User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 36

Stigand

Hi! I am verifying the translation of your article on Polish wikipedia. As you have noticed I did some changes on en.wiki, too. I have access to books you used only via google books so excuse me for my lack of knowledge of many pages' content. I would like to ask you about:

1. What did you mean when writing: After Cnut's death, Stigand successively served Cnut's sons, Harold Harefoot (reigned 1035–1040) and Harthacnut (reigned 1040–1042).^{Barlow Edward the Confessor p. 59 + Fryde, et al. Handbook of British Chronology pp. 28–29}? Do you mean that Stigand was a subject of those kings (as all the people) or that he did something for them? Correct Polish translation would be different for these options.
2. When Harthacnut died, Stigand became an advisor to Emma of Normandy, Cnut's widow and the mother of Harthacnut and his successor Edward the Confessor.^{Barlow Edward the Confessor p. 59 + Fryde, et al. Handbook of British Chronology pp. 28–29} Where did you find this info?
3. Why did you undo this?
4. Why did you write back <ref name=Intro108>Blair and Blair ''Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England'' p. 108</ref>?
5. [1] Did in the 3rd ed. Stenton write the same?

Blaise Niepascal (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

1. He was an official of those kings besides being their subject.

2. The fact that he was Emma's advisor is from Barlow - the fact that she was Harthacnut and Edward's mother is from the Handbook.

3. We avoid using seasons as chronological markers except when the season is important to the information. The seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere and folks down there will draw the wrong conclusion about when an event occurred.

4. Because as I pointed out on the talk page of the article - it is indeed sourced to those citations. The fact that you're using Google books doesn't mean that it isn't there. I quoted it extensively on the talk page.

5. Again... see the excerpt on the talk page. I"m not sure why you don't seem to see that the sentence in the article is a condensation of the longer quote from Stenton. Stenton's wordy, but he is supporting the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

1. OK. If you have better sources I think it would be good to add them as the current ones tell enough about these 2 kings but nothing about Stigand's service for them.
2. Reading your answer I understood that I had had in my mind this sentence in Polish translation (which had not been correct – it was written as if there would be one more comma after the word Harthacnut).
3. Oh, I have not known about it. Is the sentence Archbishop Stigand, along with both Norman and English leaders, appears on a number of royal charters beetween the comeback of William (and Stigand) to England in the late 1067 and the summer of 1069. ambiguous, too? It is nearer to the Stenton's words.
4. and 5. You are right.

Thx for help. Blaise Niepascal (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

3. Yes, it would be to anyone in the southern hemisphere. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Ealdgyth Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same and I see you have!

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

John of Tynemouth

"John of Tynemouth" means John from Tynemouth. If you believe he was wrongly named, it would be helpful to say so, with sources. Thank you.--Mhockey (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it probably means that. But no sources exist to tie them explicitly to Tynemouth. You can't assume - you have to have sources for information - including categories. The burden is on you to justify the category by a source - the "of Tynemouth" could be a mistake by earlier historians ... without a source, it's OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Thank you for thinking of me. Hope you are having the best holidays ever, and wishing you a drama-free 2014! Maralia (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Ack! Sorry for templating—I just saw your talkpage notice. Anyway, the discussion is here. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I generally don't jump down folks' throats QUITE that quick... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Festive greetings...

...and hope all's well on your Boxing Day! Just to say that I've finished off the first draft of a more fleshed out Empress Matilda article (somewhat delayed due to various work commitments, travelling etc.). Might take a stab at Edward II in the New Year... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a Harold Godwinson, Edward the Confessor and Edgar Aetheling kinda year for me. Maybe William II if I'm feeling especially psychotic. Also Revolt of the Earls and Harrying of the North. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And bringing horse to FA... heh, heh, heh.... Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Bringing horse to FA? What could be easier - a short, simple topic like that... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the nationalistic issues we're currently having with Middle Ages - I can only dread what will happen with Horse... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is right, Hchc, horse people are seriously crazy. Why do you think she seems to edit in the Middle Ages? It's a less contentious area with fewer pure lunatics. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

William the Conqueror

You don't think its important to mention that rioting took place in the ceremony when he was crowned king of a people he'd just conquered? I find that unusual because most encyclopedic biographies of him mention it. I added the information because William is being featured on On this day tomorrow because he was crowned on this day and a nice little tidbit about his coronation is that his crew were a bit too heavy handed with the common folk and that led to rioting --Andrew 21:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely too detailed. WAYYY too detailed. "smoke filled the church"? That's not encyclopedic... it's writing a story. Nor is it sure that the soldiers thought it was an assasination attempt - Douglas (in his one sentence on the incident out of 400+ pages) just says the soldiers thought it was a riot outside. Bates says the soldiers feared an English uprising. Citing to the website of Westminster Abbey isn't the best possible sourcing for this either - it fails to match the quality of sources used elsewhere in the article. The only reason the monarchy website is cited is to give an online source for the birthdate to keep folks from continually putting in an erroneous date that circulates out on the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Surely Westminster Abbey's archives are the most reliable source; either way if you could condense it down I'd be grateful as I'm sure theres a place for mentioning the disruption in the article? --Andrew 21:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no chronicle from Westminster for the period. The first "chronicle" dates to the 1250s, from Westminster. The sources for William's reign are all not connected with Westminster, so their "archives" don't have any bearing on the matter. And even if they were better - we need to use secondary sources for our articles - which would be Douglas, Bates, etc. Can I ask you if you've ever actually studied medieval English history? Taken even one university course in it? Read any of the sources used for this article? I'm sorry if I sound a bit cranky - but I sweated blood getting the article into the shape it's in and it's kinda annoying to have people edit without even bothering to familiarize themselves with the sources ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• No I haven't but a lack of familiarity with the need for primary sources doesn't detract from the fact that the edit was well-intentioned. Neither does your authorship of the article in question lead you to have any authority over who edits what on it. It's well known and relatively important that his coronation was disrupted and it showed how ruthless he was in eliminating any, real or imagined, opposition to his authority. I am, however, doing an Access to Higher Education Diploma with history in it and have been made an offer to study at Cambridge University this coming october. I'm looking forward to familiarizing myself with the sources and into exploring medieval history in greater detail. I'm 23 by the way --Andrew 00:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the riot at his coronation doesn't show how ruthless he was - it just showed how crazy things could be. The soldiers reacted, William didn't. William had nothing to do with the fact that the neighboring houses were set on fire. Nor did he punish the Londoners. Neither Bates nor Douglas mention anything about how the problem at his coronation showed how ruthless he could be. Barlow, in Feudal Kingdom of England doesn't even mention the riot. Huscroft in The Norman Conquest mentions the riot but doesn't tie it into any supposed ruthlesness of William's (which he was, but it wasn't on display at the coronation). Thomas in The Norman Conquest speculates that the soldiers set the fires as a means of putting up a barrier between the English and William, but doesn't mention anything about this event showing William's ruthlessness. This is what I mean by knowing the sources - it helps to be familiar with the major secondary sources on the subject so errors aren't introduced. I will try to find time in the next few weeks to add something about the riot, but it'll be based on the sources used in this article already - which are the major academic works on William.

examine the Video showing the other side of the coin

A mancus or gold dinar of Offa, a copy of the dinars of the Abbasid Caliphate (774). "Kalimat ash-Shahādah" (Arabic: كلمة الشهادة), which is the Islamic creed declaring the belief in the oneness of God and acceptance of Muhammad as God's prophet, was inscribed on the reverse side of this mancus. Besides, the Qur'anic ayat: "Allah sent Prophet Muhammad as a messenger to you in order to make his religion of Islam dominant over the earth," was engraved by encompassing the Shahada on a circular path.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.160.250 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A belated thank you

My apologies for taking so long to express my gratitude for the barnstar; it's been kind of hectic lately, but that is a poor excuse. I'll admit I'm glad that the 5-year tour of duty is nearly complete (with open cases, I'll probably finish mid-January), and I do know there are some things I've worked on that will have to be left for the new team. I'm hopeful that they're up to the challenge, and that the few kinks that often come up during the early weeks can be worked out in an effective way. There is a big opportunity to move Arbcom in some new directions, and to re-examine how it's doing certain things, and I hope that the 2014 team will keep things moving. Risker (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hello! I hope you had a great Xmas. All the very best to you and yours for 2014. I shan't be editing much (again) for a while. Too busy politicking :-) But hopefully I'll be back, raring to go, before next year's festive season begins. Best wishes Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Ealdgyth, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ealdgyth!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Ealdgyth: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Part of a continuing series...

Anyone have access to these articles?

• Speculum 2012
• EHR 2012

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I can get them. Email me, and I'll email back. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as they're recent, perhaps not- give me a minute, I'll check. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, got them both- send me an email and I'll throw the PDFs your way. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This EHR 2012 too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And EHR 2012 too? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've emailed you. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm prepping for WikiCup 2014 - working through searches and stuff to figure out what I need. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(whistles) EHR and Historical Journal Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speculum 2012 and EHR 2011 and EHR 2011 and PS 2010 Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Email for you – all but the one at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8744481Historical where they seem to be having a party or something! Nortonius (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No clue on that last one, I seem to have borked something. Thanks for the help! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Which one is it? I can try. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Try it now... missing space. Also EHR 2009 - this is the start of the Harold Godwinson research... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Email heading your way now – got the "missing" one and the last one. Good luck with Harold et al.! Nortonius (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And moving on to Edward the Confessor... EHR 2013 and EHR 2012. Also Review English Studies 2012 and Economic History Review 2012. And Journal of the History of Ideas 2011, TRHS 2011, Another Eco Hist Rev 2011, and EHR again. Wish WMF could swing Oxford Journals subs or Wiley for us... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup mania

Up up for any articles on horse stuff? I'll ping Dana too. Also, for you guys working on wikicup stuff, what's the standard for eligibility? Dana and I have a couple articles ready to go to GA or FA that we just haven't run up the flagpole. If the work was done in 2013 are they eligible for WikiCup in 2014?? And, on that note, any interest in tackling some of the bigger disasters on the Horse racing side? Looks like a real good crowd at WP Horse racing these days, no trolls hiding under the bridge there (knock wood) I was thinking that American Quarter Horse is ripe to be the next WPEQ article improvement topic. Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My main plans for Wikicup are getting Edward the Confessor, Edgar Ætheling, William II of England, Harold Godwinson as well as some other Norman Conquest stuff up to snuff. As Dana told you, nothing done for 2013 really counts, unless you do more work in 2014. I really need to get back to the AQHA Hall of Fame horses too, but just haven't had the energy/motivation for those. You know you can do the Wikicup too... they accept signups through Feb. It's a wonderful motivator. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, only Edward the Confessor, Edgar Ætheling, William II of England and Harold Godwinson? You really are one lazy SOB Ealdgyth. Happy New Year. :-) Eric Corbett 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, after last years Middle Ages, Norman conquest of England, and Battle of Hastings.... it is lazy. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That was a formidable achievement. I tend to go for smaller targets, such as the Cottingley fairies or the green children. I think they're important too. Eric Corbett 18:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you get extra points for taking on the ginormous articles like those? Or are you a glutton for punishment? Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are bonus points for articles with a lot of interwiki links. It ended up last year with Middle Ages getting me something like 500% of the actual points as bonus points... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
1,780		William Wallace (talk)						Add sources
71		Edward the Exile (talk)						Add sources
9		R. W. Southern (talk)						Add sources
371		Mercia (talk)						Add sources
35		Norse–Gaels (talk)						Add sources
29		Jewish quarter (diaspora) (talk)						Add sources
64		Fire services in the United Kingdom (talk)						Cleanup
919		Normandy (talk)						Cleanup
2		Anglo-Saxon archaeology (talk)						Cleanup
76		Shield wall (talk)						Expand
102		Feral organism (talk)						Expand
70		Dumnonia (talk)						Expand
4,040		Nina Dobrev (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
203		Harrying of the North (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
145		Rule of Saint Benedict (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
91		House of Wessex family tree (talk)						Merge
96		Phalanx bone (talk)						Merge
13		Foreign relations of Guatemala (talk)						Merge
3		John Buckner (talk)						Wikify
2,104		Dissolution of the Soviet Union (talk)						Wikify
4		Umberto III, Count of Savoy (talk)						Wikify
1		Anita Velastegui (talk)						Orphan
1		Alberta Enterprise Group (talk)						Orphan
1		Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (talk)						Orphan
13		Frank Stenton (talk)						Stub
4		Pauline Stafford (talk)						Stub
5		Pegnitz (town) (talk)						Stub
2		Herfast (talk)						Stub
7		Beornred of Mercia (talk)						Stub
12		Riudarenes (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014! Thank you for the holiday wishes; I do so miss the work we used to do together. Fondly, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch the problems with medical issues with a ten-foot-pole. I have only the greatest admiration for your editing in that area... takes a braver woman than I am! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dida of Eynsham

I was looking at our article on Saint Frithuswith (I had earlier download John Blair's Saint Frideswinde Reconsidered, available here for your edification) and was a bit surprised to find that we had an article on Frithuswith/Frideswinde's "father" Dida of Eynsham. Blair spends some time of "Dida"'s (or Didan's as he calls him) putative kingdom, but not, as I can see, much on Dida/Didan himself. Perhaps I am overindulging my skepticism, but I am a bit doubtful whether every parent foisted on a saint in a medieval life deserves a bio/hagiography article. Any thoughts on this? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Half the article is about his daughter... I suspect it fails notability. If he'd been a full king rather than a sub-king... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my sanity. I shall go ahead and submit a merge proposal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Charter numbers

I just answered a question at Talk:Egbert of Wessex about charter S108; the source I used, Stenton, uses the old Birch CS numbering for charters. I am sure I used to know where to go to convert CS and S numbers back and forth, but now can't find it -- do you know of a cross-reference list? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't, unfortunately. I generally avoid the use of charters ... it's just likely to lead into me actually interpreting them.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: go here and click on "Instant Sawyer" (at top right): a drop-down menu opens with search fields marked "S" for Sawyer number, "K" for Kemble number and "B" for Birch number – so for example if you search in the S box for 108, you see the information for that charter from Sawyer, and under "Printed" you see "B" for Birch and the number for the charter in that edition. That particular example doesn't have a "K" listing, so presumably it's not in Kemble. HTH! Nortonius (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert fitzRoger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clavering (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) 08:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
56		Beorhtric of Wessex (talk)						Add sources
992		Found footage (genre) (talk)						Add sources
12		Saint Kenelm (talk)						Add sources
33		Ceol of Wessex (talk)						Add sources
53		Cuthred of Wessex (talk)						Add sources
118		Barb horse (talk)						Add sources
1,487		Old English (talk)						Cleanup
6		Robert fitz Martin (talk)						Cleanup
357		Chesterfield (talk)						Cleanup
28		History of Devon (talk)						Expand
9		Internet History Sourcebooks Project (talk)						Expand
3,342		Battle of Stalingrad (talk)						Expand
702		Funeral (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
377		Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
19		Eadric Streona (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
5		Lindisfaras (talk)						Merge
31		My Passport (talk)						Merge
2		Bjelopavlići (talk)						Merge
319		Bulgarians (talk)						Wikify
291		Edward the Elder (talk)						Wikify
74		George Carey (talk)						Wikify
3		Multiplepoinding (talk)						Orphan
2		Oswald, king of the Hwicce (talk)						Orphan
1		Alakhdham Nagar (talk)						Orphan
3		Æthelfrith of Mercia (talk)						Stub
17		Richard of Normandy (talk)						Stub
7		Diuma (talk)						Stub
6		Ælfflæd of Mercia (II) (talk)						Stub
8		Ludeca of Mercia (talk)						Stub
9		Roger de Breteuil, 2nd Earl of Hereford (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert fitzRoger

"Margaret survived fitzRoger and paid a fine of a thousand pounds for the administer her lands and dower properties."

Is there a word (and/or characters) missing here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert fitzRoger

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Can I implore you not to be upset or discouraged by what's happened; unfortunately this is a feature, not a bug, of crowd-sourced online free encyclopedias. Think of it as part of the peer-reviewing process. Let me take the strain, if any, as I know how hard you worked on this article. Please continue to argue logically if necessary at the article talk, and continue, when the spirit moves you, to write great articles. Others will care for your previous work. --John (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I detest having repeat and repeat and repeat myself while arguing with folks who do not provide reliable sources and ignore the sources I bring to the table. I also detest being told repeatedly that we are "ignoring Bulgaria" when there is indeed mentions of Bulgaria in the article .. including three "Main article" links at the top of sections (more than Scotland gets!). It's also old to be basically arguing with sockpuppets (at least one of the IP addresses has been used by Sumatro in the past when he's been blocked) and meatpuppets. But whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do, you're a writer and you care passionately about your writing and that is quite proper. I am a gnome and a shit-hot copy-editor, but I'd struggle to name more than 5 or 10 decent articles I've actually written. I deploy my time in making minor improvements, helping review and improve articles others have written, and any energy I have left I try to turn towards management stuff to help folks like yourself and Eric who actually write the articles. As I say, to each their own. Let me do what I do best and let you get on with what you do best. I would be sad if, after asking for help from me, you were still stressed about the matter. By the way, I was thinking about adding a NPOV tag if we don't get ten times as much coverage for Scotland. Would that be ok with you? --John (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And, since you didn't ask, here are my most edited articles what I have written significant parts of. It would be amazing if you or any of your TPS could improve them.

• Margaret Thatcher (with Eric)
• Warrick Sony
• Hainan Island incident
• Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway
• Lockheed bribery scandals
• Tony Geraghty

--John (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ranulf de Broc

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone better at DYKs ....

Could some kindly TPSer find a good DYK hook in William Paynel? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no good at these, but how about "...that William Paynel supported Matilda's claim to the throne, despite her husband attacking William's castle?"

• It's a tricky one. All I can come up with is "... that William Paynel lost control of Nottingham Castle while on a visit to the Empress Matilda?" Eric Corbett 16:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Buying books

I recently mentioned elsewhere my embarrassment at having bought a book to bring an article up to some kind of minimum standard, and that's by no means the first time I've done that. I spend the money, I get no credit at all, hence I look like a dickhead. What's in it for us? Eric Corbett 20:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We learn something. The day I stop learning and reading is the day I'm ready for the grave. Wikipedia is just a nice adjunct to the learning process ... I'd still be reading and buying books and learning even without Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly true. But I can't imagine ever being being tempted to buy Roy of the Rovers:The Unauthorised Biography had I not been under pressure at FAR during a football World Cup year. As it turned out the effort was in vain anyway, so it was money wasted. Eric Corbett 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Certain Wikimedia chapters will pay for books in theory (WMUK and the Australian chapter, at least), but I can't help but feel that it should be easier than it is. I've never applied for any funding- I've just bought books myself. The only other option is finding someone who can provide you with scans/PDFs where possible. I'm always happy to help find sources when I can, but I doubt I could find many sports biographies! J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a crossroads in my relationship with Wikipedia, and the likely route is no relationship at all. Eric Corbett 21:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah there's something wrong with it isn't it, it should be wikipedia paying us to write and pay for the books we need in doing so!! I hope at some stage they'll at least start funding a better known and larger-scale scheme for wikipedians and give them something towards the books that they need to improve articles. I'm aware that some of the chapters have something but it's hardly on the scale and as easy to access and request as it should be as Milburn says. Eric, you're worrying me, don't say that!! Wikipedia would be nothing without people like us and it is about time the foundation started showing us the respect we deserve and assist us by giving something back, but there's too much genuinely valuable work which needs doing here (like Blyton, C. S Lewis etc..) to leave! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never demanded payment for what I do, but I've had to take more abuse here than I've ever had to do elsewhere. Eric Corbett 00:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate to mention it, but Wikimedia UK microgrants will often cover books, especially ones that are useful for a range of articles. Apply on the website. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For me, as a Yank, I'm betting the bother of trying to change currencies is more than the grant would be worth. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sometimes local libraries will let you request books. Mine does although there can be a long wait. --Pine^✉ 06:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

John can you provide a link for where to apply?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Googling "Wikimedia UK microgrants" gets you to here. I see you have to be a member (£5). They retain ownership and may ask for it to be passed on later. This is the WMUK library, also including books donated by museums etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. I wonder if the foundation could spare me £2.81 to buy Althorp: The Story of an English House... One of Britain's most prominent country estates and it's barely beyond a stub and only sourced because I sourced it a while back! I see it has to be a minimum of £5. I'm sure it won't be too difficult to find something...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ralph de Warneville and ref=harv

Adding ref=harv doesn't change the referencing system, it merely makes additional facilities available; see {{cite book}} and similar. Were an editor to change the manual citations on the page to {{harv}} or {{sfn}} then that might require discussion, though one could argue WP:BOLD if done consistently on such a short page. Still, you've been at this game longer than I have so I'll accept your descision. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of quick notes - I prefer "author" rather than "last" and "first" because it makes alphabetizing the references a lot easier. I also prefer to not use harv or sfn because it doesn't allow me to use the title of the reference in the footnote. I find it's a lot better to use author and title and page in short footnotes because it makes it easier for the casual reader who isn't familiar with academic-style referencing to follow. If sfn would allow the use of titles instead of years, I'd be happy to switch over to that, but most non-academics find the harvard style referencing of author and year to be counter-intuitive. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your first, I tend to write citations with last and first (or last1 and first1) as the very first parameters, so cut-and-paste is simple. I do follow your point about titles, but have two reservations with it:

• Do casual readers ever chase up references? I would suggest that the vast majority of those following them will be experienced editors, researchers or academics.
• Proper use of harv and of sfn links electronically through from the reference number in the text to the reference entry and directly on to the full citation, which does of course include the title!

Anyhow I'm not going to start reverting reverts, but in future perhaps allowing a standard parameter from the template which doesn't change the appearance might not be regarded as an assault on the page's integrity? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is creep. If the parameter is there, then folks starting trying to change the style.. figuring that the "harv" means someone actually meant for it to be harv-style. As for the linking of the citations with sfn - I'm not sure that the casual reader would know that either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had sfn in some of my articles, you can use author, title, whatever you want ... see William Robinson Brown. Montanabw^(talk) 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I use {{sfn}} all the time, but Ealdgyth doesn't like it. Her choice. Eric Corbett 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anywhere on Brown that does anything approaching <ref>Author ''Title'' p. X</ref> I was told by several folks that sfn will not allow the use of titles along with authors - and I've not seen any sign on the sfn documentation that this has changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not about to try and persuade you to do anything; I like {{sfn}} but you don't. Eric Corbett 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In Brown, it's mostly the refs to Gladys Brown Edwards, refs 47, 57, 60, 61, 66... we don't have two of Edwards' works there, so I haven't tried title, just author, year, page(s). All I'm saying is that it's doable, not that you have to do it. (I actually seldom do so on my own, but I have learned to survive it when others do). Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for William Paynel

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ranulf de Broc

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ranulf de Broc 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 Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)