Godtres
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Hello, Godtres, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Be Bold!
- Learn from others
- Be kind to others
- Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
- Tell us a bit about yourself
- Our great guide to Wikipedia
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains(talk) 02:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walkelin 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of JimKillock -- JimKillock (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Walkelin you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Walkelin for comments about the article, and Talk:Walkelin/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of JimKillock -- JimKillock (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Walkelin image edit
Hi @Godtres, I realised after passing the Wakelin GA review that the image used claims fair use. I should have checked as part of the GA review, and as you may know, the claimed usage is pretty poor. Because it's easy enough for someone else to take an appropriate photo of this or another PD sculpture or image of him, it would not pass WP's requirements ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose").
You mentioned that you would be able to take a similar picture on a trip to Winchester, is that still on the cards? Jim Killock (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Godtres, I hope you are doing well. Do you remember me? You reviewed my GAN for Barritus. You had concerns with a source. I have searched for a better reference for that statement both online and offline, but I was unable to find any. Therefore, I have removed that sentence from the article. Could you please take a look and suggest if there are any more problems? I am planning to re-nominate this for GA, and I believe the problems from your GA review are now resolved. Thank you. — DreamRimmer (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I've had a look and my main complaint with the article is still that lots of the sources do not match up with the claims made. You will need to go through each citation individually and check it. For example, I think that source 1 refers to it as "baritus", not "barditus" as the article suggests. The fifth use of source 1 does not appear to verify the claim of the article. This is just an example of the wider problem with sourcing in the German article that you translated: I have no doubt that I could still find further inconsistencies in sourcing.
- Also, there is some scope to expand the section on etymology, although this is less essential than the sourcing problems.
- I hope I've answered your question well enough. Godtres (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The source 1 refers to both Baritus and Barditus, but for your verification, I have added another source. You stated, 'The fifth use of source 1 does not appear to verify the claim of the article,' but it actually does. Please check page number 17 of the source. It states, '
They have no battle-songs; when they sing them—calling their songs "barditus"—they inspire themselves for battle, and from the sound, they can already guess the outcome of the impending fight. They believe that depending on how the song turns out, victory will be on their side or on that of the enemy.
' I have changed the sentence to 'The strength of the Barritus could predict the potential outcome of the battle.
' I hope now this looks good. I have spent many days researching about this subject and will surely expand the article in the future. Waiting for more suggestions. DreamRimmer (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, you were right with the "barditus" claim. I was looking at a wrong edition.
- The final point, however, is still not supported. I can only read the original Latin (this should be fine, since the German is a translation): "they have also those cries by the recital of which — “barritus” is the name they use — they inspire courage; and they divine the fortunes of the coming battle from the circumstances of the cry. Intimidation or timidity depends on the intonation of the warriors; it seems to them to mean not so much unison of voices as union of hearts; the object they specially seek is a certain volume of hoarseness, a crashing roar, their shields being brought up to their lips, that the voice may swell to a fuller and deeper note by means of the echo."
- You'd have to phrase the comment like this: "the troops made predictions on the outcome of the battle based on the nature of the barritus." There's no mention of the strength in the source, nor any suggestion that the barritus actually predicted the outcome correctly. Godtres (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The term 'strength' was correct, as both 'nature of the Barritus' and 'strength of the Barritus' logically refer to the same meaning. However, I have rephrased it as you suggested to make it more clear and simple. DreamRimmer (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Any response? – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- My general point that the article needs its sourcing overhauled still stands... I had a look at citation 7. I don't speak German, so I personally can't check the individual claims... However, given the source is called "barditus", I'm surprised that it would be citing "baritus" as the form of the word and not "barditus" in the article. I'm not going to keep pointing out potentially broken citations. You need to go through each one individually, and update or replace it.
- P.S. There are still some minor comments from the original GA review that you could address. For example, adding information about the potential link to the Latin word for elephant. Godtres (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the article, it mentions 'Barritus,' which can also be spelled as 'Barditus,' 'Baritus,' and so on. I've gone through all the sources, and they seem accurate to me. I'm a bit puzzled about what issues you'are seeing with this article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The source is used to cite the spelling "baritus".
- If, as you claim, the article (which I can't access) talks about "barritus", then it is used incorrectly.
- For good article status, reviewers need to be able to trust that citations are used properly. Godtres (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was my mistake. I have now fixed it. I understand that reviewer satisfaction is essential. Every nomination has issues, but they are later fixed by nominators following suggestions from reviewers at the GAN page. However, you have failed it immediately, so I have no choice left but to write here on your talk page. Thank you for your time. Now I will take some time to review each source again and message you after a month. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the article, it mentions 'Barritus,' which can also be spelled as 'Barditus,' 'Baritus,' and so on. I've gone through all the sources, and they seem accurate to me. I'm a bit puzzled about what issues you'are seeing with this article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Any response? – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The term 'strength' was correct, as both 'nature of the Barritus' and 'strength of the Barritus' logically refer to the same meaning. However, I have rephrased it as you suggested to make it more clear and simple. DreamRimmer (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The source 1 refers to both Baritus and Barditus, but for your verification, I have added another source. You stated, 'The fifth use of source 1 does not appear to verify the claim of the article,' but it actually does. Please check page number 17 of the source. It states, '
DYK for Walkelin edit
On 11 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walkelin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Walkelin, Bishop of Winchester, began the construction of the modern Winchester Cathedral in 1079? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walkelin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Walkelin), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
March 2024 GAN backlog drive edit
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Crusading movement edit
Crusading movement has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Wolvesey Palace edit
On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wolvesey Palace, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 17th-century Wolvesey Palace reuses a 15th-century chapel built on the remains of a 12th-century room from Wolvesey Castle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wolvesey Palace. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wolvesey Palace), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.