correct variety of Christian for the time period, I don't wrangle over the religion infobox parameter. It's the same treatment I give all the "Language: Name" stuff or the IPA pronuciations - it's not worth bothering about. I won't put it in, but I won't take it out unless it's grossly off-topic. (If someone puts in the Italian language name of William the Conqueror - I'll remove it, as it's not relevant to his article, as an example.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's my fault for assuming people are as involved in this subject as I was. Please understand "Catholic" is a polemical and contested title -- I recommend reading some books by Kallistos Ware, I think you'd find the insight quite interesting!--Sige &#124;д･) 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Catholic is also the term that most historians would use to describe the church then, or you can use "christian" - but "catholic" is used much more than "chalcedonian christian" in historican writing on the period. That some small set of people find something polemical does not make it polemical. The views of a modern Orthodox theologian are not exactly germane to early medieval Anglo-Saxon episcopal history, quite honestly. The best sources for the various bishops are .. historians who specialize in the period. And, as I pointed out above, I'm not the one concerned about the "religion" parameters here - I'd wipe them out or replace them with "Christian", which has the advantage of being an actual religion rather than a denominational description. I'll note that I'm quite involved in medieval English history - it's something I studied in college and have continued to keep up with past college. Never have I seen a pre-Conquest bishop described as "Chalcedonian Christianity" nor does the Great Schism get much treatment by historians of Anglo-Saxon England (for good reason since it had little impact on even the ecclesiastical history of England, much less secular topics. The only real impact that what-became-Orthodox-Christianity has on England is through Theodore of Tarsus and Hadrian of Canterbury.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, I think you are being quite ignorant of the already-large and rising amount of Orthodox Christians who live in the west. I don't even mean those Orthodox living in Britain proper - many even ethnically "Eastern" Orthodox look up to and venerate the pre-Schism Western saints. Also, I would say many of the "Old English Orthodox Church" - to quote Met. Vlachos - had profound effects upon the faith. Remember the Synod of Whitby and Council of Hatfield, for example, had repercussions shocking back all the way back to Rome and Constantinople. Christendom was far more interconnected despite the slow communications, and indeed it is only recently that It is merely a logistical and cultural tragedy that Orthodoxy had shunned the West for a long time. And you know what? I agree "Chalcedonian Christianity" is an awkward term; but in my research of resoources it is the most accurate. ALSO, referring from those saints venerated in the Chalcedonian Churches who lived in the period from the Council of Chalcedon to the Great Schism as merely "Christian" is ignorant and misguiding, at it would imply those saints were in communion with Oriental Orthodoxy, who did NOT accept Chalcedon. This is very important and OOs do not like to be confused with EOs. Know what I mean?--Sige &#124;д･) 22:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue to assume things about my personal beliefs or knowledge. You've been asked to stop making things personal, and you continue to make them personal. There is no need for that. You do not know what I know or what I do not know. Until you can understand that .. it's really very frustrating to discuss anything with you, because everything becomes a personal comment. Until you can stop that, I don't see the point in further conversation. I have very carefully avoided making any assumptions about what you may or may not know or why you may or may not be editing the way you are. Please learn to return the favor, because quite honestly, being told that you think I"m being ignorant about something is an extremely nasty attack, in the WP:NPA type. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, I actually didn't mean any assumption that time. I guess that's the way I talk I apologize. I usually don't talk much.--Sige &#124;д･) 22:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ehhhhh, nevermind sorry for wasting your time I'm just rambling--Sige &#124;д･) 22:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Up your alley
Not a death struggle, but you probably can shed enlightenment on this: Talk:Master_of_the_Horse. Montanabw (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh.... no? The title isn't really medieval, and my knowledge of Roman history is much less .... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's beyond my expertise too, titles for officials of European royalty not really my thing... but no worries.  Montanabw (talk)  05:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 1, 2015
Ealdgyth, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have given you the new template user precious again but as you despise them say in prose that your article article Barbara L is precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wilfrid
? Riggwelter (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the images alternate - one on the left, one on the right, next on the left, etc. You altered that, I restored the original alternation scheme. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * K. Riggwelter (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Saddling up
The day Barbara L is TFA, American Pharoah wins the classic and we get him (and his picture) on the main page for ITN. Oct 31-Nov 1 was a VERY horsey day! Hooray! Montanabw (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)