User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Primary sources and 2000 year old historians used in FA/A class articles

I know it is quite common even in Roman/Greek A/FA articles, but what is the rationale for using primary sources/chronicles or ancient historians as sources? Why are they exempt from the general reccmmendation against relying on them, especically as moedern histroians can read the chronicles and rework them into modern works in conjunction with archaeological material etc. eg, Epaminondas currently on FAR. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I think people just don't think much about it. I've got to go to my accountant later today, but I'll try to weigh in later. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a "general recommendation"? There should be, but there is nothing about the matter in WP:V and WP:RS that I can see. They are not usually primary sources as WP defines them. As you may know, Awadewit has been raising the matter at DYK & maybe elsewhere. It might be time to produce a draft addition to policy, though would I think need careful writing. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is pretty clear that chronicles, etc. would be primary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely! "Primary sources are sources very close to an event...". Historic documents are mentioned as primary sources, just like modern ones, but no distinction is made between historians of 1000 years ago and those of today. Where do you see them mentioned? The AS Chronicle, and the Chinese ones are clearly secondary sources under the policy definitions. Actually this is correct; a further bit of policy is needed to attempt to say how old sources can be used. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As a historian, the ASC is clearly a primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP uses its own definitions, under which it is a secondary source: "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", as opposed to:" Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on". Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the ASC is often times a primary source (i.e. the famous discursion on the death of William the Conqueror) where it's reporting events at the time. Yes, there's some interpretation involved (sometimes) but most of the time the ASC is pretty dry in its recitation of facts. I agree that WP's defiinitions could be better. There is a clear expectation that we should use modern scholarly works first (I think it's in WP:RS) where it talks about scholarly works published by university presses. And although the ASC has been published by several UPs, it's still outdated and it's just safer to use modern works. If you do use an older chronicle, etc, you dang well should attribute the fact that you've gotten your information from there. Using chronicles, etc. is way too open to OR, honestly. You have to interpret too much. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pursuade me of that, but the WP definition of primary concentrates on direct involvement in the events described, "an insider's account", which the AS probably only approaches in the earlier Alfredian period. Merely being contemporary is not a factor. Dry and factual or not, it can hardly be accused of avoiding "synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims"! Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Over at DYK, entire articles are being written using 1000-year-old Chinese sources. :( Awadewit (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even like to use a primary source for a quote, if I can avoid it. I know Mike and Angus and Adam and Deacon use more primary sources than I do (they use charters a lot) but they generally use them as "so and so witnessed this charter" type thing. I know when User:Geuiwogbil brings some of his late antiquity articles to GA/FAC I tend to whack him down for too much use of primary sources. How big a problem are we talking here? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one editor who nominates new articles almost daily that are sourced entirely to works such as the New Book of Tang. I tried to raise this issue several times, but I received very little support from the DYK community. I then took it to the RS noticeboard and didn't receive a solid answer there, either (at least, not an answer clear enough to convince the DYK editors to stop putting these articles on the main page). The editor in question has continued to submit these articles. The most worrisome thing to me is not the single editor who refuses to change his behavior, but rather the reaction of the community at large. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we should be glad we've moved past citing random web pages ...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that no actual policy currently speaks to this issue, which is why I don't think I commented. There are other issues - using online Victorian biographical encyclopedias which are often significantly wrong, though they represented the latest scholarship atr the time. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources, a term which in the English language includes historians writing 1500 years ago, require care and expert usage. Really the only people who can use them are historians, and much of the time historians misunderstand them. The best thing to do for wikipedia is overlook usage of them like this when you trust the article builder's competence and when the source is uncontroversial, but object when you don't or it isn't. However making assertions as fact and referencing them only to ancient/medieval historians is not really acceptable. If Bede's HE, or some hagiography says "King X did y", it is not good practice to say "King X did y"<ref>Bede, HE, x.n</ref><ref>''Life of Saint'', x.n</ref>, but rather to say "Bede recounts that King X did Y", or if you have to "King X did why" citing to hagiography and modern historian. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As I keep saying, although that is certainly the normal meaning of the term in English, the Wikipedia definition is very different. It is quoted above in full, and includes no fewer than 24 examples of what is meant by a "primary source" in WP, none of which can be read as covering Livy or other old or ancient historians not directly involved in the events they cover. This discussion is pointless if this is not recognised. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The content of current WP pages can sometimes be wonky, depending on who edited them and why. My above comment stands as WP:CLUE. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I"m not sure what the point of the conversation is, though, honestly. I'm not about to go off and work on policy pages, as I've seen entirely too many people get sucked into those and never re-emerge. I think that WP's policy of preferring modern scholarly works can help a bunch with eliminating older histories, but it's not a perfect solution. Let me ask you (as the plural you here, addressed to everyone that's weighed in here) what do you think we SHOULD do about this problem? I get the impression that most of us think it's not a good practice, but what is it that we can do about it? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I'm off to the accountant. It's tax time, and time to go figure out how much Uncle Sam is going to take out of my hide. I'll be back later today. Luckily, I have my papers all gathered, thankfully! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Well done!) Firstly I think it should be moved off this page, if discussion is to continue. Just re-defining the policy definitions as quoted above is one possibility, but personally I think an additional section in the policy dealing with the issue of outdated and partisan sources is the better approach. In the articles I see most often, Vasari is an issue, sometimes the only source at all, but sometimes biased or contradicted by other sources or evidence, and Karel van Mander sometimes (similar issues), as well as Bryan's Dictionary Of Painters And Engravers, which is a real menace, as a 19th century edition is fully online, but inevitably seriously outdated, sometimes on the most basic information. Editing St. Bartholomew's Day massacre recently, it became clear that two of the fullest and most colourful "first-hand" accounts, first suspected of being fakes in the 18th century, and generally agreed to be so by specialists by about the mid-19th, were still being drawn from by non-specialist but sometimes distinguished historians, who ought to have known better, well into the 20th century. The Deacon's point about carefully putting statements in the mouth of tricky sources, rather than just stating them, is certainly part of the answer. They can't just be banned I think. It is better to say "Bede says.." or "according to Vasari..." than "Prof Foo says" if the Prof is just repeating Bede or Vasari, who are the only real evidence on the matter at all. But the Prof should be worked in, or referenced. Perhaps not everyone will agree. A sub-page for a draft is needed ideally. Would Awadewit like to produce one? Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a talk at WT:WIAFA YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As per the last two, above, I commented on this issue at WT:WIAFA rather than here :-)

DYK for Hemming (monk)

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hemming (monk), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Thank you from me for the help and thank you from both the wiki and me for your contributions to DYK. Pleased to see that your efforts are continuing. Well done Victuallers (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note:Ealdgyth's husband and brother in law's article is creditted to the three of us and is the q for dyk fame Victuallers (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hemming's Cartulary

On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hemming's Cartulary, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A tidbit on Augustine

I know you're working on an Augustinian mission FT, so I thought I'd pass on something I noticed. I'm working on a list of mss of Bede's Historia, and in going through Plummer I found this comment: "In O₃ alone of all MSS. that I have seen there is inserted in the text the musical notation for the antiphon which Augustine and his companions sang on their first approach to Canterbury, i. 25 ad fin."

MS O₃ is Laud Misc. 243, which is in the Bodleian. Per this page there is a microfiche facsimile. I know you're working on Augustine and thought you might find this interesting, but I also know this is a bit esoteric and probably not something you would want to use in the articles. Kind of neat, though. I wonder if anyone has actually used the notation to sing the antiphon in the last five hundred years? Mike Christie (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I picked up some more of the Bede stuff Friday at U of I. I'll be back Monday for a longer period, so hopefully can pick up what I can. Is there anything you want that's a journal type thing? Let me know, I'll be there 6-8 hours Monday, so should have plenty of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing that would be very handy, if it's easy to get, would be whatever you can scan of Laistner and King's Hand-list of Bede Manuscripts. It's a 1943 book; and as it's a book, it may be more pages than you can scan for me. But if there are any tables of mss or other things of interest, I'd love to see it. I was about to try to order it through the local library system, so I can try that if your university library doesn't have it. Thanks for the offer! Mike Christie (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Bale Out

The article Bale Out, which you reviewed for GA, is currently at peer review. Comments would be appreciated at the subpage, Wikipedia:Peer review/Bale Out/archive1. If you are busy with other things or think there isn't much else to be said, no worries, and thanks again for the GA review. (I addressed your concern from the GA review and added citations to the quotations in the lede.) Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Using a blog's video as a reference: Part 2

Hello Ealdgyth. A user named Gary King asked me to bring something back to your attention; on March 5, he asked you if this video blog post is a reliable source, and you said probably not (original conversation here). Well, he recently removed the source (and the information it was sourcing) from its article and I challenged him on the removal. He said it's not reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". The blogger in question has done numerous video interviews with established video game voice actors, so why aren't her interviews fair game? The interviewees are definitely who they say they are; they even perform their characters' voices in the videos. So, why exactly aren't the videos reliable? Thanks. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 06:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the reason I told Gary was that the site itself needs a reputation for fact checking, as seen in the conversation. It is the same as any other website, you can't just use anything that's on the web, your source needs to have some sort of reputation for accuracy. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series

Addressed issues in PR. BUC (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Electron PR request

Greetings! The article Electron has been posted for a second peer review. We have tried to address all of the concerns that came up during the first FAC for this article. As you participated in this FAC and did not support the article's promotion to featured status, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

243 Ida FA nomination

Hey Ealdgyth, Wronkiew and I have just nominated this article for FA status. Since you peer reviewed it, I thought you might like to know. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama

Let me know if I have resolved your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Rams peer review

Sorry for the late reply, but I've finished looking at the sources you noted at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adelaide Rams/archive2, and I would appreciated if you would continue your review. You don't have to, and you don't have to do it right now, I'm certainly not in a hurry, but it would be grateful, thanks,  The Windler talk  23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Horsies!

Hooray on the foal! Congrats, even if it WAS really still the mare who did all the work! (Yeah, I know, you had barn watch, and yes, I AM sympathetic! But still, you didn't just give birth to a 100-pounder! LOL) Must be the time for horse stuff to happen, I sold my little black mare today. Here's hoping your other mare decides that now is a good time. God thing you weren't foaling up here, until two days ago, we had snow on the ground! Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. NO mares have foaled. We just took delivery on the filly that had been at Venture Farms in Texas getting broke and evaluated. I wasn't going to keep her in training, one in pro training is enough! So home she came. She's the Noble Express daughter. The QH mare hasn't shown any sign of foaling yet, dang her! And the other one is still four or so weeks off her due date. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Help requested

I know you're rather busy, but if you have a few spare minutes, I was hoping you could take a look at the Yukon Quest FAC. A reviewer asked that I get another set of eyes to look it over. I think the prose is fine, but (s)he disagrees. Anyway, any help you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Morcar (died 1015)

On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morcar (died 1015), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Release the Stars

Just wanted to make sure you saw that ChartStats.com, a source you were concerned about during the FAC nomination process, was replaced with a more reliable reference on the Release the Stars article. Wasn't sure if you wanted to strike the comment of concern or at least just know ChrisTheDude was kind enough to find a book source. Feel free to let me know if there is anything else I can do to further improve the article. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Foliot

Nothing much. I liked this [1]. Work on Old St Paul's was presumably continuing, but he doesn't seem to have been conspicuous as a builder. As a Cistercian he was presumably not one to commission illuminated MS. His writings touch on art, but in a conventional manner it seems - [2]. Btw, did you know this page looks very odd in IE? I have to scroll a screen right to see the TOC, which is about 3 words wide. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Foliot was a Cluniac, thus a Benedictine, not Cistercian. I have the Hunt article that the first tidbit is based off, I'll dig it out. No clue on why it displays odd in IE, I'm on a Mac with Safari, I'll check it out on my PC in a few. Do you think it's worth mentioning his asthetics? I find very little work has been done on his non-letter works, a fairly comprehensive search of stuff turns up little discussion of them (and what citations I found I've been unable to secure copies of...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows up fine with my PC and IE. I did throw up a bit more on the Bishop's chapel at Hereford, it seems Boker is a bit out there as far as his idea that Foliot built the chapel... most folks credit someone else. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my misreading. I wouldn't worry about the aesthetics, & agree re Hereford. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1

Just a quick note to say I've attempted to address your concerns re british-history.co.uk - let me know if this is an acceptable solution for you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey...

I took a look at Talk:Phar Lap. It's not the same user, but does seem a bit pushy. I'll do a little more research on some of the edits. - Josette (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty clueless on the subject too. Good luck with your mare and foal! - Josette (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Higham's (Re)-Reading Bede

I'm working on a list of Bede's works right now, and Cavila recently let me know that Higham's (Re)-Reading Bede has a list of Bede's recent editions and translations. I saw you have a copy -- is there any chance you can scan those pages for me? If not, I will get it through the library, so no worries if you're too busy. Good luck with the foal watch! Mike Christie (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get that to you today sometime. Still no foal! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good news and bad news. The good news is that the full bibliography is temporarily housed here, so copy away. Fortunately, there was no need to transcribe it directly from my library copy. The bad news is that it has something to do with an e-book version which has leaked to the web — my conscience hurts! Hope the mare foals soon, Cavila (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both; Ealdgyth, your scan arrived; and Cavila, the cut-and-pastable version will be very useful. Much appreciated. Please tell your conscience it's OK; I would have borrowed the book from the library if Ealdgyth hadn't had a copy. And to be honest I'm likely to buy it eventually anyway. I am heading off to use the new info now! Mike Christie (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bucer

Could you possibly hold off on copyediting the section "Organising the Strasbourg church (1529–1534)" for the moment. I should have a rewrite of this up in the next hour or so, which I've been working on away from the article. It is the stickiest section in my opinion. Do please copyedit that bit afterwards: it's good to see more eyes on the prose. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I'd just reached that section and will review it after you get it up then! Will go forward on the next section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's up now, a bit sooner than I intended. I still need to ref the changes I've made, which I am going to start doing now. qp10qp (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Main pages

Can't get away from those bishops even on main page - congratulations! I'll just keep working up weird sex life for the time being! jimfbleak (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out WHY folks are so excited by getting articles on the main page.. all it is is a day of fighting vandalism to me... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think after the first time of having to revert vandalism every flippin' minute the glory of it all would lose its luster (plus there's always the snarky "this article is worthless" comments to look forward too as well!) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This one was REALLY bad timing, with the mare foaling the night before. At least I got a decent nights sleep last night. Now if it would quit raining.... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ælfheah of Canterbury

Hello, Ealdgyth. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Galoubet ^T·C IS THANKFUL AND SPEECHLESS and has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Galoubet (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you – I am delighted that St Ælfheah survived his quasi-martyrdom at TFA! I was happy to help given your help at FAC recently, for which I must thank you and bestow the blessings of "Jesus" upon you! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 17:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for my first barnstar, much appreciated! dottydotdot (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bede books

Ealdgyth, do you have any of these?

• Kendall, "Bede: On Genesis" (2008)
• Holder, "Bede: On the Tabernacle" (1994)
• Connolly, "Bede: On the Temple" (1995)

U of I has this not checked out, I'll try to acquire it today. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Foley & Holder, "A Biblical Miscellany" (1995)
• Connolly, "On Tobit and the Canticle of Habakkuk" (1997) Provided by Dr pda. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My library has this. Dr pda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Martin & Hurst, "Homilies on the Gospels" (1991) two volumes Provided by Dr pda. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My library has this. Dr pda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Martin, "Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles" (1989)
• Hurst, "Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles" (1985)

I might be able to get hold of this tomorrow. Fingers crossed though.Cavila (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wallis, "Reckoning of Time" (1999) Provided by Dr pda. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My library has this. Dr pda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Colgrave, "Two Lives of St Cuthbert", 1940, also later ed. Provided by Dr pda. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My photocopies are probably of the edition, translation and notes only, but I'll have to check, Cavila (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My library has this. Dr pda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Farmer, "Lives of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow" (1983)

The Plummer edition is all I've got (and the translation in Age of Bede), Cavila (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

My library has the Age of Bede (1983) with introduction and translation of Lives of the Abbots ... by Farmer. Is this the one?Dr pda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Provided by Dr pda; I'll take a look and see if this is the same one. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, and if you wouldn't mind looking a couple of things up in them, please let me know -- I suspect they'll have information about first editions and history of the mss in them that would be nice to add to the Bede works lists. If you don't, no worries; I've ordered the first two from the public library system and we'll see if they show up. Cavila, if you're watching this page, do you have any of these? Seems like you know a lot about this stuff! Mike Christie (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. My main period of study (before I got sucked into Wikipedia) was the Anglo-Normans, so I just have the Shirley-Price edition of Bede from my undergrad days. Never needed anything else from the time period. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Acutally, I probably belong to that grey mass of people who like to mine some of Bede's works, especially his Historia, vitae and letters, for historical or socio-political information, but rarely dig much deeper. I'm hardly in touch with early medieval theology, so it can be pretty daunting stuff, or so I imagine. Cavila (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Colgrave, at least, is available on Google Books (in limited view, but the first few pages would presumably be what you're looking for). – iridescent 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I found that after I posted the above; and I found a couple of the others are partially viewable too -- Wallis and Kendall. I can't be sure there's not stuff on the hidden pages that would be useful, though. Mike Christie (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have access to about half of those books at the University library. I also have some free time tomorrow which I was going to spend doing some research for Epikleros, but I can pop along to the library instead. (Another day won't make too much difference given how long I've been working on it already, right Ealdgyth? :) ) What information specifically are you looking for? Dr pda (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to TRY to get to the U of I library shortly (maybe tomorrow depending on how the foal looks)... and sure, poor Epikleros isn't exactly suffering at GA status... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the offers. I'm working on List of works by Bede, which is a bit of a mess at the moment, but has some parts in shape. For the works that those books cover, what I'd like to get is information about the manuscripts and editions of the work, and some basic information about the work itself -- a description of the contents, the date of composition if known or estimated, and anything else known about the creation or transmission of the work. See the paragraph on Liber epigrammatus here, for example, or the paragraph on the letter to Albinus here -- those are the sorts of paragraphs I'm trying to write. I have a table in that article of first editions, modern editions, and translations; I think the editions and translations are fairly complete for the works those books will cover but I would like to know the first printed edition if it is given, as I only have that for a few of the works. I have ordered the first two books in the list above, so those are lower priority. Thanks for any help on these! Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, like the Amazon adverts say, "you may also be interested in": Scott DeGregorio (ed.), Innovation and tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede. Medieval European Studies 7. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 2006. The essay titles can be peaked at RHS. Cavila (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Dr pda for providing several of the things I was looking for. Most of the articles I've worked on have not attracted other editors, so it's been a real pleasure working on Bede and the related articles -- I'm really enjoying the opportunity to have collaborators. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

U of I has several of these, but most are checked out. I'll try to get the one I noted above today. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, today at U of I, I checked out copies of 1) Wallace-Hadrill's Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary 2) Connolly's edition of Bede's On the Temple 3) Higham's Convert Kings 4) Campbell's Essays in Anglo-Saxon History which has articles on Bede and 5) Farrell (editor) Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in honor of the 1300th anniversary of the birth of Bede. In addition, on the Greek front, I checked out Schaps Economic Rigts of Women in Ancient Greece 2) Pomeroy's Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece 3) Patterson's The Family in Greek History 4) The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law 5) Just's Women in Athenian Law and Life. Also included are a passel of journal articles which will take a while to sort through. (I also picked up nine other books on more medieval bishops and the like... watch out wiki, I've got new sources!) Speak up now if anyone wants bits and pieces, go ahead and send me an email so I can send stuff out. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, if you could let me have anything from On the Temple related to any of the following: mss history, including anything about what mss exist, what the transmission history is, anyone interesting who owned the mss; anything that can be used for a summary description of the content -- a high level description of what Bede wrote; and anything about printing history, specifically when the text was first edited for publication. At this point I'm not planning to write separate articles for each of Bede's works, so more detail than that probably isn't necessary, but if there's enough info for a separate article we can file it away for the future. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Dr pda and Ealdgyth; I've been through all the sources provided and extracted what I can use for List of works by Bede. I will also be able to use much of it for other Bede articles. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosmo Gordon Lang

First, I hope the rain has stopped, the mare and foal are well and that you have enjoyed some sleep. Second, I don't know if you do modern(ish) archbishops. I am considering the possibility of making Lang a special summer project, but I don't want to tread on your toes by appearing to muscle in on the archbishop thing. Please tell me if you'd rather I left him alone – I haven't done any real work yet. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, gods, no, I don't touch anything past 1500. And the ones I'm really working on are all before 1300 (I just kinda keep an eye on the 1300-1500 ones, I don't actively work on them much). Go for it! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will. Nothing for a few months yet, though, as I have other projects on the bubble. But I'll start the reading. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New article

World Arabian Horse Association. New, and probably in need of expansion. Basically, I found the cool chart on German wikipedia and cribbed the rest off of Google translation. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another new article

Carl Raswan. This is entirely a translation from German wikipedia and I asked Wandalstouring to review the translation, as all I had was Babelfish and one year of college German and from there had to rephrase things so they made sense, maybe. The article was remarkably extensive, if largely unfootnoted. Take a peek and maybe see if you can find appropriate English language versions of Raswan's books to replace the German language ones that are in there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

=Ælfheah of Canterbury

Thanks for your input on the article. I have one comment -- you said "remove outdated reference..." -- NO reference is "outdated" if it is reliable and has not later been proven wrong. Cassius Dio wrote his History way back in 228, yet they are certainly not "outdated" - he wrote accurately about HISTORY. Old books on science could certainly be deemed outdated. Keep up the good work though! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most references eventually become outdated, and thus unreliable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Caversham, NZ

Hi Ealdgyth - probably a silly question, but is there any reason why you struck out half the comments you had about unresolved issues on the Caversham, New Zealand article but left the other half? As far as I know all of them have been fixed - do they need further work, or is it simply that you haven't had a chance to re-check the others yet? Thanks for your helpful comments at FAC, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just missed that you'd gotten the football club one fixed. I dont' see that the Hyland one has been mentioned as addressed? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops - yes, it is fixed... but now the link seems to have gone down :/ Will have to see what's going on there or find a different reference... good luck with mare and foal, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

...and that link's back up and running. Must've just been a faulty connection. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pinafore

Thanks, very helpful! I'll chase these down, although it will take me a few days. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Satisfied peer review

Thanks for checking the sources. I believe they're all okay and I've explained why...can I get you to follow up? —Zeagler (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pre-written response. My original reply attempted to do what you just asked...so I can get some specific comments now? —Zeagler (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up...back to you... —Zeagler (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

back to you... —Zeagler (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Iowa (album)/archive2

All done Gary King (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot writings

I have read the expanded section which looks very comprehensive. I have corrected one spelling error. There are some prose glitches and some punctuation problems, which I could fix if you wanted me to, but you might prefer to rely on your loyal copyeditor (whose departure you were bewailing a couple of months back but whom you have obviously lured back with your charms). Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to fix any problems you see. I'm in research, not prose polish (grins). And yes, I'm quite glad that Malleus has stuck around, although I doubt it was my charms that persuaded him. Certainly it wasn't the prospect of fun and exciting bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Gilbert's about done now. I'll go through it again in a day or so with a fresher eye to make sure there's nothing I've missed, but that's it. I thought the first paragraph of Early life, which lists Gilbert's relatives, was really awkward, and so I moved quite a bit around there, so you might like to check that I didn't mess up the citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The citations appear to correspond to the correct works. It's looking great so far. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On the pics, there is Henry 2 at his article, some nice alabasters at Becket (see also the one at Roger de Pont L'Evêque - clearer than current one, & the Norman nave of Gloucester Abbey/Cathedral

, which of course looks very like Hereford. Nothing else comes to mind I'm afraid. There might be some of the Lateran Council. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultima Underworld

I have responded to your FAC comments about the citations. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of foals

Foal would benefit from one of your wobbly-knee learning to stand newborn photos! Care to share? Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkers speech peer review

Any chance you could peer review Checkers speech?Wikipedia:Peer review/Checkers speech/archive1. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Shimizu S-Pulse

You put this article on one-week hold a month ago. Perhaps it should be failed? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious articles

Ealdgyth, sorry I am a bit late to the conversation but I want to know what you think of my response to the discussion your participated in here [3]. NancyHeise ^talk 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the new baby! My suggestions for improving FAC are here [4] and I responded to your post on Relhistbuf's talk page. [5] NancyHeise ^talk 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I can not link to your page with the foal pictures, it says there is an error. Also, I posted a response to you at RelHistBuf's talk page. I don't think that there should be a requirement (and happy there isn't) for 100 books - just that the books used reflect all notable POV's and that university textbooks make up the bulk of the history section. FAC could be improved for religion articles if we just stuck to those. NancyHeise ^talk 16:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said at Rel's page, university textbooks are not required. In fact, we need to balance them with other scholarly sources as well as popular historical works for the best coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gosh Ealdgyth, I agree and this is already done on RCC. We had to do it to cover the various POV's. NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Come off it, Ealdgyth, that's not a real horse. It's clearly made of felt. qp10qp (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whack?

As far as I know the instance you brought up was the only improper use of pp. ... and I fixed the NY Times link, so I believe that addresses your "niggles". :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot's FAC

It's a very kind thought to add me as a co-nom, but I really, really, don't think I deserve it. All I did was a bit of prose-hacking. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In certain cases, hacking my prose deserves medals, not just co-noms. Seriously, we need to recognize copyediting as being as important as research, both are important. When I throw up 6000+ words of dense academic prose and you manage to massage it to get this from Ottava (who is not easy to please on prose), you deserve it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And in case I've not made it clear, I'm very very glad you stuck around after thinking about leaving. Wikipedia would not be near as much fun without my friends around. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did make me blush Ealdgyth, but you've also made me wonder about something. It seems to me that the two most common objections at FAC are to do with content and prose—self-evident really I suppose—so why aren't there more FAC collaborations between researchers and copyeditors? Touch wood, it seems to have worked out pretty well for old Gilbert's FAC anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It works both ways round as well; when I was struggling to get Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine through FAC as both researcher and copyeditor I could only see what I'd meant to write, not what I'd actually written. I needed Fowler&fowler's help to sort out the prose. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'm a passable prose reviewer, but I can't get my own prose past the GA level. I like to think I've helped with some of Rel's reformation characters, not just on the prose but on meaning. I enjoy working with you, I trust you to not destroy the meaning or the citations, which isn't something you can say about most copyeditors. (Love Montana to death, but she has a habit of making REALLY sweeping moves that sometimes don't have the citations move with them.) It's really hard to know when a citation has gotten separated from it's fact, but I don't have to worry that you will do that. Working with you has let me increase my our output significantly. (We've done 7 FAs this year so far, not counting Gilbert). And I like to think they've been pretty easy on the reviewers too, I am to get those FAs that Sandy likes, the ones without long discussions and ages spent on the FAC page. If we can work out all the kinks before they hit FAC, things go so much smoother. (Yes, it helps that they aren't controversial subjects, but my prose without help would definitely cause problems!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Montana, I find that copyediting is quite a difficult balancing act; changing the prose without changing its meaning is hard enough, but you have to do it in a way that still lets the author's voice shine through. Anyway, I'm amazed that you we've got seven FACs through this year already, quite astonishing. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not knocking Montana, she's an amazing editor. Just not her strength to deal with my citation heavy academic prose (grins). As far as FACs, I've got three others that will be ready shortly: Gregorian mission, Wilfrid, and Robert Burnell. Wilfrid's ready for ce, the other two needs bits and pieces of research, but not much. After that I've got five or six of the GAs that will have most of the books/articles in hand, just need to work them up. My plate is full for most of the year. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Pinafore comments

Hello, Ealdgyth. I have gone through your comments here and have responded to all of them. Would you please look over my responses and indicate where I have satisfied your concerns and where I have not? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Foal!

Born last night at 10:30ish central time US - one bay colt with a small star, to be named LTS Right On Time. Mama and baby doing fine. Grandma is tired, but waiting on the vet (nothing scary, just a "checkup", I've never been one of those people that doesn't call the vet until it's an emergency.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pics for those interested http://web.mac.com/petermccue/iWeb/Site/Foals%202.html Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great pics; thanks for sharing! Very cool. Hope the vet finds nothing wrong. Mike Christie (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that the size they are when they're born? That's got to hurt. – iridescent 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Baby is fine. Mama is fine. Vet is happy. And yes, they are that big when they are born. 70-85 pounds. Hopefully, things will calm down here in the next few days and I can get some work done! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How do they give birth to something that's basically a third of their size? *Shudder* Agree with Iridescent on this one :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

VERY carefully. And the baby isn't a third their weight, nor size. Probably a fifth or sixth on dimensions and about a tenth or less on weight (this mare's a Quarter horse and weighs about 1100 pounds) It's actually a pretty easy process, much easier than women giving birth (I'm allowed to comment, I have a kid!). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your kid didn't weigh 85 pounds and have sharp hooves, though. Presumably. – iridescent 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well her labor took 20 minutes. Mine took 24 hours and ended in a C section (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

20 minutes?!? Anyone know a magician who can temporarily turn me into a horse and then turn me back again after baby arrives? PS, E, my daughter LOVED your pictures...and now she wants her very own pony (preferably your new foal). Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He's going to be a handful, and won't be a pony. He's a BIG boy. Anyway, I'm off to the library! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm lurking, Iridescent, and you might want to read foal. I once heard childbirth of humans compared to "Shi--ing a Watermelon! LOL! And having gone through childbirth in the traditional fashion, I have to say it's pretty close! Mares DO pop that baby right out! When foals are born, they look really skinny and like they are all legs, as you can see! But they are quite light for their height. People can, (carefully) pick up the foals of average size horses during their first few days of life until they get too heavy. One doesn't really want to carry them very far, it's more to just say you could do it! (There's a theory that doing so in a calm and careful way actually imprints them with the idea that people are therefore bigger and stronger than them, which they don't forget as grown horses. I don't know if I buy it, but it's an interesting notion, and picking them up seems to do them no harm). Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, E, can you pop in again at Talk:Lipizzan. The origins debate is still ongoing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link : http://web.mac.com/petermccue/iWeb/Site/Foals%202.html (fixed it above too) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Springs State Park

	<font=3> Thanks again for your reference checks - Cherry Springs State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Well in the case of those articles where the author refuses to add citations and wants other people to refrain from adding them, (or other similarand obvious things) the correct verdict is usually rather straightfoward to achieve. It's mainly the few FARs where this is some work and some feet-dragging that needs careful checking, egMumbai, there have been a couple of knee-jerk keeps and I was wondering if you could do a sources check. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

House FAc

Hi, I don't know if you keep FACs on your watchlist (in which case this message would be redundant), but I have replied to your comments on the House FAc. It would be great if you could take another look. Thanks.--Music26/11 18:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And another one

Khaled 5 (horse). It's a stub, mostly because I noticed there already was a Khaled (horse) article about the TB. Feel free to tweak! Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Commas

In Wilfrid, I have been removing some commas. Is OK? Because, there are a number, of them, at the beginning of sentences where, I think, they don't belong. Ning-ning (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I like commas. I'm sure Malleus will replace any that are really needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Norman Conquest of England - ceci n'est pas une pipe. Ning-ning (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

heh. It's one of my pet peeves. It's an event, it should be capitilized, but for some reason our article isn't. Doesn't mean I shouldn't be correct in my articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

After some thought, realised the principle is that pipes are goodokay, redirects bad! Ning-ning (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(re Ealdgyth) Depends if you consider "Norman Conquest" a proper name, or if "conquest" refers to the event. Would you capitalize "French Colonization of the Americas" or "British Expedition to Tibet"? – iridescent 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Norman conquest sounds too much like something that happened in the back seat of a Morris Minor. Ning-ning (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ning-ning, you must be thinking of The Norman Conquests -- that's not a bad description of them. Mike Christie (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was taught "Norman Conquest" ... I'm old enough this whole habit of dropping capitals drives me nuts. It's like "New Years Eve" vs "New years eve", it's an event, it should be capitlized. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish wiki would fix whatever glitch is in their software so that a title with the second word capitalized OR lower case will link and otherwise behave properly whether a user or editor properly capitalizes it or not. I know there was a reason for this once, but what it was, I forget. Allowing capitalization to be irrelevant in searches, weak wikilinking and such would resolve several thousand redirects if it were fixed, I am sure. I agree that it's "Norman Conquest," but one should be able to mess up a wikilink or a search and have anything from "norman conquest" or "NORMAN CONQUEST" get you there...OK, I'm done now; just a quick hijacking of the topic to rant for a bit. As you all were now, talk amongst yourselves... Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It would mess up the use of Commons files, as their titles are case sensitive (compare File:Barnes Bridge.jpg and File:Barnes Bridge.JPG). That aside, I can't see a good reason why not; it would mess up a few acronym-disambiguation pages like DOG/Dog, but those should be easily fixed. – iridescent 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ealdgyth. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue Dragon/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--(NGG) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

After about two hours of hard work, I think I finally fixed all the problems you listed.--(NGG) 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid

Left a message on my talk page. Ning-ning (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What a monster Wilfrid's turned out to be—the article I mean, not the man. I should have finished with the copyediting in another day or two, but I can see one obvious objection at FAC, and it's the family tree images at thumbnail size. Do you have the technology to make an SVG version? If not, I could do it, but probably not for a few days. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll bug Mike, he's the author. And I'll attempt to do it on my own... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Take your time with Wilfrid, my mare is due to foal again shortly, so I'm not in any hurry to put up our co-nom. For amusement, I went back and here was Willie boy right before I first touched him. All of 528 words! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get a .svg version done this week, but I can't promise anything, I'm afraid. Malleus, if you can get to it, please do. Even after it's converted to svg it's worth noting that the guidelines say that diagrams and such don't have to be thumbed; you can give them a pixel size in order to make them large enough to read. Mike Christie (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I already looked at increasing the thumbnail size of the current gifs, but that didn't help too much unfortunately. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish I'd figured out how poorly gifs reproduced and scaled before I started creating them. At least when we have an svg version it will be readable at scale, though I think thumbnails will still be too small. Mike Christie (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No go with my stuff, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was taken from a boat, so achieves notability on that score, but (like loads of Geograph and other images) it contains loads of sky and the detail's too dark and small... talking 'bout the Whitby Abbey image... There's some nice ones on Commons Ning-ning (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I chose that pic of Whitby, was that it shows the lay of the land but not the ruins (which long antedate Wilfrid, so using them would be slightly erroneous.) Wilfrid's been giving me fits about pictures for a LONG time... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've corrected the image, uploaded it to Commons as File:Whitby_Abbey_Wilfrid.jpg. This should have been uploaded as a derivative work, but the interface is too complex... if you can find it, and it's useful suggest you transfer it somewhere before some bugger editor deletes it (as usual). I've forgotten too much... Ning-ning (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tried to upload to Wiki, and failed miserably (ended up with a blank image with a link in the middle of it. and a question mark). Full link is [[6]]. If you use it, really would be a good idea to copy it to another location, as deletion is probably pretty likely. Ning-ning (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made an svg version of Wulfhere's family tree which is now in Wilfrid's article. If you think that's OK I can do Oswiu as well, probably tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Malleus. A couple of copyedits:

• There should be a marriage line connecting Peada to Alhflaed
• You're going to kill me for saying this, but shouldn't those be en dashes in the date ranges? :o)
• Berhtwald is missing his "t".

Otherwise it looks great. The svg itself has no background -- I can see the chequered graphic background behind it -- but for some reason the displayed version on the page has a sort of papery background, rather as though someone scanned an old piece of paper and used that as the background image. Does it look that way to you? Mike Christie (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No- just plain white. Can't see any chequers either, so it might be your browser settings? Ning-ning (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The chequered background is only visible if you go to the File page itself; I only found out a year or so ago that a traditional background in graphics programs is a chequerboard so that you can see what parts of your image are essentially transparent. Got to go now but if it's of interest I can post a comparision image of the papery look later. Mike Christie (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I was barking up the wrong tree! It is a paper effect- I can see it on the original file. MF must have used a filter... Ning-ning (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies on the genealogy svg

• I've added the marriage line
• Berhtwald now spelt correctly
• Those are en dashes in the date range, unicode character 2013
• The background is indeed an old paper effect. The reason for the chequered background is that the wikimedia software doesn't show the real svg when you click on the image to enlarge it, instead it shows a larger thumbnail after converting the image to png, apparently incorrectly; I guess it's only showing the top layer. You can see the real image by clicking on it again. I can easily remove the papery background if it's thought to be distracting.

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now. Sorry I implied you weren't a WP:MOSDASH expert! The paper effect is OK by me; whatever Ealdgyth thinks is fine. I will probably switch Wulfhere and whatever else links to the genealogy to this version. The paper is kind of weird, though; it doesn't seem that it is only showing the top layer, because if you look you can see the paper effect even on top of the chequerboard. It's as if the paper is set to have a transparency level -- is that the case? Anyway, it's fine with me -- I just wanted to point it out to let others comment. Mike Christie (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It works fine for me. I'm not picky (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to dump the paper effect, it was only an afterthought anyway. The problem you're seeing is probably caused by the fact that that the paper graphic on the bottom layer is actually a gif, so not being converted to png properly by the wiki software. I'll remove it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Good Article nomination of Urse d'Abetot

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Urse d'Abetot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 14 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Mm40 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left comments on the lead and first section on Talk:Urse d'Abetot/GA1. I will review the other two sections of prose in a bit. Cheers Mm40 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Finished up the review, will probably be passing it after issues are addressed. See Talk:Urse d'Abetot/GA1. Mm40 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Images of England

Have replied on the FAC, but in case you miss it in the huge wall of text – the reason citations for entries on listed buildings always look messy is that there's a specific citation template for Images of England – {{IoE}} – which is formatted differently to the standard citation templates. (An entry on IoE is considered proof of listing status, so it's far easier to cite to it than to individual local authority records.) As it's a very heavily used template and any change would affect every article that mentions a listed building, I don't want to unilaterally change the formatting; however, I'm reluctant to abandon the template and format the reference longhand as that will stop it from auto-updating if IoE change their directory setup or URL. –  iridescent  19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping get Caversham, New Zealand to Features Article status! The little gold star was added to the top about an hour ago... Grutness...wha? 06:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Luffa up

.. questions, too, at Talk:Ralph de Luffa/GA1. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rob Pelinka FAC

Could you please respond at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rob Pelinka/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

User:Ealdgyth,
I got fellow Wikipedians to help me get a WP:GAN for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie.
They asked me to contact you regarding references improvement because I want to nominate it as a WP:FAC.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

investiture...I'll do it, if you don't want to.

I'll do it, if you don't want to. It's just the WP:LEDE, after all. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that article kinda sucks, at least in terms of verifiability/verification. And in other areas, come to think of it. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason I've been avoiding it. I probably have the stuff to at least get it sorta verifiable for the German stuff (I can cover the English stuff easy) but digging the books out of boxes is a problem. (We're still unpacking here... never ever move.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Uffda. Also gaze, if you dare, upon Holy Roman Empire. These are not tasks for one mere mortal, however noble and steadfast his or her heart may be. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk)

(undent) I think I've decided to take on the Investiture Controversy as a long, long term project (perhaps months) for top-to-bottom rewrite. I need a nice quiet backwater, and the topic is an important one... if you wanna jump in any time, please do.. but note that I'm not talking about a concerted drive here; more of a walk or a stroll or even an amble... :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a worthy project. If I didn't have so much on my plate (including Gregorian mission and Wilfrid) I'd be more inclined to push hard. I'll try to help you out some with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid (2)

The old boy's ready for the road now. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Did we fix the .svg status on the other family tree? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean producing an svg version of Oswiu's family tree? I haven't done that yet, but I'll probably be able to do it in the next day or so if Mike doesn't get there first. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. My brain was being forgetful again. Just waiting on a few picture issues to sort out and then you and I and Ning-ning can start sweating over Wilfrid's time in the spotlight. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I always feel a bit nervous at FAC until the first solid support comes in, but if Wilfrid can't make it then I don't know what can. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

TFA

Here's another one! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, bad luck Ealdgyth. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(whimpers) Its at times like this I wonder WHY I write FAs... The mare STILL hasn't foaled either, the brat! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gods, Malleus, did you see the one scheduled for the next day??? Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 30, 2009 Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Garrett's Miss Pawhuska

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Garrett's Miss Pawhuska, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chicado V

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicado V, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This image, which was removed from Gilbert Foliot as unlicensed, has now been licensed by the V&A. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Heyo, a check on this article's sources and Reference section if you please

The Battle of Bosworth Field have no bishops or clergy involved (unless you count the church that had handled the burial of the battle's dead), but I would like request for a check on the sources it uses. I would like to bring your attention to the Bibliography: Books; I placed articles/subsections as a second level bullets to the books and wonder if that is "okely dokely do!" or not. Thank you! Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, with respect to the Bibliography section, am I right to presume that it is okay? ... or should the concerned books be changed to use {{cite encyclopedia}}? Are there any other articles that are doing what I did for this article? Sorry for asking so much of you. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no other articles I've seen that use that system you've made up. (grins) Look at Gilbert Foliot, the Wischermann ref is an example of how you want to do the Morgan, etc. refs you've got. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that this means I would have to list out individual papers in the Bibliography, and have them separated (alphabetical order) even though they come from the same book? Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Articles are separate items. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Wulfhere's genealogy

I've made notes on the sources at the picture page and will go back and format it properly tonight or tomorrow. I did notice a couple of slight inconsistencies that I will try to track down tonight. One is that the uncertainty in the dates is whether Oswiu's reign is 655-658 or 656-659; that means that all dates in that set should be marked as uncertain. I will look for more sources on this. The other is that I think I have Alhflaed mis-spelled; checking other articles it seems Ealhflaed is the more common form of her name. Again I will check tonight. Mike Christie (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the refs but am out of time tonight. I may be able to do more tomorrow but am taking possession of a new house (I won't say moving as the furniture doesn't follow for two weeks) and I may not have internet access at home till next Monday. I think you're OK for FAC as the picture stands, though I will follow up on the two questions when I get time. If you do get any flack at FAC I will do the necessary research. Mike Christie (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ealdgyth, I have done a fairly substantial copyedit of BP Pedestrian Bridge and it is at peer review getting ready for FAC, here. Would you mind checking the references as if it were at FAC? If you don't have the time or inclination I understand, but we want to make sure as many issues have been addressed as possible before another FAC run. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello It was suggested that you take a look at Everything That Happens Will Happen Today's references. If you're interested, please assist. If not, that's fine as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)/archive1

Hey Ealdgyth! Dabomb87 recommended that I ask you to see if the website, http://acharts.us, is reliable. According to http://acharts.us/help#wikipedia, it says that we could use their website for this chart. At first, I thought that they knew about Wikipedia use of sources, and are telling us that the site is reliable. Dabomb87 said though that we need proof that they are reliable (fact-checking, etc). So, would you be willing to check if the site is reliable? It would definitely be appreciated! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, I know you're busy, but this is the only issue left on the FLC, so your opinion on the source would be appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? It's probably borderline. It gets by in FACs mainly because the information is not exactly contentious so it's usually not a big concern. It's a borderline ref used for nothing vital that I generally let slide. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Miss Meyers

On May 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miss Meyers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lightning Bar

On May 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lightning Bar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Loihi FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive2. Loihi Seamount, round two. You were involved in the first one; please leave comments on the (hopefully) more active second one. ResMar 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Carucage

On May 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carucage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid images

Have you found no usable image of Wilfrid? I'm sure there are some somewhere, even if you have to use 19th century paintings. Just a quick search of the free images at geograph brought up one or two [7] (I've marked page ten as there is a good image there, but not sure if it is actually Wilfrid or some randomer). Cheers, Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to not use non-medieval pictures, as I find it gives the wrong impression to folks. I'd rather use location shots, etc than use an image that's modern or close to modern. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Didn't know that. What about this one though? Medieval, though not early medieval. Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you so much for pointing me in the direction of Locus and obtaining those articles for me – I really appreciate all of your help! Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Arrival (finally!)...

Bay filly, born 8:30pm Central 30 May 2009. About freaking time. I can finally sleep. Mama and baby doing fine. Pics will be up tomorrow sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There must be a thing called foal season.... Awadewit (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken revert

Ealdgyth, it looks like I accidentally reverted an edit of yours on your talk page; sorry about that. It's a hazard of using the iPhone -- the interface makes it easy to click on the rollback button; I was on the iPhone because I am internetless for a few days (I'm at my local library right now). I tried to undo the edit but there have been conflicting subsequent edits, so all I can do is apologize. Mike Christie (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it and no biggie. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats on both the new foal and for the new GA, Garrett's Miss Pawhuska, which I just reviewed and passed. There's a handful of minor suggestions on the review page, but nothing that kept me from passing another fine production of the Ealdgyth article factory. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert de Bethune

You've got a lot happening, don't you! Like your work, including your latest GA nom. I have complated a review on de Bethune. Perhaps a bit more to do than JKBrooks85 is saying re Garrett's Miss Pawhuska, but still a fine effort, and am happy to discuss. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've just passed this at GA, but can you just pop in and look at a possible copyedit problem with the sentence re Augustinian canons? I've explained my query on the GA review page. Good work. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Already took care of it (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Baby pics!

Are here. Telling me how cute the kids are definitely earns you brownie points! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That one is definitely the cutest. – iridescent 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent, she's worse than a grandma with human "kids" !!!! LOL! Not that I blame her one. little. bit. But remember: Horses (At least Arabians) live 30+ years and don't move out when they turn 18! Plus they eat about 25 pounds of food a day, all of which eventually comes out the other end! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! (Not earning any brownie points, am I?? ) Montanabw^(talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a pasture and I'm not afraid to use it! (hee!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how much of a problem THAT is for some people! If only children could be turned out to graze, right?? Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My child is finally of an age to actually ... work. In fact, he's out scrubbing on some stuff as we speak! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Work is good. Then they realize that they can earn money and go work for someone else but cease working at home! LOL! But the upside is that if they save their money, then they realize it buys them freedom at which point they move out at 18 and once they have paid their own bills for about six months, suddenly get rid or all snarky teenaged mannerisms (most of the time) and become these really nice people you enjoy visiting!  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Investiture Controversy, redux

Blumenthal gets good at around p. 117 or 171 (I forget which). But that's exactly where Google books cuts off. Thanks!! Ling.Nut (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Time Traveler's Wife

Congratulations on the new foal! If you have a moment in the coming weeks, I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in locating sources for the above article. It is a "soft" SF novel. I haven't been able to locate any SF reviews for it yet, but perhaps I am not looking in the correct places! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this it was reviewed in Locus in December 2003. I honestly don't usually read reviews for Sci Fi (I've been reading it so long I can pick out the publishing houses I'll have good luck with, and most of the "Sci-fi" reviewers have delusions of being high art reviewers instead of just plain fun reading. I read so much that if I only read "high art" I'd spend a lot of time twiddling my thumbs! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

$10 for one review? Even I can't pay that. :) (Last time they made me pay, but interviews are less expensive.) Do you happen to have this issue? Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ack, no I don't. ILL? You can ask Mike, but he's still in the midst of his move so it might be a few days. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was basically thinking ILL at this point. Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It LOOKS like U of I has it ... here but I'm not planning on going up to U of I for a few days at the least. Can you wait a week or so? (Might go hunting for anything else you'd want from Locus while I'm there and making them work.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and I'd actually have to find the Undergrad library up there... yikes! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. I have no deadline on this. :) Could you check for anything on Jasper Fforde and The Eyre Affair? That is the next book I'm working on. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Make up a list and I'll let you know on your talk page when I'm heading that way. I've got 19 books from there I need to "digest" before I go back, so it'll be late this week or early next. (I have about 40 more I wanna get plus more articles... so I will be back) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- just noticed this; I don't keep my old Locuses any more. I used to have a complete run back to the mid eighties, but no longer. If you ever need anything current, though, let me know. My move seems to be indefinitely prolonged, but I hope to get a mortgage commitment tomorrow and close next week, which means I should have a new permanent address by the end of May. It's complicated by having to go to Florida a lot on business (I'm in Palm Beach right now) and also I have, insanely, just decided to relearn Latin, which seems to be slowing down my wiki-involvement. On Jasper Fforde, a (probably unusable) tidbit: a London bookdealer once sarcastically advertised a first edition of The Eyre Affair as "an extremely rare unsigned copy", claiming that as every other copy was signed, this was a collector's item. Apparently Fforde did a great many signings and so signed firsts are very common. I have a first, but I'm not sure if it's signed or not -- it's in a box in a warehouse in Texas.... Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My gods, why Latin? In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I am abyssmal at languages that aren't English, especially spoken ones. I'm slightly tone deaf (or more than slightly if you listen to those who have had to listen to me sing) and it makes inflections very very difficult. I managed to struggle through Latin, but it's never been easy for me. Now that I'm out of school, I gladly left the unimportant bits of foreign languages behind (those being the parts not needed to find a bathroom and a cold beer.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I had five years of Latin at school, so I have enough to find it frustrating that I can't quite read it. Now I'm working on a period where ninety percent of the sources are Latin, and I can make out every second or third word in these sources, and guess the sense if I'm lucky, but I can't actually read them. It finally annoyed me enough to want to do something about it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind you want Medieval Latin, not classical. Otherwise you'll still have the same problem with only getting one word in three (grins). I think that's why my Latin is gone, four years of classical and two of medieval have just mushed in my mind as a jumble any more. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of knew that, but I'm going to try to get classical Latin more firmly embedded first. Except next month I will have to start going to furniture stores and unpacking boxes and it will no doubt all evaporate again. Mike Christie (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's as online tutorial here from The National Archives, bills itself as being useful for documents from 1086-1733, since the English Public Record starts with Domesday, but I'm guessing that it might well help for slightly earlier sources too. David Underdown (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)