User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 17

This page 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.

Dont care what Malleus does and dont care to have my talk page filled with defense of someone who goes around insulting others constantly and for no reason other than to cause trouble. Thanks though, oh and as you said- no need to respond and MOST DEFINITELY do not ever go to my talk page again. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how come you got one of these and I didn't?! :) Congrats on the wedding, btw - mine was recently and I know I was the happiest the day after - no more stressing about the caterer, the photographer, the bands and everything else! Dana boomer (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been here, done that on the wedding thing, so for me, NO bands! It's more just coordinating everything which is driving me batty right now... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Insulting others constantly" would likely have earned me a block Camelbinky; how come you're immune to the sanctions you try to have imposed on others? In happier news, I'm pleased to see that the Jersey Act passed it's trial by fire, and I wish you and Mr Ealdgyth the best of luck in your future together. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I believe I have addressed your source concerns for the FAC. Thanks. Ωphois 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on DATE. You can view the November 7, 2010 blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 7, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I've reviewed Berhtwald against the GA criteria and have put the article on hold. Really just a few minor queries and suggestions. --BelovedFreak 13:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes or otherwise responding to my suggestions. I've listed the article as a GA. --BelovedFreak 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that some time around now is the happy moment. Congratulations! Hope it's a great day for you both. Mike Christie (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Mrs Ealdgyth! I hope you will have a wonderful life together. You didn't marry a bishop by any chance (or a horse)? Warmest wishes, Cavila (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not a bishop, not a horse (although he owns horses). Another photographer. We had a great day, wish Wikipedia hadn't gone wacko while I was gone though! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

...I really appreciate your source reviews at FAC? Ew, awful song. Did you know even Ringo Starr covered it?

Anyway, I am reading with dismay your comments at Brian's talk page that you feel your source reviews are unneeded or unwelcome. I for one value them quite highly, and although I do check sources at random, it is a load off my mind knowing that you have checked them as well. I realize the popular currant is "we should all be checking everything" but that's not always reasonable or possible. Heck, I've said all images are okay in an article just recently, only to have Jappalang come along and uncover a bunch of problems. It takes a village and all that. So, please know that you are appreciated. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm not very comfortable with what's going on with the talk page for FAC and am feeling like there is entirely too much "blame finding" going on. It'd be a lot better if folks would stop approaching things like a battleground to be "won" and try and figure out if there is even a problem. I'm not convinced it's a huge problem, myself, but obviously voices of reason aren't welcome at the moment. When this sort of thing goes on, I can just go find another area of Wikipedia that can use me. GAs are just about as fun to write as FAs and certainly a lot easier on the nerves lately. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you're feeling. I made a post there just now where I attempt to relate my experiences teaching first-year English Comp. There was recently a backlash at the college because several papers have been found recently to be plagiarized. Indeed, some wanted to blame the faculty for not being vigilant enough, but eventually we agreed that a) the problem got overblown because of one high-profile incident, and b) that it was going to perseverance and patience to deal with the issue more so that systematic dismantling of the English program. Funny timing, that. Well, I will obviously respect your decision whatever it is. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I don't think it's true that voices of reason aren't welcome. It's a high energy talk page right now, but nobody is going to make decisions today, tomorrow or the next day; it will be talk and proposed decisions for a while yet. There's just a lot of adrenalin. One thing that took me a while to learn on Wikipedia is that high energy moments are not always the ones that generate lasting change. If WT:FAC is still frothing in two weeks time, then you can be worried, but I think it will have calmed down, possibly with no changes to FAC instructions or criteria at all. Mike Christie (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that once we pass the equinox and the days start to get shorter that tempers on wiki do as well? Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try finish my job in the next Monday (or Tuesday). Actually I made almost half. Yes, I know that textual variants are not interesting for the majority readers, but it is the most important for specialists. Perhaps I should translate them into English (sometimes it will OR, but in majority cases I can use RSV, NIV, and KJV). What do you think about translation? In professional literature they are not translated. Some textual variants can not be find in any modern translation. On pl-wiki and ru-wiki users are interesting in textual variants, but they always want translation, even my own personal translation. Is it correct?

Scholars use only κεφαλαια and τιτλοι, never chapters and titles. Perhaps chapters (κεφαλαια) and titles (τιτλοι) can be satisfied. But what about list of the κεφαλαια? List of chapters? I have never met it in literature. Maybe list of the κεφαλαια (contents).

The shapes of the letters are important for palaeographical dating of the manuscript.

Thanks for your comments. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, your username caught my eye - I linked to your namesake Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar just recently. I noticed your interest in the Anglo-Norman period and wondered if you may be able to help. I am working on Sibyl de Neufmarché with Jeanne boleyn. It is currently a WP:GA nominee. We have been trying, but have so far failed, to find a couple of things to improve the article. The first is an image of Sibyl de Neufmarché. Do you know if one exists and, if so, have you any idea how we could locate it? The second item is a copy (either an image of the original, or its text) of Henry I's maritagium of 1121, granting Sibyl to Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The text of the grant is in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum Volume II Regesta Henrici Primi, item number 1280. Do you want the translation? I do NOT have the first volume so I don't know what the abbreviations mean... bothersome! I highly doubt there are any images of her that are at all contemporary. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll also want to consult The ONDB entry for Miles for information on her. I'll try to poke over and see the article after I finish this GAN I'm reviewing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Would we be violating copyright if we used the entire text of the grant from Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum in the Sibyl de Neufmarché article or is it in the public domain?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The translation would be from 1956, and was printed/published in Great Britain, so I'm not sure, as I'm more familiar with the copyright laws of hte US. It would not be public domain in the US, that I know. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. We already have a copy of the translation in Jennifer C. Ward's book; yet it's also protected by copyright, so we can only use a couple of sentences. Daicaregos and I thought either the Latin original or the English translation would be good to add to Sibyl's article, but it appears that none are in the public domain. Thank you for your swift reply.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still digging ... so don't give up just yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Is this the first volume you were looking for? My idea was to add the text of the maritagium to the article in a quote box. I was hoping for an image or the text in latin, so that it was out of copyright. Aye, you're probably right about Sibyl's image. But it was worth asking. Thanks again. Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the first volume I was looking for is the first volume of Regesta, I only own the second volumen, not the first (which I can usually find at a nearby library). Here [1] is the charter in what SHOULD be out of copyright but I can only access snippet view. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was only able to access a snippet view too. Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

the original appears to be in the public record office - in the duchy of Lancaster charter collection. Regesta gives the number at 10, I believe. You might try looking at the PRO. I can't see that it's been published anywhere, at least according to the Regesta, which of course is almost 60 years old! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a way to access it online. Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's something [2] that I'm not sure what the copyright status is on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about copyright. But I wouldn't want to risk it. Don't suppose you're a member of Medieval Sourcesonline by any chance? Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm smack dab in the middle of Central Illinois, so my access to originals is rather... limited. Besides, I never did a doctorate ... On Sibyl, I checked a couple of books on my shelves for more info on her, and came up with nothing. There's a bit about her dad in Davies' The Book of Llandaf, but that'd be better in his article. If you want an example article for a non-ecclesisiastic that's made FA, check out Urse d'Abetot, which in my rather biased opinion, does a pretty good job of explaining and explicating a person that's probably just about as obscure as Sibyl. (I am a descendent of Sibyls, by the way, through a number of different lines - I have managed to trace my ancestry through three of the "gateway" colonists who trace to royalty, so it's neat to see her article being worked on!). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So that explains the Username. Shame about Medieval Sourcesonline. Oh well. I agree about the info on her dad. It is tempting to add everything ever written about anyone connected to her in her article, especially when sources are scarce. But it's only appropriate if it adds context. Your article, Urse d'Abetot, is bound to give some good ideas for improvements, thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Sibyl is the direct ancestress of nearly every royal family in Europe due to her three daughters' marriages, all of which produced offspring. The de Bohuns were at one time the most powerful noble family in England along with the Fitzalans, and it was Sibyl and Miles' combined estates which made them so.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly happy with how the article looks now, hopefully you will be as well when you check for what damage I may have caused. Hopefully I've at least done enough to disguise your plagiarism.</joke> Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you soooooo much. I know I don't tell you how much I appreciate your copyediting often enough. He should go up Sunday or Monday, after this art fair I've got staring me in the face Friday and Saturday. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA review and the copy editing. Judging from your user page I couldn't have asked for a better editor for this particular article. I've responded to all of the issues you brought up: check marks for those that have most clearly been fixed, and question marks for those that I worked on, but didn't want to presume that they were ultimately resolved. I also did a round of copy editing based on a fresh look after being mostly away from the article for a couple months. And Congratulations! First Light (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall check through tomorrow ... I just got home from an art fair and one of "my" FA's is on the main page today... so that'll keep me busy until tomorrow morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Take your time to get to it, there really is no hurry on this. First Light (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the suggestions and doing the review. I have enough appreciation for what it takes that I haven't yet mustered the energy and time to do a review myself. I'll continue looking for images, possibly emailing the one monastery dedicated to him to see if they are willing to free up anything. First Light (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a fine article. Probably needs some prose polishing, etc before going to FAC, but a peer review or two would help with that. I'm not a Byzantine scholar, so wouldn't have the first clue where to go looking for sources to augment the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so there's the plagiarism lunacy wherein the boiling in hot oil suggested sanctions seems to be hitting a J-curve, (I was lurking on your favorite copyeditor's talk page) and in my real life, I've had three calls from certifiable people in one hour today, all certain that I somehow could solve their unsolvable problems. I'm not even going to discuss politics, where both the winners and the losers seem to have utterly missed the point. Is it just me or is the whole planet going crazy right now? Or is Sauron emerging from Mordor? Just venting. Or is there just an evil plot to run off all the adults? (Lord of the Flies?) You seem to be one of the few sane people around here, I mean, my god, you're actually still working on articles!  :-D No need to reply, I'm just needing to vent... RL and WP both nuts at the same time, that's all. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind posting to my talkpage the wording of that mantra you used to deploy when people needed guidance on what "reliable" means in the sourcing context? Something about being quoted in reputable journals, academic institutes etc - I can't remember, but I think it will be useful to have the wording (provided you don't hit me with a plagiarism charge if I use it). Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth/FAC_cheatsheet ... that's the whole encilada (sp?) ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Enchilada, actually, but thanks! Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Stubs Macrina the Younger Chinese people John Fordham Diocese of Hereford Cathedral chapter William of Kilkenny Simon Islip Diocese of Exeter Austin Lane Poole C. Warren Hollister Richard Peche Westbury Christian School Beormingas Fairwater High School John Moorman Angelo II Gozzadini, Lord of Sifnos and Kythnos Al B. Romano Blobfish Joose

Cleanup Theobald of Bec John Salisbury (bishop) Augustine of Hippo Merge Alice's Adventures in Wonderland Ickham War Add Sources John Kemp John Arundel Saint Patrick Wikify Ceolfrith Moradabad Castle Street, Canterbury Expand Harold Godwinson Diocese of Canterbury Cuthbert Tunstall

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.

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) 07:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. My Wikiname is RHM22. I was wondering if you might be able to answer a question for me. I was recently given permission by the owner of http://www.zumbo.ch to use images from his website on my Shooting Thaler article, but I'm a little confused as to how to do it. I know that I need to put something into the information box when you upload the image to Commons, but I'm not sure what. I noticed on your userpage that you have a lot of photos in Commons, so I thought you might be able to help me with this. Thanks for your time.-RHM22 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to ask over at User talk:Elcobbola, for that sort of thing, I've never had to enter information on permissions, as most of my images on Commons were taken by myself, and the others are all public domain. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll go ask now.-RHM22 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Pancartes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that it was time I tried to finish this, and I've finally got my arse in gear. I'm hoping to get it to GAN over the weekend, so any thoughts you have on it would be gratefully received. I'm not quite finished yet; I need to expand the lead, wrap the story up (the papal commissioners don't seem to have been all that impressed with Cragh's resurrection), and there are still some gaps to fill, like "measuring to a saint". You've obviously got a better handle on medieval history than I have though, so there may be other things you can see need doing as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Main thing is ... if we don't know any more background to his life, who his parents were, what he did before the hanging, etc, we should probably rename the article to something like "The hanging of William Cragh" or something like that, as the article is mainly about the hanging and it's effect on Cantilupe's canonization, rather than about Cragh himself. Granted, I don't have access to Bartlett's book or the article, but from reading Hanska's article, Im not seeing that we know anything else about his life beyond this. If you recast it as an incident, you can also add a bit about our sources for the incident, which would be helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting point ... not sure, I'll think on that. My reservation is that the story spans 18 years and covers more than the execution itself. It's true that the article already says pretty much all that's known about Cragh's background so far as I can tell; that he was a Welsh rebel fighting against the English in the time of Edward I. There's only one source for all of this, the witness statements recorded by the papal commissioners during the investigation into Cantilupe's canonisation. The only significant coverage I've found in secondary sources is Hanska's paper (which I think you sent me?) and Bartlett's book, which is partly why I'd be chary about ever going to FAC with this. The irony is that Cragh's resurrection had absolutely no effect on Cantilupe's canonisation at all, as the commissioners omitted it from the list of miracles that they presented to the pope for his consideration. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance you would break your retirement and review the sources for the horse article that's just appeared at FAC? Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few? Probably good if you also do one, because Dana and I have worked together on other horse articles too. I should be feeling better enough by the end of the weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, ma'am, I did it - there were no problems, fortunately. Didn't realise that you were unwell and hope you are better soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The sick one has trained me well :) Ealdgyth, feel better soon! Dana boomer (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto to Brian and Dana; hope whatever it is is gone soon. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I double checked Brian, and everything looks good. As for being sick, I've got the annual winter cold, it's just hanging around longer than usual and making me a lot more ... bleh ... than usual. I think it was the wedding stress that is helping it stick around. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

On 14 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pancartes, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that gifts to monasteries in medieval Normandy were often rerecorded on pancartes? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. As you are one of the major contributors to the First Crusade, I invite you to comment and help with suggestions at its A-Class review. Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, real life's been a bit crazy, plus I keep forgetting what I've promised to do on Wiki. I'll get back over there tonight or tomorrow and see what, if anything is still an issue. Let me know when you want to take a deep breath and jump back in on Bede; I have another sf magazine I'm sort of desultorily working on but after my current FAC passes or fails I don't have anything else ready to go. I also signed up to do this, which is likely to heat up since it's getting towards the end of the semester, but I'm up for Bede if you are. Mike Christie (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can run the Famulus Christi copies through a photocopier and ship the new copies your way, I didn't copy every article in there, as some of them weren't really relevant to what we're doing ... (One guy tied Bede into his Icelandic research, which was a bit of a stretch!) I'm going to UofI Wed for some more stuff, we'll see what I come home with. I actually am rather proud of Hygie boy, he's turned out rather nicely. And I bet most folks don't know there was another archbishopric in England ... ever! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great bit of trivia to know. I won't be able to get to it properly tonight (got to take the kid to orchestra practice) but should get back to it tomorrow. I'll do a copyedit pass, if you like; I'm not as good as Malleus at smoothing prose but I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the offer on Bede -- this weekend I'll go back to the article and see what looks like the next bit to work on. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just updated the list of bede materials, and should have some more pdfs this weekend, another library trip in store then. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't put yourself down Mike. You have a big advantage over me, because I don't know what the Hell I'm talking about. All I do is to rearrange some words. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of admiration for good copy editors, because it's in many ways an egoless exercise, in that you cannot impose your personality on the job. It calls for a lot of skills: you can't edit prose to be clear if you don't understand it, so you have to have good comprehension of weak prose, and good logical skills as you think through why something is unclear -- then you have to shake free of the existing sentence structure and work back again from the meaning of the words to a new form for them. It really is a craft, and there are journeymen and masters. I think you're one of the better ones on Wikipedia.

It's also interesting to see someone else copyedit one's own work; it is incredibly difficult to apply copyediting skills to one's own text, although waiting months and coming back to the text is usually helpful. When you see someone else work on your prose it tells you things (not always complimentary) about your writing style; it can help to improve your writing to see how someone else improves it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable, high quality, sources?
  • • http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.14.00/cover/manson-0050.html
      • According to its own Wikipedia page, it has won several accolades including the National Newspaper Association's 1995 contest and the California Newspaper Publishers Association Better Newspapers Awards. I personally wouldn't know if it has a shady reputation since I live in the Philippines. Please, correct me if I am mistaken.
        • Better to find things that show it's reliablity that aren't from their own pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • ???? Are you suggesting they wrote that article themselves?
          • Which article? The article on their awards? I would assume that anything on their website is written by them. Per WP:RS, you need to show that the website that is being used as a source has a reputation for fact checking and reliablity. You can show that by them getting awards, but that would need to be shown by going to the various award sites themselves, not just linking to the websites own "about us" page, as we can't assume they list awards correctly/etc. etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Read again. I said Wikipedia page, not their own website.-Red marquis (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
              • And, as below, Wikis are not reliable. Look, you're obviously upset that I've reviewed the article. Go ahead and transfer this from my page to the PR, and see what the other PR folks say about my concerns, before you get all hot and bothered. We obviously disagree, and quite honestly, this is way more bother than I want to deal with today or any day. I tried to be helpful and point out the problems as I saw them, those that would impede the article at FAC. Obviously, you dont' agree. That happens, and the best solution is for me to disengage and let someone else either agree or disagree with my concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
                • You're reading into something that isn't there. I'm not hot and bothered at all but I do have my reservations. Anyway, I'll take your advice and locate new better sources. -Red marquis (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2000/mm3_int.htm
      • This is an interview with Marilyn Manson himself. The snippets used come from his own mouth. The makes it a very good source.
        • The concern is with the transmission. How do we know that the interview was transmitted correctly? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Transmitted correctly?!? They published the interview themselves. And then placed it on their website which I sourced from. If it wasn't transmitted correctly, I'm sure Manson's camp would have raised objections upon its publication. All due respect, you're starting to sound ridiculous. Are you sure it isn't because you might have personal objections about the content of the interview? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.-Red marquis (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I didn't read the interview at all. I'm doing you a favor here, as FA requires "high quality, reliable sources". Some random webzine isn't going to have a reputation for fact checking and journalistic standards. Look at 60 minutes, how many times have they been accused of skewing interviews by selective editing? If you dont' like my PR of your sources, you're welcome to ignore this, it doesn't affect the status of the article in the slightest, but you won't be able to get the article to FA status without some scrutiny of the sources, and right now, as a seasoned FAC reviewer, the article doesn't fulfill the "high quality" nor the "reliable" sources part of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/IS_ADULT_ENTERTAINMENT_KILLING_OUR_CHILDREN%3F_OR_IS_KILLING_OUR_CHILDREN_ENTERTAINING_ADULTS%3F
      • Why wouldn't they be? They are a site dedicated to Marilyn Manson. I'm sure they took great pains to copy/paste his essays and blogs. Linking to a site is not copyright violation. But I you'd prefer I can obtain permission to link. I'll also provide other sources to verify that the essays haven't been tampered with or transcribed erroneously.
        • By definition, wikis aren't reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I've replaced this with this, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1431695/19991216/marilyn_manson.jhtml from MTV.com. That should be a better source. -Red marquis (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://www.alternet.org/media/11052?page=2
      • Again, it's an interview with Marilyn Manson. Straight from the horse's big mouth.
        • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://scandalist.thefablife.com/2008-08-04/47-marilyn-manson/
      • Admittedly, they are a celebrity news web site but don't tell me it isn't common knowledge that Marilyn Manson was blamed in the court of public opinion for the Columbine High School massacre. Even the wikipedia page on the tragedy notes his name.
        • So if it's common knowledge, it should be easy to find a normal news source for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/marilyn-manson-columbine-faq.htm
      • • This is a Christian website. The point was to provide a a more level-headed foil to http://www.jesus-is-savior.com 's extremist Christian whacko assertions. Speaking of which, what makes the latter a good, reliable source? Why wasn't it flagged?
          • Because I can miss things, I'm human. It'd be better to find a news source that says that Christian groups attacked/etc Manson. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=46&releaseid=8615&magazinearticleid=122340
      • This is an interview with Onstage magazine. How is that not a good, reliable source?
        • • Does Onstage magazine have a history of reliablity? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • http://lyrics.wikia.com/Marilyn_Manson:Lamb_Of_God - Another concern here is that the words of the lyrics are almost certainly copyrighted, so linking to a site carrying them as a copyright violation shouldn't be done.
      • Red marquis (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Removed the link. The lyrics stay.
    • http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:1999/07_Revelations_of_an_Alien-Messiah also a concern with linking to a copyright violation
      • The magazine folded in 2009. This is the only web link I can find. However, I will try to provide a link to the physical magazine itself.
    • http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Music/2001/05/Manson-Interview.aspx
      • Again, it's an interview with Marilyn Manson. I only quoted his words.
        • As above, its the site that needs to be shown as a reliable source for information.
    • http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Music/2001/05/Marilyn-Manson-Will-Quote-The-Bible.aspx
      • I'll provide further links to other christian sites to ensure a fair and balanced POV like this one http://www.crosswalk.com/news/525750/ from ReligionToday or this http://www.religioustolerance.org/news_01may.htm from religioustolerance.org. Unfortunately, the original article from The Denver Post no longer exist.
  • Per the MOS, article titles should not be in all caps, even when the original is in all Caps.
    • The article titles is not in all caps.
      • Current refs 12 and 23 - the link titles are in all capitals. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • fixed
  • Using an article that's on the MansonWiki, even if it was originally published in Rolling Stone, is going to be a problem, as how do you know that the item was correctly transcribed? Also, it may be a copyright violation on the MansonWiki, which we're not allowed to link to.
    • Again, they are a site very dedicated to Marilyn Manson. I'm sure they took great pains to copy/paste his essays and blogs.
      • As above, wikis aren't reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Magazine and newspaper titles should be in italics.
    • fixed
  • Current refs 15 and 16 lack all formatting.
    • fixed
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6n5Oi4714o - concern with reliability (the snippet could have been edited) as well as linking to a copyright violation
    • I have provided an alternate source, direct from the unearthly bowels of Bill O'Reilly's webpage on FoxNews.com verifying that the youtube video or the Manson's reply hasn't been edited or tampered. Still, if you are concerned that the youtube video maybe a copyright violation, I will remove it. It's not really necessary now that a ore definitive source has been found.

PS. I am curious how long is the standard waiting period to have another assessment with all of the above in mind and when I have addressed all the issues. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replied, but it would be helpful if you would learn how to intersperse replies properly, using colons or asterisks, so that the format is easier on the eyes, thanks. As for length of time, it just depends on the volunteers at Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you (or any FAC reviewer) find Metal Edge magazine to be a reliable source? I need to know to determine whether or not to use them. If not, what would be a reliable source for music journalism? -Red marquis (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A good starting point (although some of these won't necessarily pass the "high quality" bar, they are at least close to passing the plain reliable bar) see User:Ealdgyth/FAC_cheatsheet#Music Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not Ealdgyth, but I'd say that I'd consider Metal Edge reliable as a source for statements like "many metal fans…" or the like, but not for broader statements like "generally considered…". If at all possible, I'd advise using Kerrang whenever you can, which is pretty much canonical—or even better, broader-scope magazines like NME or Rolling Stone as coverage there demonstrates that the non-specialist market also considered it significant. – iridescent 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks-Red marquis (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question, would Revolver, High Times and Alternative Press make for reliable sources for a music article? They're interviews. Thanks in advance. -Red marquis (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a first run through Walter and I'm fairly happy with it, so now would be a good time for you to make sure that I haven't buggered it up. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. One reason I bug you so much for this (which again, I greatly appreciate, should I ever be in Manchester, I owe you like an entire pub's worth of ale) is that you don't muck about with things you don't know. You ASK instead of just blindly charging in and rearranging, etc. And your vocabulary is almost as good as mine (preens) so you can safely be trusted to reword things without changing the meaning greatly. I may need you to drop in on a GAN I'm doing ... the prose isn't coming along well. Also, I'm going to the university library tomorrow, so anything you want/need for future projects that I can look up? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's so much I don't know anout the historical period you specialise in that I have no option but to ask. I learned quite a bit from trying to flesh out William Cragh though; I hope that Deacon (he created the article) would approve of the end result.

I haven't really got any writing projects in the pipeline. Recently I've just been mooching around really, but there is one area I keep going back to, 17th-century witch trials. With that in mind, and if it's no trouble, there is one paper I'd be grateful for a copy of:

Witchcraft and the Status of Women: A Comment

J. K. Swales and Hugh V. McLachlan

The British Journal of Sociology

Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 349-358

Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The trip got pushed back later in the week or to Saturday or Sunday, but will do. Anything else witchcraft related? I can do some poking in the databses and see what I come up with. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm particularly interested in the Paisley witch trials of 1697, sometimes called the Bargarron witches. The image of the young brothers asking to be allowed to hold hands as they were executed side-by-side has haunted me ever since I read about it. Anything you can dig about about that episode would be great. I'd really like to get that to at least GA, but I'm short of any modern interpretation of what actually happened and why stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, given the recent spate of plagiarism/copyright violation accusations, I'm a little concerned that as there are really only two substantial secondary sources for William's story I may be next in the firing line. I know that you've got a copy of the Hanska paper; did it seem to you that the article followed it too closely? Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll check after dinner... my theory is that if I'm summarizing three-four pages in one paragraph, it's kinda hard to get too close to plagarism. And chronological ordering of information is pretty standard, so organizing an article chronologically isn't copyright violation either, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information in the article came from Bartlett's book, which is organised quite differently, not chronologically. I mainly tried to use Hanska as a counterpoint, and to fill in gaps. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. At least in the UK, Bartlett's book is available for preview on GBooks, here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about this that makes me nervous about you copying too closely Hanska. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check. I don't know how other editors work, but when I was in primary school (a long time ago now) we had lessons in what was called "English comprehension". Basically what it involved was either reading or listening to a fairly long passage of prose (long for a 10-year-old anyway) and then writing a one or two sentence summary. That skill seems to have been lost. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of those skills have been lost. (I must be getting old... I'm starting to sound like an old geezer going on about how this generation is so wrong...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(Hijacking thread) I'm feeling the geezer thing too. About three years ago I started teaching some college-level classes as an adjunct prof (way back, and probably TMI, I was a high school teacher). But this year, it's been bizarre. I get all these emails from students saying, "I'm going to be missing your class, will you send me the notes?" HEL-LO! People do NOT get my lecture notes. Things like reading and writing? Forgotten...??? Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. I have addressed your concerns on Talk:Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/GA1. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank for taking the time to review my article! It was my first GA. :) Thanks, again Ruby2010 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was quite good, hope you have many more! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Leges Henrici Primi/GA1 whenever you're ready. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice stuff. Bencherlite^Talk 15:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review... which means I now have to get off my behind and get something else in the queue for GA... argh! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; I'll be sure to ignore your contributions for longer in future(!) Bencherlite^Talk 15:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about cardinals in general, but there are some books about papal legates to England, especially Guala Bicchieri and the whole period of the thirteenth century when England was technically a papal fief. "The Letters and Charters of Cardinal Guala Bicchieri, Papal Legate in England, 1216-1218", edited by Nicholas Vincent (presumably with a useful introduction); "Papal Legates to England in the Reign of Henry III (1216-1272)" by Frances Ann Underhill; "Lives of the English Cardinals" by Folkestone Williams, although that one is pretty old, 1868. There is also "The Papal Monarchy" by Colin Morris. I'll keep looking...this isn't really my area but I know a few people I could ask. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have Papal Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury but it's not quite as much on cardinals as it is on local bishops, etc. I guess what I'm hoping for is something like the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300. I've got Councils and Synods awaiting being picked up this weekend, but I'd really like something to flesh out the cardinals on List of papal legates to England, since many of the legates to England that weren't native were usually cardinals. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks! I hate being on sinus pills, it makes me loopy and forgetful of common courtesy. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Councils and Synods! A friend who recently completed his thesis used that book all the time. If it wasn't in the library stacks, we would always know where it was. I don't know if there is a Fasti-type book about cardinals though. But you could also try Powicke's book about Stephen Langton, who was a cardinal. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What Adam said. You might wanna look at Paul Ferguson's Medieval Papal representatives in Scotland : legates nuncios and judges-delegate 1125-1286 ... some of the English guys are the same. There might be a list there ... next time I'm in the library I'll check it out. There should be enough info in this, old as it is, for you come up with/maintain a basic list. I'll keep my eye out. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've made the changes you suggested. I will be writing an article on Robert (Commissary) Maule in due course, but for the moment have removed the potentially confusing title "Commissary" and stated that he was an antiquarian, which should be sufficient context for the purposes of the Camus Cross article. Cheers! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the time to review it! Much appreciated... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on Hygeberht but I'm being a bit slow; do you have a deadline? Are you trying to line him up for FAC soon, or do you have another you can nominate first? I don't want to slow you down, and I do have a couple of other on-wiki commitments I'd like to work on, if you don't mind me taking a while. I am hopeful of getting through it this weekend, but I've been wrong before. Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He's not a rush. I've got two others that will hit FA before him, at the least, maybe three or four. Take your time...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Council of Austerfield, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://eagle.cch.kcl.ac.uk:8080/pase/DisplayPerson.jsp?personKey=740.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Err... bot? the created page does NOT resemble this page. Really. I promise. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or since Rlevse's little difficulty, has everyone gotten anal to a bizarre level? Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know that i have edited an archive you are represented on ~ the archive of the Earl of Clare talk page ~ as several of the conversations had been edited, removing information, before being archived. I'm not expecting you to do anything; this is simply a courtesy note to be sure i'm not thought to be covering up mine actions. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, your opinion is sought here:Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your GA review of the Jean Baptiste Point du Sable article. I have had a very busy week, and I will be away until the middle of next week—I hope that you will be OK with keeping the article on hold a little longer until I can address the points that you raised. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review and patience. I have tried to address your comments at Talk:Jean Baptiste Point du Sable/GA1. —Jeremy (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work; I was thinking of doing something mainly numeric like it myself, but now there's no need. A lot of people make and take claims about content creation very loosely, & don't get stuck into the figures. I would have added more about average edits per page, which can be revealing of "article work" that is mainly assessments, typos, etc etc. What lies behind Iridescent's wierd figures per month (& "Unique pages edited: 103,484; Average edits per page: 1.51)? Something like that, not that I'm knocking the other content creation.

I have to admire Poleargo's visually-aided effort, but otherwise the other are so far rather thin. I hope SG does one; there are now enough candidates. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In Iri's case, it's that she does AWB typo patrol (I asked her once, or someone did). She'll do a run of like checking for "the the" or "teh" and fix those sorts of things. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There was also a lot of things like this, when AnomieBot tagged 13,000 (by request, I'm not criticising) with the {{WPLondon}} tag, all of which needed sorting and assessing. The sudden spike to 26,000 edits in a month a couple of years ago was when Gurch wrote Huggle; because he (ahem) no longer has access to admin tools, someone else needed to check that it actually did what it was supposed to in admin mode. – iridescent 21:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I find as I get older (and as I'm still recovering from this cold) that its easier for me to think things through if I write them down, and I hate not justifying why I'm voting some way, but since we went to secure poll, we no longer have a public record of votes. Some of the data I can't get easily, since the tools won't show the top edited articles for folks with over 45K edits. I should probably consider articles created also, hm... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can get that data- use [3]. Courcelles 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The low average edits per page- I have a similar figure- can come from many things; including but not limited to; vandalism fighting, tagging talk pages, long AWB runs, or admin chores. (Remember that to the external tools, but not the server count you can see under your preferences, protecting, unprotecting, or modifying a protection, all show up as an edit.) Admins who close a lot of AFD's tend to end up with lots of pages they edit only once. Courcelles 20:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but 12,466 in a month (Dec 07)?? Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly something you could ask about! I did 3000+ once when I was assessing for WPMA once, and was snowed in a hotel room in Gardiner, Montana for two days. It's possible, mind-numbing, but possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing my user page was out of date - it's fixed. The links to my content work and the GA's were at the top in a discreet way; I've linked the line referencing them so that it's clearer. Thanks again! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I left some notes at Talk:Hygeberht; I made a suggestion there about redoing a paragraph. If you are OK with it I will take a pass at that and then have one more look to see if there's anything else that could be said. Mike Christie (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean to look at those tonight or tomorrow morning... it's been a bit busy here with the holiday.. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no hurry. I have a list of obligations I'm working through and hope to cross them all off this weekend; if so I will take another look at Bede. Mike Christie (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This has apparently been causing confusion. I found two very short stubs, one for Haliwell Priory which is how it turns up on your 1220 Abbey listing. Four spellings at least, Augustinian not Benedictine, canonesses not nuns. I'm assuming the Victoria County History reference now in the article is authoritative. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me and agrees with what I have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The capitalisation in the Pipe rolls article is all over the shop. Do you think it should be "Pipe rolls" or "pipe rolls"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be Pipe rolls, or Pipe Rolls. Proper name. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So should the article be moved to Pipe Rolls? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't keep up with the capitalization rules any more... where it's at is fine and we can go with "Pipe rolls" in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to be consistently "Pipe rolls". It's a small thing I know, but it was bugging me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

On 30 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luke McLuke, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that racing wins by the American racehorse Luke McLuke, including the Belmont Stakes, made owner John Schorr the leading owner for 1914 and his son, J.F. Schorr, the leading trainer? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oswald of Worcester in fact. I'm doing research on Maundy money; the Royal Maundy service once included the ceremony of washing the feet of the poor, and my ref mentions his dying while washing the feet of the poor.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

...did exist before the Reformation. Before that point it was Roman Catholic, after that point it was catholic and reform, hence The Reformation DBD 23:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. (gaze up). It's not worth fighting over, but really, it's anachronistic, no historian would call him a member of the Church of England or a bishop of same. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with DBD here. The CoE have always been quite touchy about the whole "we were founded at the Synod of Whitby, and predate the European reformed churches by a thousand years" thing; they very explicitly draw no dividing line in their history between pre- and post-Reformation clerics. (The CoE's party line on the matter is here.) – iridescent 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, but as I said, no historian would say that some bishop who died in 1343 was a bishop of the Church of England without serious qualifiers involved. Are we going to label ALL of the bishops? I just took the field totally out of the infobox, leaving it blank, it's not like i said he was "catholic" either... but whatever. Its not worth fighting over. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have to agree with Ealdgyth here. We have a worked-out way of dealing with this issue, & it doesn't involve calling medieval bishops members of the CofE. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is open for comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Infobox_Christian_leader. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. I left a message here a while ago about photo copyright information. Sorry to bother you again, but I had another question. Do you have any photos of artwork by Constance Ortmayer? She was an American sculptor that was employed by the Section of Fine Arts as part of the New Deal. I'm working on a small article about her, but the only work of hers that I have a photo of is her 1936 commemorative half dollar. Her sculptures were generally hung in post offices throughout the country. Thanks for your time!-RHM22 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S., from what I can tell, most of her work for the post offices were bas reliefs.-RHM22 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope! That was easy.. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks anyway! I don't imagine that many people are interested in post office bas reliefs, so there probably aren't a lot of photos floating around!-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with Talk:Jean Baptiste Point du Sable/GA1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I know this might be a bit outside your normal areas of expertise - but you certainly know more about medieval British nobility & the catholic church than I do - so could I ask you to take a look at Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury? I'm currently working my way through the Somerset wikiproject cleanup listing and this article appears because it has six month old banners challenging the accuracy and neutrality of the article. I've left messages on a couple of involved editors talk pages and one has responded suggesting "The main source for this article is the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which seems to be a biased account". I've started a discussion on the talk page and would appreciate any input you had time to offer.— Rod ^talk 10:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think might be missing from William the Scabby from an FAC perspective? I think you mentioned already maybe a bit more about the papal commissioners and their style of questioning? I'll have to take the Bartlett book back to the library fairly soon, so it's probably now or never for FAC as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just got Bartlett's book from the library so I'm looking through it ... I would think that the bits about the commissioners might be good. Did you get the part about there being some controversy over whether he was a rebel or a thief in? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that, I'll look into it. What do you think of the book? It seems excellent to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had more than a chance to flip through it so far, but Bartlett's a pretty respected historian, so it should be good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on a quick glance, it appears that Mary Briouze attempted to save the two men's lives, and that the two William's disliked/hated Cragh intensely. Also of note is that Cragh was noted as only speaking Welsh, this would tend to agree with the concept that he wasn't of the marcher nobility. (p. 25). There are more details about his life on p. 26 also, including his parents names and his "Welsh name", as Cragh was a nickname for him. I'd also mention that most of the witnesses agreed that Cragh voided his bowels when he was hung, as that's a detail that was attached great importance in determining death. Might also bring out that the reason the two men were rehung was twofold - see page 37. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions, thanks. I was sure I'd put in a bit about Cragh only speaking Welsh ... anyway, I've added it now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done about as much as I can with this now, so I've gone ahead with the nomination. Would you mind if I added your name as a co-nominator? I know you don't have many edits to the article, but you've offered support and sound advice, which is far more important as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised to see Walter de Coutances still there, I thought that would be a pretty quick and easy nomination. Malleus Fatuorum

He's got two supports, I suspect it's just a lack of reviewers. I'm fine with the co-nom. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. That means I can blame you if any of the medieval historical details are wrong.</joke> The lack of reviewers does seem to be getting progressively worse though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Walter's got his third support now at last. Is Thomas de Cantilupe on your list of bishops to do? The old boy could certainly do with some work. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Contrary to my earlier stance I think now that "Bishop of Hereford" isn't a proper noun at all, and that it ought to be "bishop of Hereford", as I think was always your position. I'll start going through all the bishops I cocked up on and fix it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He's hanging out with the other 'saintly' bishops like Hugh of Lincoln and Thomas Becket, a bit down further on my to-do list. I think Alexander of Lincoln is next up on the chopping block, then I've got Hygeberht's corrections and fixes to take care of. I will probably rework Roger of Salisbury pretty soon, as that'll make a nice FT with Nigel, Roger, Alexander and Nigel's son Richard FitzNeal as FAs and the other members of the family as GAs. Holiday's are going to slow me down some, family comes in later in the month... On the capitals, I actually think Bishop of Hereford is correct, it's a title, and thus a proper noun. But I'm against this war-against-capitals that I'm seeing any more too.. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm easily persuaded; I've changed my mind again. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, I'm working on the Dark Ages and having some difficulties in getting peer reviewers for my last article, Helmichis the assassin and usurper of the king of the Lombards Alboin. Since you've proved yourself able to deal extremely well with badly documented figures like Helmichis, as seen by your Anglo-Saxon articles, and since the age is the same of Gregory the Great I thought you could have been possibly interested; but I know you already have heaps of works to do for wikipedia, so it's no probably if you don't have time, as it's all to reasonable to expect. Anyway the peer review is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Helmichis/archive1. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

hello.. Why dont you just fix the gramatical mistakes and try to make it fit in a coherent context instead of just deleting it. Obviously of the grammar is inconsistent is probably because a non native english speaker made it, and as wiki-editor your moral duty is to help in this cases. Besides, the fact of we can certainly know about an important Horse-trade country in the Medieval Europe, and that it can be make known is extremely significant and I think people deserves to know this, and that a crusader would but first a Hungarian horse that one of any other nation, just because its fame and prestige.

thanks for your assistance --Farkasven (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Two long quotations from original sources describing some horse trading activities are unneeded detail in that level. We don't describe other "important Horse-trade" countries there, so not just mentioning Hungary but including long quotes is quite honestly undue weight to the idea that Hungary was an important horse trading country at the time. Another problem is that you're giving the quotations in English, but I'm sure the book they are quoted from was in Hungarian. Who did the translation? Another concern is the extreme detail you've given on who wrote to whom, and all the unneeded other bits of the quotation. In an article that covers horses in a large time frame, this sort of detail is WP:UNDUE and really doesn't belong there. You put in two paragraphs on Hungarian horses in a section that only has one short paragraph devoted to ALL horse trading ALL over Europe. Undue again, it overwhelms the rest of the information, giving undue prominence to Hungary. (And telling me I have a "moral duty" to fix someone else's grammar issues is kinda silly. The ungrammatical-ness of the additions was the least of the issues, and even if it had been perfect grammatically it would still need to go due to the UNDUE issues.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. I'll also consider the comments at the end of your paragraph about me (you were not the only one to express this concern) as I continue my service during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll scribble things down here section by section as I come across them. Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "He also attended church councils and organized his diocese, increasing the number of archdeaconries and setting up prebends to support his cathedral clergy." I'm not terribly happy about that "he organized his diocese"; in what way did he reorganize it? By increasing the number of archdeaconries and so on?

• Yes, that's how. Any suggestions on how to word it better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• "Others who may possibly have been related to Roger include a nephew of Alexander's named William, who became an archdeacon, and a great-nephew named Robert de Alvers." I've lost track of which Roger we're talking about by this point, but does any of this matter anyway?

• I've reworded, is that better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Unlike his cousin Nigel, Alexander does not appear to have entered the king's household or administrative organs". Entering the king's administrative organs sounds rather vulgar. Might something like "administrative bodies" be better?

• Reworded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishop

• "[Alexander] acted as a patron to Gilbert of Sempringham, who before his founding of the Gilbertine order was a member of Alexander's household." this is covered again later in the Patronage section. Does it need to be mentioned twice?

Reworked this a bit, moving it down a bit, and removing the patron bit. Does that work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reign of Stephen

• "Since the work of Henry of Huntingdon, in which the chronicler regards Stephen's actions as treachery against the clergy that earned him punishment from God ...". Need to say when Henry of Huntingdon was writing.

Patronage

• "... an Italian named Guido or Wido, who taught the subject of the Bible." That seems rather awkward to me. You wouldn't say "who taught the subject of French", for instance.

• I moved this sentence up with the bit about Gilbert above, and reworded. I'm trying to avoid the "lectured on the Bible" that was in the original source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes there's only one good way to say something. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• "He explicitly stated that his foundation of Louth that he intended it to secure the remission of his sins ...". I can't quite make sense of this.

• Reworked to "The medieval chronicler William of Newburgh stated that Alexander founded a number of monasteries, "to remove the odium" that he had incurred because of his castle building. As confirmation of this, Alexander explicitly stated that his foundation of Louth that he intended it to secure the remission of his sins, as well as the salvation..." as the fact that Alexander explicitly confirmed that he did found one monastic house to expiate his sins. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Death

• "Alexander spent most of 1145 and 1146 at the papal court in Rome, but some time in 1145 or 1146 he was one of the witnesses to the peace accord signed between the earls of Chester and Leicester." Presumably this agreement was signed in England then? Without explicitly saying so it reads rather like a non sequitor.

• Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've been through the whole thing once now, and I'll have another run through probably tomorrow given time. I think it's shaping up rather nicely, and I hope that you do too. One thing I'm always curious about: even though I've moved stuff and whatnot, do you still feel that your writing shines through, or do my edits reshape it in a way that you don't recognise as your own? Just curious, no deep meaning. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've never been concerned with picking just one word and having it be set in stone. Obviously, I was a disappointment to my English teachers in college, I could care less about the "artiste" aspects of writing. My ideal is to get the information across in a method that makes sense and is easy to read. I write well, but not "brilliantly" ... I don't think anyone writes brilliantly all on their own. So, no, i'm never offended, and it's very much the structure of my choices of what information to present and how I presented it. Word choice is immaterial, quite honestly, and the few times you've gotten close to changing meaning, I've not hesitated to change back. I don't think I'll ever understand the folks that get up in arms about having their prose polished, I greatly appreciate it! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think there are some people who want to feel that they've done it all on their own, although I'm not one of them either; like you I'll take all the help I can get. Relatively early in my time here I came across an editor who was going through the motions of preparing himself for an RfA, as part of which he wanted to be the one credited with getting this through GAN. I was sulkenly accused of editing "his" article too much, and/or too quickly; needless to say he successfully passed at RfA. The way this place works is screwed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• BTW, just in case you missed it, I added another little niggle under the Reign of Stephen above. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Also this: "Although Alexander continued to be a frequent witness to royal charters and documents ...". Unless I'm misreading it, he hadn't yet become a frequent witness had he?. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Saw these, will get in the morning, RL has intruded! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Got both of these I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I nthink that Alexander is about there now. Just one final, teeny tiny point: I'm not too fond of the repetition of "family" in the caption underneath Alexander's family tree. Could it not say something like "Simplified representation of Alexander's family tree"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed "family tree" to "chart", that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey E, We're still tweaking on the Appaloosa article (or, I am, I sort of stole it back from Dana) Wound up having to redo a bunch of stuff as there is new evidence on Lp gene, plus ApHC changed some material to reflect reality (at least on their web site; the rulebook is another story) Kim had a good idea to consider adding a chart for the coat patterns, which I'm sandboxing on the talk page, though this will up the requirement to check photos. Anyway, you were in on the GA run and I think Dana is now wanting us to whip this to FA level so can you swing by? Curtis and Kim were very helpful on the genetics, and I've got a fellow Montanan looking at the history bits (caught a booboo or two we had to fix. If you want to comment at the peer review, or wherever, feel free. Love to have your input. I'm at the "I can't see this article anymore beyond the sentence level" point. I'd particularly value your opinion on the chart before I add it in. Consensus is moving toward it, and I DID put in a lot of time to create it, I'm kind of pleased with it, but I'm kind of fretting that someone at FA will not like it for some reason or another. Maybe charts are bad or something. I don't think it's undue weight, Appies ARE a lot about color, but still...Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe by the weekend. I'm hip-deep in Alexander of Lincoln and RL is trying to bite my ass. Hay delivered yesterday (ouch, my aching back!) and farrier call today, and the weather is supposed to turn nasty tonight and tomorrow. We'll see when I can fit things in... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article! I had too many articles open in different tabs and got confused. Thanks --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see big problems with File:Cotton Claudius B VII f.224 Merlin Vortigern.jpg. If the manuscript is considered published (that is it was made available to all to copy or such) during that time, then there should be an additional {{PD-1923}} tag. The {{PD-old}} seems fine. Did Geoffrey of Monmouth draw the picture? If yes, he should be indicated as the author. Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

After reading this FAQ at the UK Patent Office, I am getting quite uncertain (perhaps I was lulled into a certain mindset about UK manuscripts with the 70-year-pma rule)... Maybe we should get Elcobbola or someone more knowledgeable than me to take a look at this... Jappalang (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong trees; any (flat) medieval miniature is a Bridgeman-Corel issue, standing on US law only. The text is not unique to this MS & was out of copyright before copyright was invented. The tag is fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the above was out of point, somewhat (I was pointing towards the unpublished, unknown authorship aspect since the UK had perpetual copyright for unpublished works, which I previously thought was only applicable to US). However, "before copyright was invented" is correct and I should have learned about that (so my bad). It is not about "out of copyright" but rather that the law did not apply to them. A bit of a muddled area since published drawings were granted copyrights in the UK only with effect of the passing of the Copyright Act in 1862, unpublished works as a hold were given perpetual copyright with the Act of 1709 (although mainly text, it seems somewhere between 1709 and 1862, there was an interpretation that it applied to drawings as well); however, previous passings of English copyright laws have indicated that the laws affect only creations/publications from that time of enactment. So a 12th century work would seem to be beyond the application of the law. See Seville 1999, p. 253; MacQueen & Waelde & Laurie 2008, pp. 35–36, 111.

I think {{PD-old}} would be kind of misleading since the image fell into public domain not because of the expiry of copyrights but rather because no copyright was granted to it. {{PD-ineligible}} would have seem fine (based on the title) if there was "because it is not covered by copyright laws in its country of origin" but there is not. A case for {{PD-because}} or some new template? Perhaps, but not a big bother. Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they mean manuscripts as in works written by modern authors but not ever published, i.e. a manuscript of J. K. Rowling, not the manuscript of this type. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think manuscripts encompass all hand-written documents. Johnbod's point about the applicability of the law applies though. As an aside, was this drawn by Matthew Paris? Suzanne Lewis seems to be stating as such, but I could be misreading her big time. Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks like it to me. I'm NOT a manuscript scholar, although I play one on TV sometimes (i.e. I've written enough for Wikipedia that I can sorta kinda follow the lingo). I wouldn't want to go much beyond what whoever uploaded the image said though, without much more research. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Nigel Morgan Survey, probably London, 1250 or earlier. Style of Matthew Paris, but not him: "The figures are thinner and more angular than in the work of [MP]". #94, p. 145, Nigel Morgan, A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, Volume 4: Early Gothic Manuscripts, Part 1 1190-1250, Harvey Miller Ltd, London, 1982, ISBN 0199210268. There should be something on the BL website. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

References

• Seville, Catherine (1999). Literary Copyright Reform in Early Victorian England. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62175-5. Retrieved 2010-12-16. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
• MacQueen, Hector (2008). Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4. Retrieved 2010-12-16. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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

Stubs John Fordham Macrina the Younger Simon Islip Richard Redman (bishop) John Barnet John Catterick Henry de Sandwich Stephen Mosley Fulk Basset Edmund Lacey Meonwara James Jardine William Gray (bishop) Dondurma Richard Osbaldeston Beormingas John Hotham (bishop) Edgar (bishop) William Barons

Cleanup John Salisbury (bishop) Swithun Hagia Sophia Merge Alice's Adventures in Wonderland Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington New Testament Add Sources Richard Chartres John Kemp United Kingdom general election, 2010 Wikify English Defence League Entrepreneur List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air characters Expand Cuthbert Tunstall Harold Godwinson 1531 in poetry

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.

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) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, most of these I understand, but the English Defense League and the 2010 Elections? Plus we won't even TOUCH the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air thing... gah! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon now! I find SuggestBot to present all sorts of opportunities for new adventures! You never know! I am SO all over SuggestBot's recommendation that I look into the Quantum mind–body problem! LOL!

Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is going wrong with reviewing here on wikipedia? Scabby Bill has been languishing for almost two weeks now, and I've got two GARs for articles that I failed outstanding as well. GAN is up to a backlog of almost 300 and shows no signs of getting much better any time soon. And to make matters even worse PR seems to have pretty much come to a standstill. Why is nobody bothered about this? Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I did an FAC for Rutherford B. Hayes today, which with the holidays is about all I can manage. I need to get Alex up at FAC, but RL work is kinda crimping my style for a few more days. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We each do what little we can, but there are too few of us. I did a big copyedit of this FAC for instance, a film I have never seen and would never go to see as it's a musical, which I hate. Meanwhile there are things that I really do care about, like workhouse and its associated articles, which I really do want to improve. But if editors like us stop doing reviews to focus on writing then who does the reviews? Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If I do a review, it's probably going to take me an hour for every 10K of text. I will do one sometimes, but it is, really, hours out of my writing work, because it takes me time to get into the right frame of mind for writing. I've got some free time right now, and am trying to bank as many articles as I can. Yet I believe in FAC. It's difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I try to keep the number of GANs I've reviewed at double the number of GANs I've done. I try to at least in depth review an FAC for each FAC I put up, but I won't touch anything but historical articles, and I won't do FACs that already have three supports. I find that if someone doesn't step up and do reviews, no one does, and I just don't think it's fair to use review processes without giving back to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I do a 1:1 ratio as well, roughly two a month. But obviously it is not enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm much the same Wehwalt. Doing a decent GA review takes a lot of time for any but the shortest of articles, and so I sometimes pick those from editors I know have done a good job in the past. When I feel in need of punishment I might pick the one right at the back of the queue, but paradoxically FA reviewing is easier than GA, because you're not expected to have looked at every aspect of an article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And if someone comes to my talk page and asks me to look over an article, of course I'm going to say yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn to say no. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Still, if we didn't believe in this place, we would not be here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain that we all believe in the same thing. Too many seem to think that wikipedia is some kind of behavioural experiment, as my block log demonstrates. For myself, I've found it a privilege to do what little I can to help Ealdgyth produce what must be one of the finest series of articles on medieval bishops to be found online. And in my more optimistic moments I sometimes believe that I may have contributed some half-decent content myself. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You have. Did you like that article on male menses, by the way? I had never heard that one... I think we need an article on that too! And was the green children one helpful? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as social experiements, I was born cynical and decided long ago that social experiments usually don't work out that well. Most folks are pretty decent, but the ones that aren't usually make any utopian dream a nightmare. Better off worrying about the main idea (in this case content) and letting the fancy experiments in new forms of government slide. And things that work well in small groups (i.e. consensus) don't scale well. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I squeamishly couldn't look at the male menses article, but that may be because a (male) acquaintance is going in for a sex change in the new year. I've been prevaricating over the green children for months now. The article you sent was of course useful, but I just haven't managed to get my arse in gear with it yet, not sure why. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Men crack me up. You should see my male acquaintances when we women at the barn start discussing gelding proceedures for the horses... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What actually scares me is that if WP stays on for the duration, one of these centuries, these early days of Humanity's Database will be studied. And all the silly things we've said will be there for PhD students to study ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Electronic middens? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. A grad student's paradise.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we shall be of some service! But seriously, I have to jump in here and comment that I got completely out of the GA/FA review process because it just seemed like you can't win for losing. I felt that I was not qualified to pass an article unless I'd reviewed every source and understood the topic, so instead I would troll for easy quick fails to cut down the backlog, but even being nice and putting on a gentle "needs improvement" costs you a week of time. I've found that even NPP seems to be a minefield. There's no place safe. Is that just me and I'm a little gunshy, or am I noticing something real? Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's real I think. I failed a couple of GANs a couple of months ago, probably two out of 10 or so that I reviewed, but the nominators decided to appeal to GAR. Which is where they still are now, and I refuse to review any others until those two are dealt with. There's a kind of "if the article fails then it's the reviewer's fault for not telling me what to do" attitude. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we becoming curmudgeons? Or are we being perfectly reasonable that it's not our job to hand-hold and they should be grateful if we are willing to provide a few directional pointers? Is the whole world getting the mentality that because they created something, it must be praised like it was their very first "big boy" bowel movement and no critiques are allowed? I was sort of thinking about this while grading term papers this past week. I could just feel the tickle on my neck whenever I'd give a paper a well-deserved C-, thinking, "oh man, this will be the student who is just outraged at me." Never mind that said student(s) were the ones texting in class, absent a lot, flirting with the opposite sex person sitting next to them, late with assignments (always with an excuse), and so on. Really, am I THAT outrageous that when I insist on references and footnotes, I actually want to see them in the paper and no, I am not going to take a precious class session away from the Civil War to discuss formatting and references when there is a tutoring center in the very same building?? Oh, and am I bad that I take off points for significant misspellings? (I do overlook the occasional typo, I can't hold anyone to a standard higher than mxy own!) Sorry, I'm ranting. But it's scary; I may have reached the age where I'm saying "what is this world coming to?" Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)