User talk:Eltheodigraeardgesece

General
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wulfstan
Thanks for your edits to Wulfstan, but could you try to follow the referencing system already in use there? If you need help, i'll be glad to show you how to set the references up, but the article is a Good Article, and I'd like to keep the references system consistent. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NO worries at all! Wikipedia is a wild place when you're new. How to reply to me directly, just click on the talk link right after my name, and it'll take you to my talk page which you can edit just like a normal page. Best bet is to click edit, scroll to the bottom of the page, put in a line of header text ==Subject== like that and then type a message to me. You can then sign it with the little four tildes ~ and that's how you use a talk page. You can do so on Wulfstan's page also, just click up at the top of Wulfstan's page on the discussion tag, which will take you to the talk page for the article, where you can do the above stuff to reply to any messages. That help, I hope? I really really appreciate ANYONE editing on the bishops, it's always great to have others help out. Just need to try and keep things looking consistent, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wulfstan Refs
Ealdgyth, I would like to do a thorough checking and clean-up of the sources for Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York, but I am not very proficient with the template reference system that you use. I would prefer to do it all 'free-hand', though I respect that you may have reasons for preferring the template style. If you could direct me to a cheat sheet on how to properly use the reference templates, I would be happy to learn. On the other hand, if it doesn't concern you too much, I would love to just re-type all the references without the templates. Whatever you decide, I like the "notes + references" approach so I'll keep that. BTW: any thoughts on separating Wulfstan's works into its own article? I would love to see this, but then I am a little Wulfstan-crazy and realize it may be unwarranted. I am also aware that the long list I added to the Wulfstan article is a little ridiculous; couldn't help myself.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, and the commendation, Ealdgyth. Cheers.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Split off of works article
I split the list of works off, it's at Works of Wulfstan of York. I just moved over some of the refs that I thought applied, and the long list as well as formatting it a bit better. Feel free to tweak it! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Hey...I recognize your name from somewhere. Like possibly you are someone I know in real life? I can't place it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam. This is Michael Elliot. Aren't we both students at CMS? We've taken at least one class together (was it diplomatics?). I thought I recognized your name as well. I haven't seen you around for some time. Hope your studies are going well.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course! I just saw your e-mail address in that palaeography note from Lawrin the other day. Things are going pretty well, I passed my major field exam last month, so I should start thesis-writing soon. How are your studies going? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Things are well with me, although I could do to tone down my newly-discovered enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia articles - this shit takes up a lot of ones time, time better spent on other things. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. By the way, are you interested in helping to collate the Rhabanus text? I signed up.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like fun but I am already swamped, I don't have time to add something else, unfortunately. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Vulstanus
A tag has been placed on Vulstanus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Unforgiven24 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Stuttgart quadripartita 3vs.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Stuttgart quadripartita 3vs.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Collectio canonum Wigorniensis
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

I wanted to let you know it seems an article you worked on, Collectio canonum Wigorniensis, is copied from another Wikipedia page, Collectio Wigorniensis. It's fine to do this as long as you provide the following information in the edit summary:


 * 1) a link to the article you copied from
 * 2) the date you copied it

You can do this now by editing the page, making any minor edit to the article, and adding the above information into the edit summary.

If you're still not sure how to fix the problem, please leave a message at the help desk. It's possible that I made a mistake, so feel free to remove the tag I placed on the article.

Thanks again for helping build the free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602634842 your edit] to Paenitentiale Ecgberhti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ], Bibliothèque municipale, MS 368 (A. 27) (written first half of eleventh century in Cornwall), at fols 176v–178v (with Ghaerbald's Capitula episcoporum I appended) as part of the so-called
 * of Spelman's reprint of the Paenitentiale additivum Pseudo-Bedae–Ecgberhti (Google Books)]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602643185 your edit] to Paenitentiale Ecgberhti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ], Bibliothèque municipale, MS 368 (A. 27) (written first half of eleventh century in Cornwall), at fols 176v–178v (with Ghaerbald's Capitula episcoporum I appended) as part of the so-called
 * *****[J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, ] LXXXIX, cols 413–454, reprinting

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602748486 your edit] to Handbook for a Confessor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The title Handbook for a Confessor also Old English Handbook, or in full, 'Late Old English Handbook for the Use of a

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=605400056 your edit] to Paenitentiale Theodori may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. 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]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=605522923 your edit] to Paenitentiale Theodori may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. 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]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Collections of ancient canons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Channel, Norman, Conquest and West Saxon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paenitentiale Theodori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heiligenkreuz (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) 09:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks! I basically just cut-and-paste a section from my dissertation. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Collectio canonum Quesnelliana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pippin (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) 10:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609457952 your edit] to Libellus responsionum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * F. Kaltenbrunner (to a. 590), P. Ewald (to a. 882), S. Löwenfeld (to a. 1198) (Leipzig, 1885–1888)] . It is edited by P. Ewald and L.M. Hartmann in [http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Paenitentiale Theodori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Communion, Deposition, Romans, Reconciliation, Idols and Culpable

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Libellus responsionum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Libellus responsionum 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 Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Libellus responsionum
The article Libellus responsionum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Libellus responsionum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not received a response to my comments on 5 July at Talk:Libellus responsionum/GA1. Do you intend to pursue this? It would be a pity to have to fail a fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do, Dudley. I am currently working on the revisions now. Apologies for my tardiness. I've been away. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Æthelstan A
I have Æthelstan A at peer review and should be grateful for any comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to look it over this afternoon! Though I should say in advance that the subject lies a ways outside of my specialty.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Libellus responsionum
The article Libellus responsionum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Libellus responsionum 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 Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Libellus responsionum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Eltheodigraerdgesece, nice work--I didn't even expect to find this article existing, never mind as a GA. But I have a question/comment or two. I don't see a discussion of the manuscript tradition, though they're listed in the infobox--and that's how I came to the article in the first place since I'm reading Rob Meens's "The Oldest Manuscript Witness of the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis" (on Kopenhagen KB 58), but without such a section there's really no good place to stick it. (It's first half of the eighth century.) Second, I am a bit confused at the reference sections--I see Deneasly and Grosjean cited in the notes but not listed in the references. I think also that the importance of their article should be played up a bit, and I note that Meens is hardly as categorical as our article is, saying it's "probably genuine". Finally, I have a bit of an issue with the last paragraph of the "Controversy over authenticity" section. I think we cannot say (in Wikipedia's voice) that "Deanesly and Grosjean's thesis was successfully refuted by the textual work of Paul Meyvaert", with a citation to Meyvaert; something similar applies to the last sentence, about Ubl, which needs a citation as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies. Thanks for the feedback. I'm very happy to hear you're interested in the LR! Please feel free to update the Wiki article as you see fit, and please do insert additional references wherever you feel they are necessary. Before you make any major changes, however, I would ask that you review an article I published recently on this subject (https://www.academia.edu/5047427/Boniface_Incest_and_the_Earliest_Extant_Version_of_Pope_Gregory_I_s_Libellus_responsionum_JE_1843_) wherein I demonstrate the problems with previous research on the LR, and attempt to draw an outline of its early transmission history based on a fresh look at the manuscript evidence. There you will find many of the claims in the Wiki page (including the one about the LR's genuine-ness) are backed up by fuller references, including references to Meens's article and, more importantly, Meyvaert's. Meyvaert's collective research on the LR, while far from perfect (or complete; due to illness, he was unfortunately never able to bring his project to completion) does indeed undermine virtually every conclusion reached by Deanesly and Grosjean concerning the textual (manuscript) history of the LR. I'm sure the Wiki page could benefit from additional references to Deanesly/Grosjean's opinions on the literary character of the LR, but their opinions on its textual history are to be treated with extreme caution, if not avoided altogether. As for Meens's article, his speculation about the possible origins of Copenhagen 58 are interesting, though ultimately unprovable. I have studied this manuscript in detail (my transcription of it can be found here: http://individual.utoronto.ca/michaelelliot/manuscripts/texts/transcriptions/copenhagen58.pdf) and written about it at length in both the above-mentioned article and in my dissertation (https://www.academia.edu/4591285/Canon_Law_Collections_in_England_ca_600_1066_The_Manuscript_Evidence), where I come to quite different conclusions about its origins than do Meens and Deanesly/Grosjean. As for the absence in the Wiki page of a discussion of the manuscript tradition: I heartily agree that the page requires this, and I am currently researching just this subject. But the textual history of the LR is *enormously* complex. Meyvaert's papers provide a starting point, but by no means an exhaustive survey of the subject. A full treatment of the LR's textual tradition will not be possible until we understand the traditions of several other canon law collections and penitentials (especially the Paenitentiale Theodori) more closely. In the meantime, perhaps a simple list of manuscripts that contain the LR would be a useful addition to the article. I have begun assembling such a list but have not had time to insert the info into the article. Perhaps you would be interested in helping with this? It may be many years before we have anything like an exhaustive lit of manuscript witnesses, but it wouldn't hurt to start collecting them online now. It is my understanding that Meyvaert possessed a nearly complete list of witnesses, and that, after he became ill, he passed this list (along with all of his other incomplete research) on to Rob Meens, who has promised to complete what Meyvaert started. Perhaps we could solicit Meens to post this list, or parts thereof. Please let me know what you think about this or any other subject relating to the LR. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Eltheodig..., thanks for your note. Please explain something to me: that Academia link is to the entire diss? Because, you know, there's the publication in Zeitschrift Der Savigny-Stiftung Für Rechtsgeschichte--that's a condensed version? (I suppose I may not completely understand what Academia is...!) Now, I cannot claim to be any kind of expert on the LR, though I know a bit about Saint B. The Savigny article is on my desk, on a stack of recent material acquired through ILL, and I hope to get to it in the next days or weeks. In the meantime, though, citing from the Savigny article might help the text after note 49, since of course it's peer-reviewed and can then take the place of note 55, for instance. (You're citing and writing in academic mode: in academic mode you have the authority to make the claim that has footnote 55; in Wikipedia mode that requires a secondary reference, and you can use the Savigny article for that. I find myself working the other way around: when I'm working on an article I have to consciously step out of Wikipedia mode.) Anyway, again, I'm no expert here, but I have found that Meens is a very friendly person and quickly accessible via email; finding him online is easy. Thanks again, and thanks also for lending your expertise to Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Academia link is to the entire diss; and the Zeitschrift article is a revised version of one of the dissertation's appendices. Agreed about n. 55: it would be nice to condense this. I believe it was once so; however, during the GA review process I was asked to expand it, and this is why it is currently so bloated. You seem to be a medievalist yourself, Drmies. May I ask what area you work in?
 * Haha, Boniface! (But really I'm a sort of Anglo-Saxonist.) On that note, I'm about to send you an email. :) Drmies (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet over referencing
Thanks for your updates to Paleolithic_diet. With reference to WP:REFBLOAT and Talk:Paleolithic_diet it would appear that some of the updates made by you do not conform to the afore-mentioned Wikipedia Guidelines and discussions. I should be most grateful to read your remarks on this subject.
 * Hi . Thanks for flagging this up. I guess the main reason for my over-referencing for the section in question ("Rationale of the diet") is that the subject is controversial (desperately controversial, I should say), and so it seemed important to have a variety of solid academic sources backing up the point-by-point claims made by the evolutionary discordance hypothesis. I guess the other reason I over-referenced the "Rational" section is so that, as we move on to revamp the "Criticism of the rationale" section, we can be reasonably sure that we will avoid the charge of straw-manning the diet's rationale. As you know, the rationale for this diet is often represented vaguely, or discussed in unclear language. Breaking the entire rationale down into its component claims seemed to me an important thing to do, as it shows exactly what claims and what logical arguments are being made. Representing the rationale like this will also allow the new "Criticism of the rational" section to be more effective and comprehensive in that, there too, we will be able to address the rationale's component claims one by one in detail. I intend for the new "Criticism" section to be quite thorough in its rejection of the claims made in the "Rationale" section, which I imagine may upset those editors of the article who are defenders of the diet. All the more reason (I thought) to include multiple authorities backing up the PD's rationale, so that it can't be said we are misrepresenting the PD's rationale in order to make it appear weaker or easier to refute. Please feel free, however, to delete any references you find unhelpful. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paleolithic diet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The West. 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) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon law
Hi; this bewildering article is being skewered at Wikipediocracy: here and here. It appears from the talk page that you started a rewrite but that it has also been either rewritten or added to by others who have included O.R. If it were just the 1911 Britannica, I could give it a try, but I don't think I know enough about law to do anything beyond a massive copyediting, and there's a risk of my making it less accurate. Since you're still active, could I plead with you to work on it again? or if you are a member of an appropriate WikiProject, to flag it as needing work? Many thanks in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Terribly sorry, Yngvadottir, but I am extremely busy this Winter, Spring and Summer, and will likely not have time for Wikipedia editing until at least the Fall. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. If none of them steps up, I suppose I can rewrite it to eliminate the source of the snark and you or someone else can fix any content errors I introduced when time permits. But I have limited time myself these days and so I'll wait a while first and see whether anyone does step up. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Libellus responsionum
Has it been three years since you got this to GA? How time flies... Drmies (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me: "Defends the authenticity of the Libellus responsionum, including the incest chapter whose reckoning of kinship B. misunderstood." Is that a fair one-sentence summary of the Savigny article? Would you add or tweak anything? What if you had two sentences? Drmies (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends. Who's the subject of the verb "defends" in your quotation? (And where is this quotation found?). And hello again, by the way! I hope the edited volume is coming along nicely. I look forward to seeing it completed, and apologize again for not being able to contribute. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)