![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Like you asked, I authored a short article on the Life of St Wilfrid. You might want to expand it with more material. I only have limited sources on this at the moment, and it isn't important enough for me to go get some (as I'm doing other research atm and my library card is maxed out). All the bestest, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I've added the correct publisher, the website never got back to me so I'll e-mail them again asking for the official source. However, seeing as the other newspaper source on that website was from the McLeansboro Times-Leader I think it's pretty obvious that's where the article came from. However, I'll double check if you like. ceran thor 13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a gander through my sources and see if any of them meet WP notability standards. Its possible one or the other served in the colonial assembly or something. Geraldk ( talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, do you have time for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by weird and strange stories, a good source for which is the ForteanTimes. [1] I'm curious though to know whether you'd consider it to be a reliable source on, say, an article about the Green children of Woolpit.
I can probably guess what your initial reaction is likely to be, but its articles do look to be more carefully researched and cited than you might expect. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ealdgyth, whenever you get a chance could you look over Halo Wars's sources and pop any concerns on the talk page? Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, as you know, I would like to eventually bring Battle of Bosworth Field to FAC. Someone added a new source since your check, and I would like to know if it is fine ( diff). Basically it is A. L. Rowse's Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses (1966) by Wordsworth Military Library. Jappalang ( talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. I appreciate the constructive feedback. Cla68 ( talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind striking the second to last point in your comments here. I have since removed the reference in the article, so it's no longer an issue. Just for clarity, you know? Thanks for checking it over. Majorly talk 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth: I notice you used this term at FAC (Austr. MilHist nom.). What is it? Also, in relation to Wikipedia:Fac#Diocletianic_Persecution, I asked PMAnderson to take a content look (it's his area), and he's concerned about chained secondary sources, but is mostly away now for a week. He said: "The nominator has been doing odd things with the footnotes; where a modern secondary source has specified the ancient primary source, our editor has given both. He claims, now, to have consulted all the primary sources listed, even the Bollandists; could you see whether the present footnotes describe the situation clearly?" I feel a little out of my depth; can you advise? Tony (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Review done. See review page. Looks good - not a lot being sought I think. cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
They say everyday you learn something new. Here's something new for you, from the article Holy See – United Kingdom relations: "Diplomatic links between the Kingdom of England and the Holy See were established in 1479." Gotta love this place sometimes. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In reference to your removal on the featured article page, how do I propose the article to become featured?-- The Music Collector ( talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good article! -- Wetman ( talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Victoria,
I have finally completed addressing all your suggestions. Please see my reply on the talk page. Thank you again for your comments, which were all extremely useful. Crum375 ( talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the sources of Oklahoma City bombing. I'd like to resolve any issues before taking on FAC as there may be other more pressing issues I'll have to keep up with during the nomination. I recognize the limited time you have, and if you are unable/uninterested, then no worries, I'll be happy to deal with sources at FAC (may have to anyway). As a side note, those are some interesting images of the horses, I have ridden a few in North Dakota, but here in San Diego, there's not too much room in the city! Thanks for your help in the past with my first FA ( Little Miss Sunshine), and if you need any clarification on anything, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Do you want to put Gregorian mission article on FA voting? It's great aricle, maybe just we can put some more picture. Best wishes,-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edward Low, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Omegapuzzle ( talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, the article looks great. I just wanted to point out what struck me otherwise it is fine. I can not finish our conversations tonight as my 17 year old is kicking me off the computer to do something important. (My Wikipedia hobby is not respected : ) NancyHeise talk 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Review done. I'll keep an eye out. cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copy of the comments I left on sandys page. So what your saying is in order to submit an article I must have written it and or have access to every book, magazine, journal, etc that is referenced in the article. First, it is not a realistic goal for you to say that in order for an editor to submit an article for FA they must have written it when dozens of people could have made potentially thousands of edits to the article. Second I typically only edit articles that I know about, in this case the Albert Einstein article is a well enough known article, with loads of easy to access references that if someone asks a question I will find the answer. I would not try and get an article about the theory of everything to FA status because I am not qualified to write it. Third, I work 2 blocks from the library of congress so if I need a book I'll go get it. This whole thing has gotten off topic. MY argument is that I was making the changes necessary to get this article to FA based on the comments I was getting from reviewers and Sandy closed it amid change after I had already been working on it for a few days. I have a very busy schedule and a full weekend and it was taking somem time to get the changes made. On a side note unless you are willing to have other than the same 5 editors submitting featured articles then you have to give us a chance to fix the problems and follow the process through and not cut it off in mid stream. Like I told Sandy, the article wasn't ready, ok but I was making the changes necessary to get it to FA. This whole thing is turning me off of the submission process and I have close to 70,000 edits, I imagine how it would feel to a less seasoned editor.-- Kumioko ( talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I doubt I can help in the time frame you need -- our moving van got here last week and things are still topsy turvy. I think it will be a while before I settle down to any real editing time again. I've been watching your FACs and wishing I had time to read them with enough attention to support them -- sorry I've been absent. When I get time again I will stop by and ask you what I can do to help; I know I owe you half a dozen favours. Mike Christie (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to update your comments? :) Cheers Cliftonian ( Talk • Contibs) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ealdgyth, thanks for taking the time in reviewing "This Love", I appreciate it. Just wanted to say that I've gotten your concerns. Thanks again. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the Patrick Kisnorbo page. Does it pass GA? Spiderone ( talk) 17:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI. In case you ever run across that site in the future. Don't be fooled by that shiny BBC logo. :) TwilligToves ( talk) 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have submitted the Pinafore article to FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't anyone bring this up in GAN or peer review? It seems like GAN should have addressed this issue. If I remember correctly, wind passed GAN without much fanfare, which did surprise me. I do make mistakes, like most other people. It seems like the FAC process is doing the job that GAN and peer review should. I've rarely had any good, human responses within peer review. Just a few random comments, and a BOT or two. Thegreatdr ( talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've made my first stab at creating an infobox, since no such thing seems to be available for medieval texts of any kind. I've been mostly learning how to apply (read: mess with) code, but the essential parameters are there I think. The box is located here and the talkpage here. One rough example might look familiar to you : ) Could you have a peak? Cavila ( talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't know how much of your area this is, but if you fancy it and you have time, can you have a look over Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick? This I've decided will be the companion FAC for Siward (remember my superstition about the number 6?). Obviously, like all long articles, it needs comment, criticism and proofreading. Any of those services will be appreciated! :) I will make some more maps and genealogies to illustrate the article. I realise 13th-century Carrick is not exactly well known to everyone. I also plan another background paragraph on Carrick itself. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Saw your note at YellowMonkey's and MF's talk pages. The article does seem to be a bit incoherent in that there is a lack of organization. Take a look at 2005 Texas Longhorns football team for a model. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, looking at 1950 Maryland Terrapins football team, which I just signed up to review for GAN. I'm not seeing a coherent article here. I see some lists, and some information in the lead, but nothing that ties all the dispartite information together. I'm leaning towards a quick fail, quite honestly, but would love a second opinion (or a third or fourth if any TPS wanna weigh in). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm trying to get 2009 Orange Bowl ready for FAC and was wondering if you might have the time to take a look at it and check on its overall readiness. I just need to get one more of these college football bowl game articles up to featured status to complete a featured topic, and this seems like the best candidate. I know how busy you are, so I understand if you're not able to help. If that's the case, could you recommend another editor who might be able to help? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I was curious if you had a chance if you could review comments I made here: [2] regarding references on an featured article. As one familiar with FA reference requirements, could you please let me know if you think that my concerns merit a FAR? If you don't think its much of a problem, I would rather not stir up a hornet nest. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I think I will avoid a FAR and see if they won't mind me just to add some additional referencing myself.
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
For your invaluable guidance on referencing, and all the great work you do at FAC, I thank you! Cheers! — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hello. Something in this edit of yours puzzled me and I wonder if you can explain it? You referred to "Easter egg linking". Is that a standard term that would be understood by some others than yourself without explanation or examples? Can you explain what it means? What you give is not explanation, but examples, and one of your examples is that "why the sky is blue" links to " diffuse sky radiation". That link seems appropriate to me, like one I might have done myself. But given the context—that it's a sort of objection to the article—it seems you must think something is wrong with it. Can you explain why? Google leads me to this. That page says: "A virtual Easter egg is an intentional hidden message, in-joke or feature in an object such as a movie, book, CD, DVD, computer program, web page or video game." Did you think there was a hidden message or in-joke in that link? If so, it's hidden from me. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
But it's perfectly intuitive that that's what it would lead to. "Why the sky is blue" is a question whose answer is diffuse sky radiation. Why would you call it nonintuitive? You wouldn't necessarily expect those exact words as the title, but obviously if you ask a question about the color of diffuse sky radiation and and you get an article titled "diffuse sky radiation", you're getting what you expected. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If the article says "why President Kennedy was not re-elected" and you click on it and the article is called "Kennedy assassination", then you wouldn't have expected that unless you already knew that Kennedy was assassinated. But if the article says "why the sky is blue", then even if you don't know the answer, "diffuse sky radiation" is, if not verbatim the title you would expect, at least a phrase the describes the topic you'd expect. I can say that confidently because in fact I don't know the answer. If you're right to say that that shouldn't be done, the fact remains that you didn't say why it shouldn't be done in any terms that would leave anyone with anything more than guesses as to what you had in mind.
(As to the question of whether the link should be in that article, I'm going to look at it further.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In some cases the purpose is to answer a question, even if not usually. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly not held only by me. The example concerning Kennedy's failure of re-election is a "surprising link", and your "surprising link" is a surprising link, but the one about "diffuse sky radiation" is not a "surprising link", since it links to what the person clicking on it would expect. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I know you're away just now, but I thought I'd tell you I managed to get and print off the Alecto essays for Worcestershire. The main one is written by Ann Williams, and is very useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
...when you might want to avoid appending your standard "otherwise, sources look okay" to your FAC reviews. This might be one of those times.
(Take this as lighthearted comment rather than a criticism or complaint; it brought a smile to my face.) Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I've done some copyediting and adding. I have a few other sources that may clear up any confusion if any remains. If you would take a look at the article again, I'd appreciate it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I hope I didn't catch you at a bad time, as you just got back. What do you think about http://dictionary.reference.com/ for a simple definition (tandem's the word)? Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just like to say "thank-you" for reviewing the references on the above article...from now on I hope my references will improve...that will be due to you! Thanks. Seth Whales ( talk) 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I did an article on Tidfrith of Hexham. After doing it I discovered a two line dates stub under the name Tidfert, which you had done. Because of its small size I just made this a redirect to the Tidfrith dab page. Hope that's ok. I can perform a history merge if you like (i.e. temporarily delete one page, move to the location, delete and restore all in the same location). Tell me if you want me to do that. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've found some awesome sources on DiS. I think after reading them there should be absolutely no leeway or problems with reliability. Have a look and comment when you have the time. Rafablu88 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"Earl of Norfolk"? I'm going to look into it ... not sure if he was or not. Perhaps you have more info and can save me time. :) Hope you enjoyed Independence Day! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! MBW directed me to you. I'm hoping to get some more pairs of eyes on Dominant white to prepare it for GA review. If you find time to comment, or just have a look, I would be very grateful. All the best. Countercanter ( talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Got to work on the article and posted remaining references at FAC for further review. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Can you give this FAR a look over for sources? Thanks YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you like me to do some work on the Urse article sometime this week? I did research for Cyneweard of Laughern, which was very useful. I think the flow of the article can be improved by using background more. E.g. if it is pointed out that the office of sheriff was a farm, meaning that the holder paid for the position and subsequently tried to make a profit, and that the Earl of Mercia and thus the king had lost so much land in the county of Worcester in the years preceding the Conquest, what Urse was doing will be more clear. And so on ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether you can get BBC TV programmes in your neck of the woods, but earlier this evening I watched a documentary programme about, would you believe, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. It was really very interesting, and good to see some of the places you've written about, but at a couple of points I wanted to shout out "Hang on, that's not quite what happened!". :lol: -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm really, really, bad at understanding family relationships, it's just a blibd spot I have. I can just about do mother, father, brother, sister, and at a push aunt and uncle, but after that I struggle. So you'll have to forgive any daft -in-law questions I may come up with. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the general reception to the use of atlases in FAs? I'm writing about a river and its tributaries. A source claims the name of a lake that can be an obscenity is sometimes altered to read more nicely, which is printed in a topographic atlas I'm using to keep my geography accurate. I don't really have to use the atlas in a citation, but it would be further proof of the disparate spelling, as well as some other tiny issues. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So on Oxford podcasts I was listening to the Anglo-Saxon ones, and the lecturer lambasted the Ælfric of Eynsham article. He didn't give any details, just said it was wrong. I know you haven't edited the article properly but, out of curiosity, did you ever conceive any ambition for the article? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What appears to have happened with the Ælfric article is that the chief contributor, Carmen Acevedo Butcher, has written a book on him, and has used her own "translations" of Ælfric's sermons. Carmen's website is [3] (she identifies herself on her user page User:AElfric ). Ning-ning ( talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I know you're on vacation, but when you come back, could you review the referencing within the precipitation (meteorology) article? It was just converted over to cite web/journal/book format. I've submitted it for peer review, and would like to get referencing problems out of the way in this stage of the game, rather than dwelling on them during any future FAC run. Thanks for your consideration. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Image:Duchy of Cornwall-coa.png, the arms of the Duchy of Cornwall was recently added to Red-billed Chough. The licence is claimed to be PD, but I’d be surprised if the Duchy allows free use, including commercial purposes. Should I delete the image? . Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you were able to get to a few FACs ... do you have time today to get to these?
Thanks as always for all you do :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you didn't mind mind me jumping into FAC with some attempted sources reviews, but I didn't know when you would be able to resume, so thought I would help out. I probably haven't helped much....do you want me to desist? Brianboulton ( talk) 19:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe I am incorrect about this, but the Reading Eagle is a newspaper, and it is the publisher of the material, similar to a story in the The New York Times, so the publisher and not work tag is appropriate. Am I wrong? Also, I've responded to your questions, but I have to email Dcoggins (in Australia) for some of the answers. Thank you! -- Avi ( talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. I've addressed the issues that you raised - please see my response on the discussion page. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for striking your comment about the sources in the North Road article. Any chance you could give the article a proper content assessment? I have a feeling I may need all the support I can get! Thanks very much. – Pee Jay 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the "alt" parameter to that template as you asked. I noticed though when going the articles that use the template that there seems to be a bug in it somewhere, causing lots of whitespace at the top of some articles. I'll perhaps take a look at that when I'm feeling a bit perkier—I'm hoping that my sore throat, aching, and runny nose is just the after-effects of a hangover, not that damn flu. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, can you give me a bit more time on the Urse article. I have to fully refresh my mind on the topic, and it's really tricky reformulate an existing narrative (as opposed to creating one newly composed). So far I've been gathering refs from two pieces in a notepad file, but for some reason I don't appear to have the motivation atm, and am moving only slowly. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have the interest, I'd be very appreciative if you could take a glance at this article at some point. I've been forced to rely on a single source and I think the article could benefit greatly from some basic knowledge about the English church, which (from the looks of it) is your area of expertise. No worries. Savidan 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the defaultsortkeys were of the format "England, James I of" which led to a category where there were many entries incorrectly under 'E'. Tim! ( talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you did some extensive work on Antony Bek early last year, and then abandoned it. Was there any special reason for this? It seems to be pretty close to GA status; I'd be happy to review it if you finish it. Lampman ( talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Having gone over the sources considerably on Fertilisation of Orchids, I'll be most grateful if you can do a source check, as discussed in the restarted FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1. Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw the Lipizzaner stallions perform today, but that's not what I want to ask you about. :) I'm preparing to take Yukon Quest to FAC and was wondering if you might have the time for a source check before I do. It's failed twice before, so I'm taking extra care to make sure the third time is the charm. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The above article is about a 7th-century Mercian (surprisingly!) king. I noticed that it's up for a FA review and thought that you might be able to help. Medieval bishops and saints may be more your thing, but I thought it was worth asking. Thanks, Nev1 ( talk) 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Were your concerns on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 sufficiently addressed? Thanks for your help :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I saw the notice on your userpage indicating that you're off doing article stuff these days, but I was wondering if I could pester you for a favour. I recently listed List of brain tumor patients at WP:FLRC as about 15% of the citations were dead or produced remote server errors. I also had a dip into the active sources and found what I felt were number of non- WP:RS's. I know you're busy, busy, busy, but if you do find yourself yearning to get back to your marvelous analysis of sources' reliability, I'd be very grateful. The FLRC for any comments you may wish to make can be found here. All the best, I hope all is well with you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in a report at WP:ANI. -- Philcha ( talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, did you get a pdf of the Bassett? If so, could you forward it? Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen, your old standby died aged 98 in June, although the Times has only published his obituary today (well behind Charles Matthews). Johnbod ( talk) 10:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You made some comments at the FAC for Otto Julius Zobel which was not promoted. Although your specific comments were addressed, you did not return to either support or oppose the article. Can I ask what changes would induce you to support this article at a FAC, if indeed you would? SpinningSpark 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be away at present, but when you have a moment you might like to look at this. In May, when I said I was going to do it, you wrote, "Why did you decide to work on an archbishop?? Did he eat ponies in the arctic too???" Disappointingly, it seems he didn't, but as you're the archbishops expert (albeit extremely ancient ones), any comment you can make would be much appreciated. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Once again, thank you so much for your awesome work at FAC. I am seeing a trend in better awareness about sources, which is good, because it means you won't be the only one even looking at sources in a lot of these candidates. The Pokemon FAC is firmly in hand, I think—it is my and another editor's attention to sources that resulted in those tags. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you check every FAC, my dear Ealdgyth. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your concerns.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, I believe it's been just over a year since I peer-reviewed Epikleros, and promised to improve it! To celebrate I have uploaded the latest version of my sourcing diagram. Work is, as always, ongoing behind the scenes. Dr pda ( talk) 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth,
I made a reply to your comment on
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay I've had a read through the article from a non-horsey point of view. I'll post my comments on the article talk page, not to clutter things up here. Xan dar 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. It seemed a shame that all your work and that of the other readers would be lost, so will notify those who did take the time to read it. I've also included a section on the rationale about the bibliography and footnoting format (your primary concern) in the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You've probably already noticed that I switched your {{ convert}} template for {{ hands}}, which I think gives a nicer result.
I'll be calling on you shortly to give your opinion on this article, one that I've been working on recently. I've still got some work to do on it before GAN, but I ought to warn you before you take a look that that the story is quite distressing. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks -- Wilfridselsey ( talk) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, thanks for the question you raised on sourcing on the No Line on the Horizon FAC. I believe I've answered your query regarding the reliability of those five references. I'd appreciate it if you could talk a look at my response and see if I've addressed the issue thoroughly enough. Since your talk page asks for the link, here it is. Cheers (and thanks!), MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
...can you have a look over Postman's Park? Ideally I'd like someone with no connection at all to London to have a look through it, to see if there are any obvious-to-me-but-not-to-everyone-else-isms that have slipped through. You'll like it; it's got bishops and Anglo-Saxons. And it may be the only article to combine the phrases "starring Natalie Portman and Jude Law", "the heaps of rotting corpses caused great public concern" and "hand-painted and glazed ceramic tiles". – iride scent 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion, is this a reliable source? GARDEN 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I just wanted to give you a heads up. I'm moving in about a week so I figured it's now or never! Thanks for all your help on it. Countercanter ( talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth! You're an expert on sources, right? :) If you're not too busy, can you answer my question here? Thanks, The leftorium 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We fixed the formats. Pl reply at FAC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Is forthcoming. I have to be honest, this looks like an article that might be fundamentally incapable of being a GA, but I'll give it a good-faith review. Nosleep break my slumber 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully suggest that you need a new sounding board. This guy has made me Hitler because of one comment. He has made it clear that he is not here to help or improve anything. This'll be my last word on this matter. Nosleep break my slumber 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I've apologized to Nosleep, and as far as I'm concerned, we are about done with the subject. Obviously it's a full moon today and everyone, including me, is cranky. Let's let it lie, okay? (in other words, take it off my talk page, please.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"'I'd apologize for Malleus, but well... he's himself."
That'll larn ya; don't ask for my opinion if you don't want to hear it, in full technicolor. ;-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You'll forgive me if I prefer BOTH of you, and intend to work to keep you both around. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth! I'm starting work on taking Icelandic horse to FA, and was wondering if you'd have a few minutes to look it over. General thoughts on sourcing and alt text would be most helpful. I've already put it up for PR, and once it gets through there I'm going to ask Malleus to look it over for prose, as well as Awadewit for images and Eublides for alt text. Any other recommendations on things to do before FA would be appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It was still pretty huge - of course I have my images preference set to 11 (er no, 300px) & they are certainly better for those at standard (180). Johnbod ( talk) 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Like you asked, I authored a short article on the Life of St Wilfrid. You might want to expand it with more material. I only have limited sources on this at the moment, and it isn't important enough for me to go get some (as I'm doing other research atm and my library card is maxed out). All the bestest, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I've added the correct publisher, the website never got back to me so I'll e-mail them again asking for the official source. However, seeing as the other newspaper source on that website was from the McLeansboro Times-Leader I think it's pretty obvious that's where the article came from. However, I'll double check if you like. ceran thor 13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a gander through my sources and see if any of them meet WP notability standards. Its possible one or the other served in the colonial assembly or something. Geraldk ( talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, do you have time for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by weird and strange stories, a good source for which is the ForteanTimes. [1] I'm curious though to know whether you'd consider it to be a reliable source on, say, an article about the Green children of Woolpit.
I can probably guess what your initial reaction is likely to be, but its articles do look to be more carefully researched and cited than you might expect. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ealdgyth, whenever you get a chance could you look over Halo Wars's sources and pop any concerns on the talk page? Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Mifter ( talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, as you know, I would like to eventually bring Battle of Bosworth Field to FAC. Someone added a new source since your check, and I would like to know if it is fine ( diff). Basically it is A. L. Rowse's Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses (1966) by Wordsworth Military Library. Jappalang ( talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. I appreciate the constructive feedback. Cla68 ( talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind striking the second to last point in your comments here. I have since removed the reference in the article, so it's no longer an issue. Just for clarity, you know? Thanks for checking it over. Majorly talk 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth: I notice you used this term at FAC (Austr. MilHist nom.). What is it? Also, in relation to Wikipedia:Fac#Diocletianic_Persecution, I asked PMAnderson to take a content look (it's his area), and he's concerned about chained secondary sources, but is mostly away now for a week. He said: "The nominator has been doing odd things with the footnotes; where a modern secondary source has specified the ancient primary source, our editor has given both. He claims, now, to have consulted all the primary sources listed, even the Bollandists; could you see whether the present footnotes describe the situation clearly?" I feel a little out of my depth; can you advise? Tony (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Review done. See review page. Looks good - not a lot being sought I think. cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
They say everyday you learn something new. Here's something new for you, from the article Holy See – United Kingdom relations: "Diplomatic links between the Kingdom of England and the Holy See were established in 1479." Gotta love this place sometimes. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In reference to your removal on the featured article page, how do I propose the article to become featured?-- The Music Collector ( talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good article! -- Wetman ( talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Victoria,
I have finally completed addressing all your suggestions. Please see my reply on the talk page. Thank you again for your comments, which were all extremely useful. Crum375 ( talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the sources of Oklahoma City bombing. I'd like to resolve any issues before taking on FAC as there may be other more pressing issues I'll have to keep up with during the nomination. I recognize the limited time you have, and if you are unable/uninterested, then no worries, I'll be happy to deal with sources at FAC (may have to anyway). As a side note, those are some interesting images of the horses, I have ridden a few in North Dakota, but here in San Diego, there's not too much room in the city! Thanks for your help in the past with my first FA ( Little Miss Sunshine), and if you need any clarification on anything, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Do you want to put Gregorian mission article on FA voting? It's great aricle, maybe just we can put some more picture. Best wishes,-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edward Low, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Omegapuzzle ( talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, the article looks great. I just wanted to point out what struck me otherwise it is fine. I can not finish our conversations tonight as my 17 year old is kicking me off the computer to do something important. (My Wikipedia hobby is not respected : ) NancyHeise talk 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Review done. I'll keep an eye out. cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copy of the comments I left on sandys page. So what your saying is in order to submit an article I must have written it and or have access to every book, magazine, journal, etc that is referenced in the article. First, it is not a realistic goal for you to say that in order for an editor to submit an article for FA they must have written it when dozens of people could have made potentially thousands of edits to the article. Second I typically only edit articles that I know about, in this case the Albert Einstein article is a well enough known article, with loads of easy to access references that if someone asks a question I will find the answer. I would not try and get an article about the theory of everything to FA status because I am not qualified to write it. Third, I work 2 blocks from the library of congress so if I need a book I'll go get it. This whole thing has gotten off topic. MY argument is that I was making the changes necessary to get this article to FA based on the comments I was getting from reviewers and Sandy closed it amid change after I had already been working on it for a few days. I have a very busy schedule and a full weekend and it was taking somem time to get the changes made. On a side note unless you are willing to have other than the same 5 editors submitting featured articles then you have to give us a chance to fix the problems and follow the process through and not cut it off in mid stream. Like I told Sandy, the article wasn't ready, ok but I was making the changes necessary to get it to FA. This whole thing is turning me off of the submission process and I have close to 70,000 edits, I imagine how it would feel to a less seasoned editor.-- Kumioko ( talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I doubt I can help in the time frame you need -- our moving van got here last week and things are still topsy turvy. I think it will be a while before I settle down to any real editing time again. I've been watching your FACs and wishing I had time to read them with enough attention to support them -- sorry I've been absent. When I get time again I will stop by and ask you what I can do to help; I know I owe you half a dozen favours. Mike Christie (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to update your comments? :) Cheers Cliftonian ( Talk • Contibs) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ealdgyth, thanks for taking the time in reviewing "This Love", I appreciate it. Just wanted to say that I've gotten your concerns. Thanks again. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the Patrick Kisnorbo page. Does it pass GA? Spiderone ( talk) 17:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Jamie ☆ S93 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI. In case you ever run across that site in the future. Don't be fooled by that shiny BBC logo. :) TwilligToves ( talk) 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have submitted the Pinafore article to FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't anyone bring this up in GAN or peer review? It seems like GAN should have addressed this issue. If I remember correctly, wind passed GAN without much fanfare, which did surprise me. I do make mistakes, like most other people. It seems like the FAC process is doing the job that GAN and peer review should. I've rarely had any good, human responses within peer review. Just a few random comments, and a BOT or two. Thegreatdr ( talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've made my first stab at creating an infobox, since no such thing seems to be available for medieval texts of any kind. I've been mostly learning how to apply (read: mess with) code, but the essential parameters are there I think. The box is located here and the talkpage here. One rough example might look familiar to you : ) Could you have a peak? Cavila ( talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't know how much of your area this is, but if you fancy it and you have time, can you have a look over Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick? This I've decided will be the companion FAC for Siward (remember my superstition about the number 6?). Obviously, like all long articles, it needs comment, criticism and proofreading. Any of those services will be appreciated! :) I will make some more maps and genealogies to illustrate the article. I realise 13th-century Carrick is not exactly well known to everyone. I also plan another background paragraph on Carrick itself. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Saw your note at YellowMonkey's and MF's talk pages. The article does seem to be a bit incoherent in that there is a lack of organization. Take a look at 2005 Texas Longhorns football team for a model. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, looking at 1950 Maryland Terrapins football team, which I just signed up to review for GAN. I'm not seeing a coherent article here. I see some lists, and some information in the lead, but nothing that ties all the dispartite information together. I'm leaning towards a quick fail, quite honestly, but would love a second opinion (or a third or fourth if any TPS wanna weigh in). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm trying to get 2009 Orange Bowl ready for FAC and was wondering if you might have the time to take a look at it and check on its overall readiness. I just need to get one more of these college football bowl game articles up to featured status to complete a featured topic, and this seems like the best candidate. I know how busy you are, so I understand if you're not able to help. If that's the case, could you recommend another editor who might be able to help? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I was curious if you had a chance if you could review comments I made here: [2] regarding references on an featured article. As one familiar with FA reference requirements, could you please let me know if you think that my concerns merit a FAR? If you don't think its much of a problem, I would rather not stir up a hornet nest. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I think I will avoid a FAR and see if they won't mind me just to add some additional referencing myself.
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
For your invaluable guidance on referencing, and all the great work you do at FAC, I thank you! Cheers! — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hello. Something in this edit of yours puzzled me and I wonder if you can explain it? You referred to "Easter egg linking". Is that a standard term that would be understood by some others than yourself without explanation or examples? Can you explain what it means? What you give is not explanation, but examples, and one of your examples is that "why the sky is blue" links to " diffuse sky radiation". That link seems appropriate to me, like one I might have done myself. But given the context—that it's a sort of objection to the article—it seems you must think something is wrong with it. Can you explain why? Google leads me to this. That page says: "A virtual Easter egg is an intentional hidden message, in-joke or feature in an object such as a movie, book, CD, DVD, computer program, web page or video game." Did you think there was a hidden message or in-joke in that link? If so, it's hidden from me. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
But it's perfectly intuitive that that's what it would lead to. "Why the sky is blue" is a question whose answer is diffuse sky radiation. Why would you call it nonintuitive? You wouldn't necessarily expect those exact words as the title, but obviously if you ask a question about the color of diffuse sky radiation and and you get an article titled "diffuse sky radiation", you're getting what you expected. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If the article says "why President Kennedy was not re-elected" and you click on it and the article is called "Kennedy assassination", then you wouldn't have expected that unless you already knew that Kennedy was assassinated. But if the article says "why the sky is blue", then even if you don't know the answer, "diffuse sky radiation" is, if not verbatim the title you would expect, at least a phrase the describes the topic you'd expect. I can say that confidently because in fact I don't know the answer. If you're right to say that that shouldn't be done, the fact remains that you didn't say why it shouldn't be done in any terms that would leave anyone with anything more than guesses as to what you had in mind.
(As to the question of whether the link should be in that article, I'm going to look at it further.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In some cases the purpose is to answer a question, even if not usually. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly not held only by me. The example concerning Kennedy's failure of re-election is a "surprising link", and your "surprising link" is a surprising link, but the one about "diffuse sky radiation" is not a "surprising link", since it links to what the person clicking on it would expect. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I know you're away just now, but I thought I'd tell you I managed to get and print off the Alecto essays for Worcestershire. The main one is written by Ann Williams, and is very useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
...when you might want to avoid appending your standard "otherwise, sources look okay" to your FAC reviews. This might be one of those times.
(Take this as lighthearted comment rather than a criticism or complaint; it brought a smile to my face.) Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I've done some copyediting and adding. I have a few other sources that may clear up any confusion if any remains. If you would take a look at the article again, I'd appreciate it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I hope I didn't catch you at a bad time, as you just got back. What do you think about http://dictionary.reference.com/ for a simple definition (tandem's the word)? Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just like to say "thank-you" for reviewing the references on the above article...from now on I hope my references will improve...that will be due to you! Thanks. Seth Whales ( talk) 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I did an article on Tidfrith of Hexham. After doing it I discovered a two line dates stub under the name Tidfert, which you had done. Because of its small size I just made this a redirect to the Tidfrith dab page. Hope that's ok. I can perform a history merge if you like (i.e. temporarily delete one page, move to the location, delete and restore all in the same location). Tell me if you want me to do that. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've found some awesome sources on DiS. I think after reading them there should be absolutely no leeway or problems with reliability. Have a look and comment when you have the time. Rafablu88 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"Earl of Norfolk"? I'm going to look into it ... not sure if he was or not. Perhaps you have more info and can save me time. :) Hope you enjoyed Independence Day! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! MBW directed me to you. I'm hoping to get some more pairs of eyes on Dominant white to prepare it for GA review. If you find time to comment, or just have a look, I would be very grateful. All the best. Countercanter ( talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Got to work on the article and posted remaining references at FAC for further review. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Can you give this FAR a look over for sources? Thanks YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you like me to do some work on the Urse article sometime this week? I did research for Cyneweard of Laughern, which was very useful. I think the flow of the article can be improved by using background more. E.g. if it is pointed out that the office of sheriff was a farm, meaning that the holder paid for the position and subsequently tried to make a profit, and that the Earl of Mercia and thus the king had lost so much land in the county of Worcester in the years preceding the Conquest, what Urse was doing will be more clear. And so on ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether you can get BBC TV programmes in your neck of the woods, but earlier this evening I watched a documentary programme about, would you believe, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. It was really very interesting, and good to see some of the places you've written about, but at a couple of points I wanted to shout out "Hang on, that's not quite what happened!". :lol: -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm really, really, bad at understanding family relationships, it's just a blibd spot I have. I can just about do mother, father, brother, sister, and at a push aunt and uncle, but after that I struggle. So you'll have to forgive any daft -in-law questions I may come up with. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the general reception to the use of atlases in FAs? I'm writing about a river and its tributaries. A source claims the name of a lake that can be an obscenity is sometimes altered to read more nicely, which is printed in a topographic atlas I'm using to keep my geography accurate. I don't really have to use the atlas in a citation, but it would be further proof of the disparate spelling, as well as some other tiny issues. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So on Oxford podcasts I was listening to the Anglo-Saxon ones, and the lecturer lambasted the Ælfric of Eynsham article. He didn't give any details, just said it was wrong. I know you haven't edited the article properly but, out of curiosity, did you ever conceive any ambition for the article? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What appears to have happened with the Ælfric article is that the chief contributor, Carmen Acevedo Butcher, has written a book on him, and has used her own "translations" of Ælfric's sermons. Carmen's website is [3] (she identifies herself on her user page User:AElfric ). Ning-ning ( talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I know you're on vacation, but when you come back, could you review the referencing within the precipitation (meteorology) article? It was just converted over to cite web/journal/book format. I've submitted it for peer review, and would like to get referencing problems out of the way in this stage of the game, rather than dwelling on them during any future FAC run. Thanks for your consideration. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Image:Duchy of Cornwall-coa.png, the arms of the Duchy of Cornwall was recently added to Red-billed Chough. The licence is claimed to be PD, but I’d be surprised if the Duchy allows free use, including commercial purposes. Should I delete the image? . Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you were able to get to a few FACs ... do you have time today to get to these?
Thanks as always for all you do :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you didn't mind mind me jumping into FAC with some attempted sources reviews, but I didn't know when you would be able to resume, so thought I would help out. I probably haven't helped much....do you want me to desist? Brianboulton ( talk) 19:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe I am incorrect about this, but the Reading Eagle is a newspaper, and it is the publisher of the material, similar to a story in the The New York Times, so the publisher and not work tag is appropriate. Am I wrong? Also, I've responded to your questions, but I have to email Dcoggins (in Australia) for some of the answers. Thank you! -- Avi ( talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. I've addressed the issues that you raised - please see my response on the discussion page. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for striking your comment about the sources in the North Road article. Any chance you could give the article a proper content assessment? I have a feeling I may need all the support I can get! Thanks very much. – Pee Jay 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the "alt" parameter to that template as you asked. I noticed though when going the articles that use the template that there seems to be a bug in it somewhere, causing lots of whitespace at the top of some articles. I'll perhaps take a look at that when I'm feeling a bit perkier—I'm hoping that my sore throat, aching, and runny nose is just the after-effects of a hangover, not that damn flu. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, can you give me a bit more time on the Urse article. I have to fully refresh my mind on the topic, and it's really tricky reformulate an existing narrative (as opposed to creating one newly composed). So far I've been gathering refs from two pieces in a notepad file, but for some reason I don't appear to have the motivation atm, and am moving only slowly. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have the interest, I'd be very appreciative if you could take a glance at this article at some point. I've been forced to rely on a single source and I think the article could benefit greatly from some basic knowledge about the English church, which (from the looks of it) is your area of expertise. No worries. Savidan 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the defaultsortkeys were of the format "England, James I of" which led to a category where there were many entries incorrectly under 'E'. Tim! ( talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you did some extensive work on Antony Bek early last year, and then abandoned it. Was there any special reason for this? It seems to be pretty close to GA status; I'd be happy to review it if you finish it. Lampman ( talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Having gone over the sources considerably on Fertilisation of Orchids, I'll be most grateful if you can do a source check, as discussed in the restarted FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1. Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw the Lipizzaner stallions perform today, but that's not what I want to ask you about. :) I'm preparing to take Yukon Quest to FAC and was wondering if you might have the time for a source check before I do. It's failed twice before, so I'm taking extra care to make sure the third time is the charm. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The above article is about a 7th-century Mercian (surprisingly!) king. I noticed that it's up for a FA review and thought that you might be able to help. Medieval bishops and saints may be more your thing, but I thought it was worth asking. Thanks, Nev1 ( talk) 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Were your concerns on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 sufficiently addressed? Thanks for your help :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I saw the notice on your userpage indicating that you're off doing article stuff these days, but I was wondering if I could pester you for a favour. I recently listed List of brain tumor patients at WP:FLRC as about 15% of the citations were dead or produced remote server errors. I also had a dip into the active sources and found what I felt were number of non- WP:RS's. I know you're busy, busy, busy, but if you do find yourself yearning to get back to your marvelous analysis of sources' reliability, I'd be very grateful. The FLRC for any comments you may wish to make can be found here. All the best, I hope all is well with you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in a report at WP:ANI. -- Philcha ( talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, did you get a pdf of the Bassett? If so, could you forward it? Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen, your old standby died aged 98 in June, although the Times has only published his obituary today (well behind Charles Matthews). Johnbod ( talk) 10:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You made some comments at the FAC for Otto Julius Zobel which was not promoted. Although your specific comments were addressed, you did not return to either support or oppose the article. Can I ask what changes would induce you to support this article at a FAC, if indeed you would? SpinningSpark 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be away at present, but when you have a moment you might like to look at this. In May, when I said I was going to do it, you wrote, "Why did you decide to work on an archbishop?? Did he eat ponies in the arctic too???" Disappointingly, it seems he didn't, but as you're the archbishops expert (albeit extremely ancient ones), any comment you can make would be much appreciated. Brianboulton ( talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Once again, thank you so much for your awesome work at FAC. I am seeing a trend in better awareness about sources, which is good, because it means you won't be the only one even looking at sources in a lot of these candidates. The Pokemon FAC is firmly in hand, I think—it is my and another editor's attention to sources that resulted in those tags. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you check every FAC, my dear Ealdgyth. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your concerns.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, I believe it's been just over a year since I peer-reviewed Epikleros, and promised to improve it! To celebrate I have uploaded the latest version of my sourcing diagram. Work is, as always, ongoing behind the scenes. Dr pda ( talk) 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth,
I made a reply to your comment on
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay I've had a read through the article from a non-horsey point of view. I'll post my comments on the article talk page, not to clutter things up here. Xan dar 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. It seemed a shame that all your work and that of the other readers would be lost, so will notify those who did take the time to read it. I've also included a section on the rationale about the bibliography and footnoting format (your primary concern) in the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You've probably already noticed that I switched your {{ convert}} template for {{ hands}}, which I think gives a nicer result.
I'll be calling on you shortly to give your opinion on this article, one that I've been working on recently. I've still got some work to do on it before GAN, but I ought to warn you before you take a look that that the story is quite distressing. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks -- Wilfridselsey ( talk) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, thanks for the question you raised on sourcing on the No Line on the Horizon FAC. I believe I've answered your query regarding the reliability of those five references. I'd appreciate it if you could talk a look at my response and see if I've addressed the issue thoroughly enough. Since your talk page asks for the link, here it is. Cheers (and thanks!), MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
...can you have a look over Postman's Park? Ideally I'd like someone with no connection at all to London to have a look through it, to see if there are any obvious-to-me-but-not-to-everyone-else-isms that have slipped through. You'll like it; it's got bishops and Anglo-Saxons. And it may be the only article to combine the phrases "starring Natalie Portman and Jude Law", "the heaps of rotting corpses caused great public concern" and "hand-painted and glazed ceramic tiles". – iride scent 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion, is this a reliable source? GARDEN 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I just wanted to give you a heads up. I'm moving in about a week so I figured it's now or never! Thanks for all your help on it. Countercanter ( talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth! You're an expert on sources, right? :) If you're not too busy, can you answer my question here? Thanks, The leftorium 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We fixed the formats. Pl reply at FAC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Is forthcoming. I have to be honest, this looks like an article that might be fundamentally incapable of being a GA, but I'll give it a good-faith review. Nosleep break my slumber 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully suggest that you need a new sounding board. This guy has made me Hitler because of one comment. He has made it clear that he is not here to help or improve anything. This'll be my last word on this matter. Nosleep break my slumber 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I've apologized to Nosleep, and as far as I'm concerned, we are about done with the subject. Obviously it's a full moon today and everyone, including me, is cranky. Let's let it lie, okay? (in other words, take it off my talk page, please.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"'I'd apologize for Malleus, but well... he's himself."
That'll larn ya; don't ask for my opinion if you don't want to hear it, in full technicolor. ;-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You'll forgive me if I prefer BOTH of you, and intend to work to keep you both around. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth! I'm starting work on taking Icelandic horse to FA, and was wondering if you'd have a few minutes to look it over. General thoughts on sourcing and alt text would be most helpful. I've already put it up for PR, and once it gets through there I'm going to ask Malleus to look it over for prose, as well as Awadewit for images and Eublides for alt text. Any other recommendations on things to do before FA would be appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It was still pretty huge - of course I have my images preference set to 11 (er no, 300px) & they are certainly better for those at standard (180). Johnbod ( talk) 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)