User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 23

GAN Ælfric of Abingdon

Hi,

I have reviewed your nomination and made comments at Talk:Ælfric of Abingdon/GA1. Meanwhile the article is on hold.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire

Hi. I've been working with Montanabw on this article from when I created it. Several others, mainly Vsmith, Materialscientist, Gerda, Dreadstar, have helped. It's been lead DYK, made GA, and had a PR. We'd like to get it to FA but would very much appreciate it if a skilled reviewer and writer such as yourself looked it over first. FYI, Yogos are only found in Montana. I've set a watch on your page just now.PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

E, if you can do a run-through on sources, formatting and any writing/style issues that jump out at you, I'd appreciate it, I've helped Pumpkin a little on this one, but enough that I am too blurry-eyed to see it clearly any more. Be good for a total outsider to look at it, and like our horse articles, to point out places where it could be gibberish to laypeople. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 29 December 2011 (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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Henry Sandford			Godfrey Giffard
	Lawrence of St Martin			Earconwald
	John Boste			Martialis (P. Aelius)
	John of Oxford		Merge
	Robert Braybrooke			Hinkeyville, Iowa
	John of Sittingbourne			People of Ethiopia
	Thomas Langton			Boughton under Blean
	Germ-X		Add sources
	William Chillenden			International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne
	Ceolnoth			Richard Courtenay
	Chief Wampage			Bosel
	Simon Sydenham		Wikify
	James Goldwell			Colin Salisbury
	Reginald (sub-prior)			James Haddon
	Roger of Salisbury (Bishop of Bath and Wells)			Mary Carruthers
	Ascelin (bishop)		Expand
	Robert Neville			Indonesian language
	Henry of Lexington			Abbaye aux Dames
	Roger de Bailleul			Oklahoma City Public Schools

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) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

It was a difficult article to judge how much exposition to give. Thank you for your comments, which were excellent. Happy new year,--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all. I went ahead and watchlisted it so if you want more input/etc feel free to just comment on the PR and I'll notice (sooner or later). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bit piecemeal; I don't have many of my sources with me, but will be home tomorrow night. I did bring Jones with me :) so I can make a start.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Feologild

Sorry for not getting back to you on this sooner; I did intend to, it just slipped my mind. I think Lemurbaby was a little harsh to quickfail it- I've given badly written, unsourced pop culture articles a chance before, and I'm someone who's certainly not scared to fail poor articles! I also disagree with some of the criticisms made. I do have some sympathy (broadly) for the idea that "it would be perfectly acceptable to include the information [from the primary sources] with a caveat indicating the limitations on the source's reliability"; for instance, a line like

Gervase of Canterbury, writing in [decade], made claims xyz. Later historians have concluded that claims x and z are false.

might be a good addition, especially as this is such a tiny article. Articles like this are, naturally, very difficult, and when reviewing them I aim to be particularly critical (as you perhaps know!) to offset the fact that they're so very short. On the other hand, GA was, in its early days, often touted as a project to recognise articles on subjects about which little is known, so not appropriate for FAC. I think a discussion about the appropriateness of a renomination/rereview could probably be had on the GAC talk page. There's perhaps also a discussion to be had about the appropriateness of articles like this at GAC, and even the possibility of merging this content elsewhere (though that's not a notion I would support). I'd be happy to have a chat with Lemurbaby (who I will be notifying of my comment here) and/or start a discussion on the appropriate talk page, if you like. J Milburn (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just a bit .. err... put out by the quick fail. But not enough to go through the hoops of a reassessment - I wanted a second opinion from someone besides Malleus (and someone who is frequently quite critical of my articles, which is good!) on whether or not to even try again. My opinion is that given the nature of the office - all of the English archbishops deserve their own articles - especially when (as in this case) they have Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles also. I generally am not afraid to have critical commentary on what I've written - and welcome outside views - especially because I know I'm familiar with the subject matter and look to the GA process as a good way to get outside non-specialist opinions. I'm fine with renoming - that's not a problem. If you have any further suggestions before I do so, please feel free to rip into the article on its talk page!

It's been a pretty frustrating couple of weeks for me. Watching Malleus get ripped to shreds isn't much fun for someone who has always had only good interactions with him and seen only the great amounts of help and work he's put forth. I almost feel like I've lost my right hand, and certainly lost one of my most consistent collaborators and helpful co-editors, who was never afraid to tell me I was out of line or that I'd written nonsense. It's been hard to get back into the idea of editing and I've not had much joy of the two most recent GA reviews I'm in either - I must be writing especially dense and incomprehensible prose lately and it's got me feeling useless. And with no Malleus to co-edit with ... well... a lot of the joy of the site has gone for me. Thanks for the second opinion, I may lean more on you to help out with the missing spot of Malleus. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to lean on me; your articles fascinate me, and if I can help with them, I'd love to. I'd say a renom is appropriate, but the best thing to do before then would be to make an effort to encorporate some material from the primary sources, making explicit their questionable reliability if you are able to without drifting into original research. I'd be happy to offer a full review (tomorrow, as I'm up far later than I intended already) but, seeing as we've had this conversation here, offering the GA review itself probably wouldn't be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'd not expect you to pick up the review - but I'd welcome suggestions before I renom. And thanks, it's been a downer of a month, quite honestly! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe this will cheer you up: Talk:Æthelnoth (archbishop of Canterbury)/GA1. Or maybe not, since I have a question for you. All the best, Drmies (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN Oda of Canterbury

Hi,

I have reviewed your article at Talk:Oda of Canterbury/GA1 and placed in on hold. I tried to convey in my review the problems I had and I'm hoping you can remedy them. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations! It has passed. Sorry for any problems. My brain just stopped working. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's the holidays - I know that for me, having relatives underfoot never helps things .. nor do two teenagers out of school! Thanks so much for the efforts you made, they definitely improved the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pain fitzJohn has two capitula

• Pain fitzJohn has two instances of Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (1999). Shouldn't those be "a" and "b"? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• and what does "capitula" mean in Baldwin of Forde? A bot complained about my dab link, and I can't find a def offhand that fits the context of the occurrence of the word in that article. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Ealdgyth, and Happy New Year. :) FYI, I have nominated the Franco-Mongol alliance article for FA status. Since you are listed as one of the more frequent editors, I wanted to let you know about the nom in case you wanted to participate. Best, --Elonka 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this nom will go better than the last one. I'll try to check it over in the next few days - I'm a bit backlogged with peer review and other reviewing... plus I signed up on a whim for the WikiCup as well as Wikipedia:The Core Contest - that'll teach me to get ambitious! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, I just wanted to make sure you were in the loop. Good luck with the competitions! --Elonka 19:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited John de Gray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belleek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New year, new hat

Ning-ning (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gods. No. I would not be caught DEAD in that... ugh! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd take the pony, though! Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Paulí de York

Hello, I just translated Paulinus of York to catalan (ca:Paulí de York), and I submitted it to peer review since I obviously think it has FA potential. A user asked me two things that maybe you can answer:

1. When was he revered exactly? Why? Which pope was it?
2. Do you know more about his relics? what are them? About the festivities (10 october), do you know if there are any celebrations in England?

Thank you, I hope you can provide me with the information (maybe it isn't available??). You can answer me in my disc or better in ca-wiki (ca:Usuari Discussió:Arnaugir). Thanks in advance--Arnaugir (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Paulinus was never formally canonized - his sainthood predates the formal process by a few hundred years. His relics (if there ever were any) are likely long lost - when King Henry VIII of England dissolved the monasteries (see Dissolution of the Monasteries) many shrines were plundered, and those that survived that were often destroyed in the next 100 years or so. Very few relics survive from English churches or monasteries. Hope this helps! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Migration period

You changed a "c. 400 to 800" to "around 400 to 800", leaving a comment that it avoids "jargon". There are a couple of minor issues with that. First, "c." had to go--most abbreviations are unnecessary here, so it was easy to replace "c." with "circa". "Circa" is fairly common, but one might consider that jargon. As is, just having an abbreviation was sufficient for a change, so you did not really fix "jargon". On the other hand, given that the piece appears to lie in your area of interest, I hope you will set aside some time in the future to do some revisions to Migration period. There are many things wrong with it, with a single abbreviation being one of the most minor. Alex.deWitte (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on my list for work, eventually. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Horse exhibition

You might be interested to know that the British museum will have its first exhibition on the horse from 24 May to 30 September. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Cruel, cruel, cruel. I'm going to be soooo stuck in America... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pu up the URL when it goes up; sometimes those museum sites make good sources for our horse articles! Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Justus

This is a note to let the main editors of Justus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 5, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 5, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Justus (died between 627 and 631) was the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury. He was sent from Italy to England by Pope Gregory the Great, on a mission to Christianize the Anglo-Saxons from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism, probably arriving with the second group of missionaries despatched in 601. Justus became the first Bishop of Rochester in 604, and attended a church council in Paris in 614. Following the death of King Æthelberht of Kent in 616, Justus was forced to flee to Gaul, but was reinstated in his diocese the following year. In 624 Justus became Archbishop of Canterbury, overseeing the despatch of missionaries to Northumbria. After his death he was revered as a saint, and had a shrine in St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

*Points and laughs* Sucks to be you :) (Actually, I probably shouldn't do that, karma will put one of "mine" on the front page when I'm on vacation or something...) Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The worst thing about having 40 some FAs is... the odds are against me managing to keep them off the front page. Gods. Tomorrow. Lovely. THAT'll make the visitation tonight just so much MORE fun... I think daBomb hates me...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I won't do what I want to do to a certain person we all know, too many other fish to fry. let me know when life on WP is getting dull, I'm waiting for the opportunity... Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting read. My finger is on the protect button if things get out of hand --Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually the obscure early bishops/archbishops are pretty easy TFAs... they just get the usual "poopy-head" stupidness and usually some decent gnoming edits. THe ones I hate are the high medieval bishops... they get ... odd. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethelnoth

Hi Ealdguty, I left you a question here. If this edit is unproblematic (that is, if your fifth edition has that information too), then I can pass the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I left you one more question at the review, Talk:Æthelnoth (archbishop of Canterbury)/GA1. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does... so your edit is fine. Bollandists are getting a bit beyond my normal time period, you know. 1600s! Wow! Modernity! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Congrats! Drmies (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Query ...

Replies on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making John de Gray a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA2

Just in case you don't have the review watchlisted, I've gotten through most things, and would appreciate additional or updated guidance as appropriate. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll get right on that. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, those are addressed. Save the one westeros.org reference that I can't see a good way to remove, I think I'm done. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TPS alert ...

I need two pages from this journal (Transactions of the Radnorshire Society) in volume 71, (2001) pp. 168-169. It's an article by Andrew Breeze "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1053 and the killing of Rhys ap Rhydderch". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[1] Cavila (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I was just driving by for no particular reason and happened to spot your request on my watchlist. It's encouraging yet strange in a way to find you still delivering high-quality articles in the bishops and horses department! The project has lost me somewhere along the way, I'm sorry to admit. Too much fun not having to deal with zealous nationalists, anglicising warriors and wishful-thinking genealogists. All the best, Cavila (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The day wishful thinking genealogists start trying to claim the horse articles as ancestors is the day I leave the project... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting balance of editing right

I don't want to bring this up at WT:FAC, as things are a bit crazy there at the moment (quite why everyone started talking about that new section that got started when that is a repeat of previous discussions, I'm not sure), but I recently commented that it would be nice to have a potted history of the track record at FA of the director and delegates. I have been trying to work this out myself, but it is not easy. I was reminded of it again by your recent comment: "...compared to the great knowledge of two folks who between themselves have.. how many GAs and FA nominations again? Refresh my memory...". While counting this sort of thing misses the point, it should, in my view, be a public record for everyone to see. So I looked at the 'star' list (ironic, given the 'star collector' comments) and I was surprised to see how few FAs some of the past and current delegates are credited with there. Also, some of the FAs are very old and/or have since been demoted and are former featured articles.

I realise this is in part due to people not wanting to claim credit for work done; also that list doesn't show how many reviews someone has participated in, but I don't think it is unreasonable for FAC delegates and the FA Director to have a userspace list somewhere the reviews they have taken part in (in my view, the amount of solid and competent reviewing done is more important than the number of FA articles worked on), and to list them by year so people can see the most recent reviewing work they have done in this area. Even if it is the work they did before becoming director or delegate, it helps to see what their track record was at the time they were appointed to that role.

This also ties into my thoughts on people 'keeping their hand in'. When people move over to roles like director or delegate, they tend to go one of two ways: (i) maintain a mix of FA writing and reviewing along with the new duties; (ii) do mostly FA directing and/or FAC promoting/archiving and because of the time that takes end up doing far less or zero writing/reviewing. Most of the time (though this is only vague impressions due to not having concrete data) the outcome seems to be (ii) because people only have so much time available after all (I know this from experience of how ArbCom suddenly took up all my available time despite all the good intentions to keep a balanced mix of editing). So my view is that if someone ends up in position (ii), they should recognise that and take a break or sabbatical at some point to recharge. If someone is organised enough to do (ii) (i) then that is great, but it seems rare. Is what I've said here about outcomes (i) and (ii) reasonable? Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Corrected at 05:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this is on my talk page - what specifically do you want me to do/reply/discuss? If I've missed something obvious, please forgive me, I just got out of bed, mother's caregiver isn't going to be here today, and I'm short of caffeine. My brain processes aren't firing on all cylinders. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I could see that the atmosphere at WT:FAC was going rapidly downhill (as it proved), and was looking to post my thoughts somewhere else. The reason I came here is that I was responding to the bit from you that I quote above. But I then got a bit carried away. I did post at WT:FAC in the end, so having a parallel discussion probably isn't useful here. If you want to remove this or blank it, I can re-post it somewhere like my talk page instead, so I have a record of it. What I think is interesting is seeing how some delegates manage to keep doing writing and reviewing work (even if reduced) and others don't (which is understandable to some extent). But that is probably better discussed elsewhere. Apologies again for dumping the above wall of text on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

American Cream Draft

Would you mind taking another look at this and checking my replies on the talk page? I had a couple of questions about your comments. Thanks so much for taking a look at this, Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure - I didn't watchlist, or I don't think I did. Things have been a bit ... wild and wooly lately. I have an obscure Byzantine political figure to review for GA and then I should be over there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem on timing, I just wasn't sure if you'd seen my responses or not. Fully agree on the wild and wooly part. Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2012 (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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Simon Islip			Henrietta Knight (racehorse trainer)
	John Stafford (bishop)			Gilbert Edward Archey
	Putta (bishop of Hereford)			Ozone
	Walter d'Eynsham		Merge
	John Moore (archbishop of Canterbury)			Ickham
	Samir Ghanem			Knightly Virtues
	Darren Dunstan			Mahares
	Eadwulf of Lindsey		Add sources
	Ceolwulf of Lindsey			John Kemp
	Richard Peche			Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
	Pseudotrapelus sinaitus			Edict of Expulsion
	The English Historical Review		Wikify
	William Whittlesey			Blyth Priory
	Geoffrey de Muschamp			Thomas Witham
	Merchant			International Federation of Shipmasters' Associations
	Walter (Bishop of Rochester)		Expand
	William Middleton (bishop)			Hungarian invasions of Europe
	Bamako (film)			Shield wall
	American Stud Book			Æthelred the Unready

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) 04:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Plain?

Huh, I noticed this. While I am no great looker, I prefer to regard myself as the ur-John rather than "plain John". Seriously, I think the discussion is heading in the right direction there. Take care. --John (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Germanus of Winchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TPS alert ...

Would GREATLY appreciate anyone able to acquire by hook or by crook The Family of Dinan in England in the Middle Ages AND provide a reliable translation... I'm not asking for much, am I? I can dream... See.. if the WMF was REALLY wanting to be helpful, they'd provide this sort of service... yeah, right. Dream on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't help ... but I'm seeing Ealdgyth reviews all over FAC-- thanks !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going to be within 12 miles of a copy from next Wednesday. It's in the reference section of Exeter Central. Ning-ning (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy - won't get to a FAC today until this evening - but I think I cleaned up all the loose ends on any reviews I've done. I'm off to do some bookstore shopping later today, yay! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Westcountry Studies library- should be able to get a look at it tomorrow afternoon. Ning-ning (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Josce de Dinan

I'm currently working in this sandbox because the volume on Ludlow Castle suggests some changes are in order regarding chronology, but I don't want to edit the live article in case you disagree. It might be worth taking a look at the changes as they currently stand. One thing I haven't changed yet is that the article links to Walter de Lacy saying that he was trying to take Ludlow, but at the least it seems to link to the wrong article as it says he was born in c.1172. Coplestone-Crow notes that The Romance of Fulk fitzWarin has a Walter de Lacy, but "The name 'Walter' given to Lacy in this source is generally agreed to be a mistake for Gilbert". Coplestone-Crow gives quite a lot of detail, I'd be happy to email you the relevant pages if you want. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow, probably. Feel free to fix the Walter de Lucy link though... and I'd love the pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's email doesn't allow attachments, if you send me an email through Wikipedia I'll reply to it with the relevant pages. And I've finally found a half decent picture of Ludlow for the castle's article. It doesn't show the town which is a shame, but I'm glad to have finally found one that isn't obscured by trees or something. I thought the fog in the photo used in Pain fitzJohn's article was a bit too artsy for an article on the building, though it is quite striking. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I obviously need to get back to England to take photos... that picture is only so-so ... looks like it was taken with a cell phone - and the lack of exif data would concur with that... So.. which of my English (and Welsh!) friends are putting me up so I can photograph bishop's tombs? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you the chapter. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Read it. Should be useful, and looks like the chronology issues are just due to using different sources - easiest to do is to just explain the discrepencies (after it hits the DYK main page... it should eventually...). Handily, there is a tiny bit in there I can use for Pain too! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair enough way of approaching it. As the hook links to the article on Ludlow Castle I've been sprucing it up, I'll make sure not to contradict the article on Josce de Dinan. Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Horsey nonsense

Sheesh, Ealdgyth, archive your talk ! OK, who has seen War Horse (film)? I want to talk about this film with someone who has a brain. I guess you can tell from my heading what I thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen it yet - I know Montana has. The couple of people I know who've seen it called it melodramatic and over-acted. The book is supposed to be better... Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Melodramatic, over-acted, poorly acted, poorly written, in some parts even poorly filmed or with poor settings, cliche, maudlin, but ... I wanted to talk about the nonsense about that horse's cognitive abilities, among other things. But won't say more now lest others plan to see it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Poorly acted? I thought the role of the horse was very convincingly played...I almost forgot he was a dog. Wait...have I got my recent releases mixed up? Yomangani^talk 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Sandy has compiled her own illustrated review: [2]. Spoilers, obviously. Yomangani^talk 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oscar for best horse playing a dog. I'm totally saying that to the next friend to fart in my presence. You need to get laid. Seriously, why is it getting good reviews? Is this what the public swallows these days (I don't watch TV), or are all the critics just sucking up to Spielberg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My review is that, basically, it's a Spielberg film with all the usual strengths and weaknesses of a Spielberg film. I enjoyed it, knowing this was what I was getting going in. . . It was a WWI version of "Saving Private Ryan", only the horse was Private Ryan. Spielberg doesn't trust his audience to have the proper emotions, so he hits us over the head with them and he always does this, save, maybe, for "Schindler's List." But hey, I saw all the Indiana Jones movies anyway, AND the Color Purple. This movie was based on a children's book, after all. At least the horse didn't talk or something! I'm relatively forgiving of horse films because no one ever trusts horses to be horses -- they always neigh when then should nicker, whinny with their mouths closed, rear and paw upon the slightest provocation, and do other weird stuff that real horses never do. All movie directors are equine idiots, IMHO. This one was wayyyyy better than "Dreamer" or "The Horse Whisperer" and somewhat better acted than "Secretariat" (which suffered much from John Malkovich's overacting when he wasn't just phoning it in and Fred Thompson-- oh lordy, don't get me started), but it was not as good as "Seabiscuit." The trailer made me cry, the movie itself did not, because every time I was on the verge, Spielberg jumps in and did a "OK, everyone cry now" move -- though the running through the barbed wire in the trenches scene came close; probably the best-done sequence in the film -- I will note that Spielberg had ONLY the horse to work with in that scene and hence, with no people involved, he couldn't make the horse overact (at least, once the horse got away from the tank that it was so obviously not really afraid of... they threw in a few superfluous explosions, but they had to get lighting from somewhere, I guess). I think it gets good reviews because there hasn't been a WWI epic in a long time and it's a forgotten war; the trenches stuff was reasonably well done and you definitely get a feel for the cold and muddy bits. The first five minutes were a cheesy tribute to Black Beauty or Lassie Come Home or something (really, it doesn't take three guys saying "whoa girl" to help a mare give birth to a perfectly dry and healthy two-month old foal), and the last five minutes were 100% cheese unless you take it for what it was; a tribute to John Ford. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Ebert, Inc! My first clue that we were in trouble was all the men helping a mare foal (right). My better half thought the trenches scenes were all off. And the part I *most* hated was the barbed wire scenes; I was saying "give me a break" through the whole thing, as he was through all of the war and trenches scenes. I thought the meeting of the soliders after the barbed scene was unrealistic and overdone, while he didn't. If there's supposed to be some thematic connection between the boy going to war, the horse going to war, the father's war experience, and the French grandfather losing his granddaughter's parents to war, and then his granddaughter, I never quite figured it out, not to mention completely missing what the pigeon story was about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there was a three-hour film left on the editing floor. I've decided that the person with the editing cutter (or digital version thereof) is one of the most important yet under-appreciated people in Hollywood. Yeah, the pigeon thing was supposed to be about Joey, I think, but it missed. Interesting that our respective S.O's both had different views; I think I caught mine sniffling and trying to cover it up over the father-son stuff that I found cheesy. To me, the whole bit with the little girl was just odd, as was the vagueness of her fate, but that WAS basically the same as in the book. Have to say, beats most of the other stuff in the mainstream theaters this Xmas, I mean, Alvin and the Chipmunks? =:-O (grin) But hey, I thought the horses were the stars -- they were clearly quite happy with their work (sometimes too happy, actually, the scene where the horse ran through the trench with his ears pricket up made me giggle) and all word on the street is that they were treated very, very well. If Spielberg had them overacting (I felt that rearing and pawing at inappropriate times was a distraction), it wasn't their fault! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

RS search For you and your stalkers

Does anyone have access to this reference guide? Tough as it is to prove a negative, we who are working on Yogo sapphire for an eventual FA run are trying to prove or disprove whether there are Yogos in the crown jewels or royal collection of the UK. We don't think there are, but a lot of commercial sites make the claim, so we'd like to find a good RS that can say yea or nea, whichever the case may be. The above guide will probably do the trick. Also, we'd love to find a source better than The Daily Mail to prove that Princess Di/Kate Middleton's engagement ring was, in fact, an 18-carat Sri Lankan sapphire (again, same aficonoados claim that gem is a yogo, even though it obviously is not). Montanabw^(talk) 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean this? I can try for it through ILL but it might be a bit before I do. Dana might be quicker than my library. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I suppose I could ILL it, myself. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I could get it through ILL, but there isn't anything really close to me, so it'd probably be a couple of weeks. Let me know if you'd like me to try. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd probably get it as fast here. Thanks for the offer, though. Montanabw^(talk) 01:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roger de Valognes

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in the stack

Didn't ask the librarian to get it out, as I don't know what you need from it. Ning awaits your instructions. Ning-ning (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in french, so unless we can locate a translator ... I'm not sure what good it'll do us. Would love to see the scans someday, but need a qualified translator. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in English. Ning-ning (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. So much for World Cat being correct ... are you feeling really really nice to me? (smarmy grin here) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay (groans) Ning-ning (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I really only need stuff up until about 1200 or so... so anything on the family after that point is not needed. That help? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Right- I'll have a read through the book tomorrow and report back. Ning-ning (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything ready to go?

I've got a couple of weeks yet I think before the ArbCom decision comes in, so if you've got anything ready for FAC then now's the time to ask. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm working through some Peer Review stuff for Baldwin of Forde and Pain fitzJohn, and need to see about Ralph d'Escures ... let me try to finish up Brian's comments on Baldwin tonight or tomorrow - we just got a huge cold snap today so of course I discovered that one of the water trough heaters died ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Finished up the PR comments from Brian on Baldwin if you want to dig into that. Pain's looking pretty good too, I suspect. Ralph's not quite so ready, so probably best to leave him be for now, I'm not convinced I'm done with research/background for him. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, I may be a wide-eyed optimist, but I will be surprised if the Arbcom decision, however they choose to frame it, results in your departure from these shores – unless you choose to do so anyway, an increasingly attractive option at present. In 4½ years I never had to ask myself: "What am I doing here?" though I ask it pretty well every day, now. (sorry, Ealdgyth, I didn't mean to intrude on your page). Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I quit looking at the arbcom pages (they are definitely illustrative of what they should be looking at as far as incivility but I doubt that most people see the irony of this) and I've decided I'll just keep enough of an eye on FAC to know when to vote. Otherwise, I've been busy writing and reviewing - sometimes doing a lot of reviewing like I have been helps me see the fact that all the political bullshit means very little in the end - the work on the project goes on ... people are still writing good articles and improving things. In other words, I ignore the politics and beaver away. And slowly reworking William the Conqueror has been enjoyable (as well as whacking out great gobs of cruft from William II of England, which I've wanted to do for ages... boy that felt good!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Josce de Dinan

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Dank#apologies for being cranky...

Replied. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dinan

The Family of Dinan in the Middle Ages, Michael Jones, publisher=Le Pays de Dinan, Bibliotheque Municipal, Manoir de Ferron, 22100 Dinan, 1987, paperback. Financed by Dinan in 1987 to mark the something-or-other anniversary of twinning with Exmouth, which is why Exmouth ended up with two copies in its reference library. Written in English by Jones, and translated into French, the two texts being on opposite pages. Two geneaological trees. The librarian at Exeter was concerned about my photocopying the book, as the binding is very tight and the book doesn't open flat, so I photographed the pre-1200 stuff with my iPad, and the two charts. They're readable; I'll upload them to F**ckr when I get home and can use Photoshop on them- only Elements here, which is useless. Ning-ning (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I owe you a big one somewhere along the line.. thankee! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Henry continues...

Work on the redraft of Henry II continues... There are couple of bits I still need to finish off to form a first draft, but the general structure is there. It is, however, clearly too long at the moment. (I think I could get away with something of a similar length to John at FAC, but not much more) and I've red-marked a couple of sub-articles I'll look to create with the spare details as I edit a couple of bits down over the next week (there is already some spare material stacking up on another sandbox page). There are clearly a lot of bits to sort out, but if you get a chance in the next few days, any early thoughts on the overall balance/weighting/tone of the draft would be greatly valued... (NB: you'll notice that this time I'm trying out doing the wiki-linking last of all, to see if that doesn't avoid the overlinking problem of my last few articles!) Hope you had a good Christmas, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

YOu may want to check out Wikipedia:The Core Contest - Our friend Henry II of England is on the list. I've signed up to work on a few things, but left Henry up in the air for you. Plus you may find some other interesting articles ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Have signed up! Almost there with the first draft now... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, first draft finished and uploaded out of user space at last! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy wine Birthday!

I was absolutely astounded at the number of Wikipedia-themed cakes on Commons, but thought this might be more suitable. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To all those lurking - had a great dinner - wonderful filet, good wine (a nice New Zealand shiraz) and then a nice desert. Much more relaxed today. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What desert was it? Mojave? Ning-ning (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Germanus of Winchester

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for American Racing Manual

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Baldwin of Forde

Service to King Henry

• "Baldwin was with shortly before the king's death ...". Something missing there.

• "... unsuccessfully taking part in efforts to negotiate with Henry's heir, Prince Richard." What was he trying to negotiate with Richard?

Writiings and studies

• "Although the main contents were unexceptional ...". Aren't they still unexceptional?

Legacy

• "The historian A. L. Poole called Baldwin a 'distinguished scholar and deeply religious man, [but] was injudicious and too austere to be a good leader.'" That quotation doesn't quite work in context; better would be to add "[but he]" rather than just "[but]", or drop the "was" after "[but]".

Notes

• "The surviving manuscripts are classified by David Bell, the editor of them, into two groups: major and minor." Surely Baldwin was the author, not Bell. Editor?
  • He edited them - changed the wording slightly. Got the rest too. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Baldwin is in pretty decent shape; I'll take a second pass through tomorrow and see if anything else jumps out at me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen my latest pincushions? William the Conqueror and William II of England are currently being whacked at as part of an effort to get them up to FAC eventually. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a brave woman. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

William I's looking rather good; best of luck with number II! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Billie Boy I is only a quarter of the way done, actually - only up to 1066 with the basics, then after I get the framework done, I'll go in and add from other books. Then polish, GA, PR, A-class, and FAC. It'll take me most of this year to get the two billies and a couple of other big articles through to FAC - but it'll be worth it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Writings and studies

• "Some letters of Baldwin's also existed ...". I can't quite get my head around what that's trying to say. Existed when? Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  That better? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Much better. That's about it from me, time to let the old boy rock'n'roll at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  After the blackout, I think. I'm going to catch up on housework or something tomorrow, looks like. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dinan update

Hi E. I've edited and uploaded the pictures here. Not nice- the iPad has crappy photo resolution, compared to its video- gave me a migraine looking at them. I've not uploaded the trees yet- got to sort them out. Should be returning in about 3 weeks so I can have another go if this is no use. Ning-ning (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Baldwin of Forde and the crusade

Hello Ealdgyth, I was just wondering if I could somehow help with the Baldwin of Forde article...I can't think of any way to improve it at this point, as I see it has already been gone over thoroughly by the usual folks. And I don't really know anything about him aside from his participation in the crusade, which is rather brief. But if there is anything I can do to help out in that particular section, I'd be glad to help! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pain in the ...

I'm trying to reduce the PR backlog to more manageable proportions; are you still looking for comments on Pain fitzJohn? If so, buzz me and I'll try and do it tomorrow (Sunday). Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm okay, but if you want to pass over it now instead of at FAC... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK< I'll give it a quick copyedit and take it out of the PR backlog. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Any history PRs that you want me to look at instead of yourself, just ping me here. I don't always check the PR list every day, but I'm happy enough to do a few PRs. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done the Pain copyedit. Just a few things for you to consider:-

• 2nd paragraph of King Henry section, there's an awkward plural "pages" in the quote.
• Need to be clear about "Hereford" (town) and "Herefordshire" (county). "Hereford" can also mean the diocese.
• There's a bit of confused chronology you should look at in the "Under Stephen" section, where in the second paragraph you jump back to events before Henry's death. You may want to note the date of Henry's death.
• "heir male" may be the formal medieval legal expression, but idiomatically it would be "male heir"
• Brit or Am spelling. I've not really checked this, but I did notice "center".

I'll point out anything in the PR backlog that relates to history. One that jumps out is the biblical king Amon of Judah. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nyon Conference

Thank for your extended review and I recognise the time it takes to point out the problems rather than just opposing. Could you go one step further and re-examine if they've now been dealt with? As you'll recall, some of the comments (only a few remain) on the main page, here, and many more are on the talk page, here. Thanks! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. Thank you for revisiting it, it is much appreciated. Obviously I value your support, but I would like to make sure you consulted your own list of points on the talk page before doing so. It was a fairly long list, and I'd feel misleading if you'd not considered your points and my responses. Sorry if you already have or just read the article again as a substitute for that. Ta, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did indeed check the issues on the talk page (I'm not THAT decrepit and ancient .... really!) and while not everything is as I would have written it, it's certainly well within standards in my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II Peer review

Hi Ealdgyth, the Pope John Paul II article is currently on peer review, if you are interested in participating -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for helping
		Thanks for your help getting W. E. B. Du Bois promoted to FA status. He was a great man, and deserves a great article. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Ealdgyth for helping to promote Walter de Beauchamp (nobleman) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:21, 24 January 2012 (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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Journal of British Studies			Sugar Mountain – Live at Canterbury House 1968
	Rice Krispies Treats			Swithun
	Patrick Evans			Competitive trail riding
	Richard de Capella		Merge
	Lake Oku			Secular clergy
	Pauline Stafford			Easter controversy
	Geoffrey de Clive			Anglo-Saxon Christianity
	Declaration of Pillnitz		Add sources
	Bertha of Kent			Colonialism
	Rare Breeds Canada			Stephen Langton
	Diocese of Rochester			John de Stratford
	Sarah Solemani		Wikify
	Gloria Hendry			Michael Swanton
	C. Warren Hollister			Jean Herbison
	Thomas Cobham			Dark Princess
	Seffrid I		Expand
	Katharine Keats-Rohan			Cuthbert Tunstall
	Cathedral chapter			Mary Tourtel
	Catherine Opalińska			Roman Catholic Diocese of Coutances

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rice Krispies Treats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.146.50 (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the only reason I haven't removed myself from SuggestBot is the humorous suggestions I get ... like that one. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AHA! Don't deny it! We know where you were sneaking around, editing snack articles on the side, avoiding both horses and bishops. You're caught red-handed! (LOL). Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They "received a 6/7 rating on popular breakfast cereal website Mr Breakfast". What's not to like? 209.137.146.50 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Martha Layne Collins

Hi! Are you done looking at this article? I was going to look at it tonight, but I don't want to step on toes... --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done and supported. I did a light copyedit, but more eyes wouldn't be bad, I'm sure! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

William II – oh, and, er... Reculver!

Hello Ealdgyth, yes, good work on Wm II! I stuck some stuff in there myself a couple of years or more ago, and blanched at the thought of taking it any further. Actually, I notice that the stuff I added is still there (I think! Citations of Garmonsway, Eadmer etc.), so either it's not cruft, or you just haven't got to that bit yet...(eek!) I think I wrote and formatted somewhat naively, though, so any changes from you are likely to be for the best! I probably haven't communicated with you directly since about then or a little before, so maybe I'm being a bit cheeky but... I wonder if you might fancy having a review-type look at Reculver, while you're doing such things? There's a fair amount of Anglo-Saxon churchy stuff there, which is one reason why I got involved with it in the first place... Though, strictly, it's an article about a place. I don't want to go for a formal peer review yet, because I'm waiting on a couple of sources for further information, but an informal review by your good self, especially of the historical stuff, would be very welcome - no worries if you don't fancy it, of course! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on my list for whenever I'm not fighting a bloody headache. Probably after the blackout at this point. You didn't seem to be in any hurry so I wasn't in any hurry... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's great, thanks! I was just adding a "p.s." about a belated Happy Birthday, and you're welcome to ignore it as you're so busy, but we edit-conflicted – no indeed, no hurry! Sorry about the headache, hateful things which I'd have left out, if I'd been thinking about creating the universe, along with many other things... Nortonius (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Got a start on it, but the extensive quotations in the text make it hard going. Suggest reworking those and considering peer review ... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ealdgyth! I hope all those quotations didn't give you a new headache... I've always had a fondness for quotations, but the recent GAN experience for Reculver may have given me quotation fever – I'm pretty sure I can fix everything that isn't words to watch or a block quotation, if they bother you then that's reason enough for me to take them out. And, thanks for suggesting peer review – there's more I can add, but I don't have the sources yet and I'm not holding my breath, so maybe that time has come. Thanks again! :) Nortonius (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

An impertinent question

Ealdgyth, may I ask why you've decided to take part in the WikiCup competition this year? Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Boredom? It was a whim... and I hope it'll keep me inspired to continue work. I can be extremely competitive at times. It's certainly spurring on my work on William the Conqueror - I might not have kept at it otherwise. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know your feelings on the cup and have no intention of asking you for any comma moving for anything I'll claim for points - neither Baldwin nor Pain will be claimed because all of their expansion took place before 2012. I'll probably concentrate my cup efforts on filling in redlinks I've been accumulating, reviewing GAs, and doing GANs for myself. I'll run any FA possibilities through Peer Review rather than annoy you ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we must each find our motivation where we can. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything that results in more bishops is a good thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL... actually, I'm kinda taking a break from bishops, it is possible to burn out. I'm doing a bunch of reviewing and working on other stuff - including kings and wanna-be-kings. I'm also awaiting word from Casliber about the core content content... I'd planned to work up a couple of "big" articles for that. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Kings and other bad things? You're welcome to them! One question I wanted to bait you with is: are there any "from below" biographies from your period that could be excellent encyclopaedia articles? I know that churchmen and occasionally churchwomen came from more diverse backgrounds; and, obviously, I'm not begging for Wat Tyler (as he seems too late, and too well known). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

the best you're going to do for that time period would be some of the saints/hermits. Even most bishops are going to be from the lower nobility at worst - Thomas Becket was from a merchant/burgess family, but even that's not "down below" - we just don't have the documentation to do a life of someone not in the nobility well. The best I can do is the stuff I'm working on for List of Henry I's new men - they are from the lower nobility - knights and such-like. I've done a number of biographies of lower nobles... including one that's an FA - Urse d'Abetot. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We take what we can get, thanks for pointing me to Urse d'Abetot for a read. My decision to be non-productive is starting to chafe. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to help improve - Pain fitzJohn is looking for more eyes/copyediting/finding issues that a non-expert can't understand. He's next at FAC after my current one - Baldwin of Forde - yes, a bishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I on the other hand, should I be acquitted, intend to completely ignore the so-called "core content" articles. But life would be boring if we all thought in the same way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo: Benedetta Carlini. That is all. --Moni3 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh so very late in the period! I think by then we've got plenty of access to regional folk works and legal proceedings to produce (if not personal) then collective biographies of the peasantry. I remember reading about Italian imaginings of cornucopia in relation to peasant starvation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Benedatta's story has it all really, and deserves a better presentation: gender, lesbianism, and the stupidity of religion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A good book on the medieval peasantry (although a bit past my period of pre-1200 (I do bishops to 1300, but I'm really an Anglo-Norman and Angevin empire kinda girl) is Hannawalt's Ties that Bound - it's very interesting. For that matter - Malleus' own William Cragh is pretty dang good if I say so myself - Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(back to replying to Malleus) Another reason, I think, is just to show some of these people what REAL scholarship is, and that you can do well in the cup without having to write on songs or obscure pop culture topics. Let's improve our more traditional "encyclopedia" coverage (even if it's on much less popular topics). It's also a good way to avoid having to compulsively watch the kangaroo court proceedings against you (which really got me depressed) or the drama-fest at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Pay no attention to me Ealdgyth, I'm just a cranky old (well, not that old, but probably older than most here) man. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was born prior to the moon landings, so I'm not exactly a spring chicken myself. (Granted, not THAT much before the moon landings - there is a great family picture of my infant self sleeping beside my father while he watched the landings... but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo - would Julian of Norwich fit your bill? 209.137.146.50 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Julian is very awesome, but much like Christine de Pizan she is also very very late in the period. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're looking for awesome? I think I'd probably faint if I met this lady, or this lady]] ... or ... to many to mention. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Áurea of San Millán and Petrus Alphonsi (and many many more)? Moorish Spain wax in many ways a far more open society than the rest of medieval Europe, and our coverage of it is awesomely shitty. 209.137.146.50 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have another impertinent question, following on Malleus's. I noticed you didn't respond to my War Horse thread, and I noticed you didn't weigh in on the RFC. Which makes me wonder if you may have been offended that you were never offered the position of FAC or FAR delegate-- for which you were most certainly qualified. If that's the case, I do want you to know that every time I submitted a list, your name was on it, but I was always concerned that we needed an admin, since I wasn't. Laser was an admin, Ucucha is an admin, etc ... that's the only thing that was behind that, lest anything is bothering you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, gods, no, Sandy. My life has been hectic beyond measure lately... mother is recovering from a serious fall in November and we've got her to the point where she THINKS she can do a lot more than she can ... so a lot of my time is spent keeping her upright and not doing something she shouldn't be. (this on top of the usual two teenagers in the house crap and the fact that hubby is switching careers and hunting for a new job this month ... luckily, plenty of interviews, so it's only a matter of time) I didn't weigh in on the RFC because I don't want the extra drama, honestly. I wouldn't WANT to be an FAC/FAR delegate, honestly, because I can never promise that I'll have the time - especially with all the balls I have up in the air. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked :) I hope your mother is better soon ... eegads, growing old ain't for sissies, and my entire social life seems to consist of funerals lately :/ :/ Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Richard Barre

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Barre know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 4, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Barre (c. 1130 – c. 1202) was a medieval English justice, clergyman, and scholar. He was educated at the law school of Bologna, and entered royal service under King Henry II of England, later working for Henry's son and successor Richard I. He was also briefly in the household of Henry's son Henry the Young King. Barre served the elder Henry as a diplomat, and was involved in a minor way with the king's quarrel with Thomas Becket, which earned Barre a condemnation from Becket. After King Henry's death, Barre became a royal justice during Richard's reign, and was one of the main judges in the period from 1194 to 1199. During the reign of King John, Barre was no longer employed as a judge owing to earlier disagreements with John. Barre was the author of a work of Biblical extracts dedicated to one of his patrons, William Longchamp, the Bishop of Ely and Chancellor of England. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WTF! Haven't I bled enough???? ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted, with condolences. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)