User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 2

Thank you

Thanks for the time you spent on the Max Mosley article, your comments will be really useful in making it a better article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Howard

Ready for your review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed Muransky

Take a look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with sources

Hi Ealdgyth - I just wanted to let you know that if there are any particular sources you need, I can usually lay my hands on them and send you a pdf or a scan (if it's an article or a chapter). Whole books are more difficult to transmit, but I can almost always look things up or type up short passages. Our library has Schein's 1991 book, if Elonka doesn't have it on hand. Just let me know. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Ealdgyth, that is one heck of a list! Thanks for putting that together. Once you're (mostly) done with it, let me know and I'll see if I have anything else to add. :) Also, a couple of tweaks: On some of the books, I noticed that you're putting "date most recently published", but I think it would probably be better to put "date originally published" (since some of those books were re-published long after their authors had passed away). Also, what do you think of adding a column next to each book, rating it as an "A-D" source? That would make things easier later, as we could focus talkpage discussions by saying, "The article should use primarily 'A' sources, though 'B' and 'D' sources can be used for non-controversial information. All C-sources should be removed unless they're being used for 'misinformation/culture' sections." I think if we can nail down "quality of sources", it'll help a lot with future debates! :) --Elonka 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, 2 x 4s and other uses?

Oh that little aside was BAAAD! LOL!  ;-D Oh and on a kind of related topic, will you eyeball Gelding to see what else we need to do to run it up the flagpole for GA? I think it's there, but I may be mistaken. Want one set of horsey eyes to review before I send it out to the wider world! Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbots and Mongols

Awesome, thanks! By the way, I was thinking of the English Historical Review, I can access every volume of that, not the Journal of Ecclesiastical History. EHR, JEH, it all runs together sometimes... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm

Scream? --Elonka 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, heh, no, that wasn't what I was asking about... I was commenting on your mention that "Elonka would scream" about the poll, which comment I found a bit disconcerting, if that's what your impression is of me.  :/ And yes, I'm in the Midwest too! 70 degrees this morning, and around 15 (with wind chill) now. Whee! --Elonka 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas of Bayeux

The article Thomas of Bayeux you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Thomas of Bayeux for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do you one better: I'll Be Bold and copy edit the article when you get through with the rewrite before I pass it up to GA. Some of the fixes are minor anyways. -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That will suit me. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas of Bayeux

The article Thomas of Bayeux you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Thomas of Bayeux for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nom for ANAK Society

Hi, Ealdgyth. I believe we have resolved the final issue you discussed regarding ANAK Society. Please take a look and see if your concerns have been addressed. Thanks! MaxVeers (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol Kudzu

Ealdgyth, thank you for participating at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance; yours is a welcome voice in this exhausting debate. I believe that most of us, at this point, would be only too glad to wrap the whole thing up and move on. Elonka has proposed a rewrite that is substantially shorter, well-sourced, and offers, I believe, a better balanced picture of a fairly complex historical situation. It eliminates the troubling over-reliance on primary sources and provides a good summary of modern academic consensus. If you have not already done so, would you perhaps look it over and see what you think? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Eal, it was definitely not you, its Shell Kinney who threatened me to leave the affair. Along with that we have WjbSribe who is also Elonka's special friend who helps her out when she wants. I'm also puzzled with the presense of Kafka Liz and Aramgar. These guys seem to come out of nowwhere, were branded as sock puppets (opposed her) during her RfA and since then have been on her side on this alliance issue. Visit the Wikipedia site for some more interesting information on an unrelated affair which was censored from here and which open your eyes. Look for the thread in the Editors section containing the word "most interesting exchange". (if I linked to it, these people would rush to block me).--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding your note at my talkpage, I was very, very hesitant to get involved, especially regarding content, because the whole thing seemed to have immense potential for energy drain. I seem to have gotten sucked in anyway, despite my best intentions. I'm lucky enough to have access to a truly amazing library, and I have a tendency to get drawn into subjects pretty quickly once I start researching them. Now, if I could only find a way to get paid for that... ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, PHG seems to spend more time offering to address specific issues than he ever does actually doing it. I pointed out that a number of other editors (you included) had raised such specific points, and he still doesn't respond to them. It would be great if we could just move on and work the actual article; I've held off making any edits to it primarily because I don't want to see my time wasted. :/ Kafka Liz (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(responding to message from my talkpage) VegasCon, eh? I haven't been to that one in a few years, unfortunately, because of schedule conflicts. :/ Have fun though! GS or DR?  :) --Elonka 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

DR. We haven't been in a while, since 2005, but finally found time this year to go again. Looking forward to it. Last year's SimuCon was very bad timing, as we'd just completed arrangements to go to Europe during Simu when ya'll announced the dates. We'll drink for you at Vegas. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(replying to talkpage message) No worries, I'm not taking it personally, I'm actually ecstatic that anyone is taking time to actually read the article and offer coherent comments. Mainly my own concerns are that I'm not going to have as much free time this month, so I might not be as responsive on-wiki as I usually am. So if I'm not accomplishing one of your changes, it's not that I disagree with it, it may simply be that I didn't have time to dig in to the sources to get the proper refs or whatnot. If I do disagree with one of your changes, I'll speak up, I promise.  :) Also, when I'm checking details, I often find it helpful to make edits straight into a version of the article, rather than having to "duplicate effort" by putting it on the talkpage and into the article. So if you'd like to work directly in my userspace, that's fine.  :) But, everyone's different, so if talkpages work better for you, then by all means, more power to you!  :) --Elonka 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol resources

Please Ealdgyth, let me know if you need access to resources; I can probably help. My interests, like yours, lie further afield. I would like to see the tendentious editing at the Franco-Mongol alliance and related pages cease. Let me know if I can help. Aramgar (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Specefic, difficult-of-access resources: this is where I can help you most. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding books, my #1 recommendation is Peter Jackson's Mongols and the West, which is spot-on for this topic. In fact, if money is tight, I'd probably cancel the Riley-Smith Crusades book, as though it's good, it's more of a general overview of the Crusades and doesn't cover much on the Mongols. Tyerman's God's War is excellent, thorough, and recommended. David Morgan's Mongols (2nd ed.) is very good on the Mongols in general, and very new, though he doesn't go very much into the European diplomacy angle. But most libraries, even small ones, seem to have his 1st edition, and he's a widely-read author. Phillips Medieval Expansion of Europe also has a lot on this topic. I've liked what I saw of it in libraries, and it will probably be my own next purchase. There are also some good academic articles here and there, for which JSTOR or a good university library are probably your best option. If you can find it, Reuven Amitai-Preiss's "Mongol raids into Palestine" and the late Sylvia Schein's "Gesta Dei" are very on-topic for the whole "Mongols and Jerusalem" debate. --Elonka 05:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(reply) Wow.  :) Your User:Ealdgyth/Sources page is looking amazing! This will be soooo useful, thanks for your work on this. Definitely let me know when you think it's ready! :) --Elonka 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looking over my rating system, I'm wondering if we should tweak it a bit. I think when most people look at the letters, they're going to assume that "A" means best, and "D" means worst, so what do you think about reworking it as:

• A: Modern high quality source. All journal articles in academic journals are automatic "A" so do not need to be specifically listed.
• B: Sources that are acceptable, but should be updated to "A" sources if possible:
  • Tertiary sources, which are acceptable, but should be updated to secondary sources where possible.
  • Solid academic sources for their time period, that have since become outdated and should be updated to modern sources if possible
• C: Sources that were written for mass market, were written in a highly speculative manner, and/or are not well footnoted, and should be either removed or used with great caution

Sorry for being picky on this, but I want to make sure that we come up with a good rating system, where we can cover most of the sources, and that other people can easily view to tell "good" source from "bad" source. What do you think? --Elonka 09:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:California State Route 3

Could you give me some feedback about the changes that have been made recently? Sorry about the delay. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Hardee GA Review

Due to lack of time, I'm afraid I'm going to have to make the adjustments bit-by-bit. I will note adjustments on the 'Malcolm Hardee' Discussion page and let you know here when I think I have completed. I'm afraid, being a bear of little brain, I don't know how to strike out the sentences so I apologise if I am messy. Bloody Brits, eh? Can I thank you very very much for your suggestions, which are very, very highly constructive and helpful. User:TheJohnFleming 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed most of the problems, but have been 'out-of-it' after an accident last Thursday - we are talking osteopaths, doctors, pain-killers and stuff here! - and I will allegedly be pretty-much out-of-it for another fortnight. So let's hope both it and I pass assessment... Whatever the result, thankyou for excellent suggestions. User:TheJohnFleming 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. I know Malcolm would feel honoured - if a little flummoxed - by being considered in among so many religious entries! I can now put my socks on in less than six minutes - by such things are accidents to your spine measured! Best wishes User:TheJohnFleming 19:06, 03 February 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Thanks for a thorough (but not too harsh!) review. I'll be working on it with user:Tommy turrell over the next few days. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta very much. 4u1e (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

William Adam GA

Thankyou very much! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

Sorry to drop in unsolicited, but seeing the GA project newsletter I feel pretty confident that you won't mind terribly. I have submitted an article - Sitakunda Upazila - as a GAN. Given the backlog and all I am hoping that I can request you to do a review. Please, be ruthless, as I have worked long and hard on the article (particularly hard was the begging part, going door-to-door to ask for help with an article on an obscure location in a far corner of the world). I know it's far from perfect, but I really hope to make improve enough, and soon, to submit it to FAC. Can you take a look, please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination of Her Majesty's Theatre

Thanks for taking the time to do that, it provides a road map for moving the article forward. Kbthompson (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed many of the problems you raised, some are left, some clarification is also required and on the appropriate talk page. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version meets all of your previous comments. When would be a good time to put it back in for a reappraisal? I'm out for much of today - but should be back in about 4-5 hours. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got back. I guess you've got snow, we've got rain, rain and more rain. I'll stay up past my bed-time ... maybe my US collaborator will pick up any additional comments you may have, but for me, it'll probably have to wait til morning (UTC). Thanks for doing this. Kbthompson (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thank you again for doing this. (Any further concerns can be addressed when I've got myself a coffee - which sounds like a damn fine idea. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

George Hoey

Thanks for the comments at George Hoey. Do you have any thoughts on the image placement?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I had been thinking that the first and last might be better swapped?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done what I can. I am waiting for User:Cbl62.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we are ready for reconsideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Western Canal

Thanks for your comments on Grand Western Canal. I've had a go at addressing the issues you have identified - if there is anything further to improve the article please let us know.— Rod ^talk 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks— Rod ^talk 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

John Maulbetsch

I think I've addressed the concerns you raised. If there's anything else you think can be done to improve the argument, let me know. Thanks again.Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Augustine

I'll take a look -- the religious topics aren't my strongest area but I'll see if I can find something sensible to say. Mike Christie (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am not at all a medieval scholar; I have no background in that area and am reading and writing Anglo-Saxon articles in Wikipedia for pleasure, so I'm probably not a very reliable critic. However, I am interested and I do have some of the relevant books, so I'm happy to help as I have time. I think Augustine is close to GA; FA will take another pass or two, but GA probably just needs a copyedit, and maybe moving some material around a little. Anyway, thanks for an interesting read, and please come back with any other copyedit or review requests. I don't promise to be quick, but if it's in that topic area I will try to take a look. Mike Christie (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bump Elliott

I think Bump Elliott is ready for reconsideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the final cite issue. If there's anything else, let me know. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 9th February 2008. Epbr123 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Hi Ealdgyth, I'm sorry - I hope you didn't feel I was treading on your toes by mentioning you! I tried to limit my initial presentation mostly to my direct experience, but there were a couple of places where your comments were part of that. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Students Harness Aid for the Relief of the Elderly

Again, thank you for your review of Students Harness Aid for the Relief of the Elderly. As I have outlined on the talk page, I think I have dealt with all the main points you mentioned, so feel free to re-read and assess the article. --Editor of Podium 2008 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on Livermore Rodeo

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Livermore Rodeo, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Butch Woolfolk

Thanks for reviewing yet another football article for us. I think we've addressed the concerns you noted. I did find the section in the Manual of Style dealing with "n dashes." I read it, re-read it, and I'm still not sure when to use a hypen vs. ndash vs. mdash vs. traditional dash. I added n dashes where there was a year span, i.e. 1981-1982, a game score, i.e., 17-10, a team's record, i.e., 10-0, and where there's a hyphenated number-word combination, i.e., a 50-yard run. If any of those are wrong, or you see something else that's still not right. The nuns in my Catholic grammar school back in the 1970s were fierce disciplinarians when it came to grammar, but back then we just had hyphens and dashes. I'm really unsure what the point is of the whole "n dash"-"m dash" thing, but have tried to comply with the protocol. Cbl62 (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an opinion on whether the following sentences should be included in the Butch Woolfolk article: 1982 saw seven running backs drafted in the first round (Barry Redden, Walter Abercrombie, Woolfolk, Gerald Riggs, Darrin Nelson, Marcus Allen and Gerald Wilhite). Among the running backs drafted later in the draft was Michigan teammate Stan Edwards.

Bob Chappuis

I think I've addressed the issues you raised in the GA review. Only thing I'm not sure about is "n dash" protocol per my note on the talk page. Is there a place where I can see the wiki "n dash" policy so I can try to get that right moving forward? Cbl62 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I got all of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

I think it looks really good for a first try, thanks! And I very much sympathize with the amount of energy that it takes to pull an evidence section together. All the diff-gathering is very time-consuming.

In terms of ways to improve it further (have you read WP:CASE yet?)

• You might want to break things up a bit more into "assertion"/"evidence" format. For example, you have a section that says "Undue weight", but you might want to make that more of a declarative statement about what the actual assertion is.
• Be careful about the differences between "content" issues and "conduct" issues. You're on solid ground where you talk about PHG misquoting sources, but the more esoteric we get, the less likely that the Arbs are going to be able to follow.
• Where you talk about Edward I, do a bit more "spoon-feeding". You show the diff that PHG added info, but it's not going to be clear to the Arbs just what's wrong with that material. So I would recommend choosing a specific phrase or two, and quote it to indicate why you found the addition problematic.

Other than that, I think it's good. You indicate your concerns, you have diffs, and your point comes across. So even if you don't make any changes, I still think it's fine.  :) --Elonka 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this! I've been too swamped this week to do much on-wiki, so I haven't had a chance to add to my evidence. Yours looks ok to me so far. One think I noticed was that the link about Edward I makes it look like Stijn Calle inserted the text about the Mongols. Can you find the earlier diff where PHG added this information? Apart from that, you might consider breaking it down a little and condensing it to make it easier for the ArbCom (who both really busy and also not as familiar with the case as we are) to digest. Your concerns do come across clearly though, so it definitely helps. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thurstan

The article Thurstan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Thurstan for things needed to be addressed. jackturner3 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

POV problem tag, you're it!

I'm not touching this one with a 10 foot pole until the rodeo articles are off lockdown and cooled, but heads up that it's your turn to work on this little POV-laden unit: Bitless bridle. (grinning evilly) I got in enough of a fight when I threw the bitless and bridleless stuff out of the dressage articles, not in the mood to take on fanatics again. They trashed the bridle article as it was, that's the only battle I'm up for at the moment. Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello Ealdgyth, Thank you for your thorough examination of the history section of this article. Since I am not a history expert and have relied entirely on my sources which I thought were good ones, I do feel that I am not the person to improve this section and was wondering if you would like to come make some changes so the page is more factually correct. I would hate to have misinformation sitting on a page of this importance. Please consider coming by and helping out this important section of this important page. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth, I was wondering what sources you think would be preferred to write the beliefs section of the Roman Catholic Church. WP policy says that you are allowed to use self published sources to write an article about the subject it is about, especially when the information can't be found anywhere else. There is only one Catechism of the Catholic Church and one Canon Law. These sources are supplemented in the Beliefs section with the Sadlier textbook which can be used for adults coming into the Church as well as children's religious education classes. This supplement is exactly what Wikipedia prescribes. Do you still think it is not OK? Please let me know your thoughts because I am new and wondering why you are so concerned about these sources in the Beleifs section. Please help me understand why. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the History section of the Catholic Church was supposed to be brief. I am looking at some of your suggestions and have attended to some of them already. I am worried that full incorporation of your statements might make the article too long. Is there such a thing as a too long history section? I was following the example of the FA Islam which seems to mention and wikilink without too much in-depth details in order to keep the article from being too long. I am sure you are busy with other projects but if you get a chance, I would like to know your thoughts on all this. It has been a lot of work redoing the history section over again and I thought my sources were the best. I would appreciate some guidance on these issues. If you would make a list of what sources are not OK and why it would really help. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Marquise Walker

Let me know how I am progressing on Marquise Walker at your convenience.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed Muransky GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Ed Muransky. You may want to put this on your user page since you made many editorial contributions:

This user helped promote Ed Muransky to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ted Petoskey GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Ted Petoskey. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Ted Petoskey to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hackamores and stuff

Just went and threw fat on the fire of the bitless bridle article. (Don't thank me! LOL!) Not only tossed stuff explained in hackamore, but also no way in h-e-double toothpicks are those doggone gadgets a hackamore and no way is a hackamore a "bitless bridle." Will not sully the name of the classic bosal and "bitless bridle" name for those darn crossunder things has become a term of art. In fact, someone even copyrighted the name, I think. This means you may have to re-cite (or may want to put your cites into hackamore) and I probably screwed up everything and deserve a revert, but everyone was tiptoeing around the real issue, which is that, indeed, the hackamore article already exists. (Don't get me started on "mechanical hackamores" I wish every one of those damn things was both melted down AND fried! About the only use those things have are the short-shanked, all- or mostly leather ones people use at hunting camp when it's 20 below and a bit would freeze the tongue. I have seen units with a solid, THIN plate of metal plate under the jaw, where pulling the reins jams the edge of the metal into the jaw, and the owner swear that "bits are cruel." Oh, and wonders why her Arab was anxious and flipped its head a lot. Oh. Oops. I got started...) I will take a look at the TB article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

TB

Allright, I'm finished for the moment. I'll probably be back on later this afternoon for some more work. Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question list

Hi Ealdgyth. I finally managed to spend two hours on your loooooooong list of questions. The answers are at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Glad I got to the end of it. You will notice that the majority of undocumented references were actually put in by Elonka. It's OK though, we'll just fill them into the article. It would nice though if she could double-check that they are correct. Good night. PHG (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Many thanks for your comments on the RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[1] accessibility,[2] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[3] (The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).

I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the RfC.--Damac (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Burnell

The effort is much appreciated. It's a nice page. I've gotten a lot of Sir John Sainty's lists into Wikipedia, full of obscure holders of offices, and so it's nice to see these medieval "civil servants" turning into bluelinks. On another note, is there any assistance I can offer on the ArbCom case? I'm not a scholar, but I do have an amateur interest in Cilician Armenia (I created a number of the articles on Armenian kings), and when I see Adam Bishop and John Kenney both smelling smoke, I'm inclined to believe there's fire. I'd just as soon not see the various Armenian articles overrun by WP:OR due to an adverse outcome at ArbCom. Choess (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll see what I can do. "I'm pressed, too." Adam's really the go-to man for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Armenia and so forth, but he's probably even busier. The trouble now is because I'm out of the well-funded parts of academia, it's hard for me to get hold of modern sources, which seems to be one of the key issues here. But I'll go through what I can find. Choess (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr PDA's editref script

Hello there,

You can find out more about the script here. Essentially, when in edit mode, you get a new button press that presents only the in-line references in the edit window. You can then edit them as you please, without worrying about the surrounding text and without having to look for them. It's useful for doing bulk reference tweaking. Dr PDA has a number of other scripts that are occasionally useful, and you can find out about them by following the links from User:Dr pda. Rgds. Carré (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to source the blatently obvious

Can you find a source for the proposition that riding in a halter is just a wee bit risky? Seems the bitless crowd disagrees and now the main pusher is vandalizing the hackamore article.

I hope you don't mean me?! If you have a problem with something I have done, I hope you will have the decency to address me about it, instead of accusing me of something I haven't done, ok? AeronM (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...sure, "everyone" does it, but just because all the other kids jump off a cliff...help. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can we tone it down on my page please? I left the Bitless Bridle article because honestly, I don't need the stress, and it's not that important to me. I'm more than happy to add references to articles, which is what Montana was asking me for, and I'm pretty sure I could (if I was home) find a couple of references for the "halters are risky" statement... probably in the British Pony Club manual and the Camp Horsemanship Association Instructors manual. But, like I told Montana on their talk page, I generally try to avoid stress. It's just not worth the hassle to me, of going to the trouble of hunting down references for it to just be blanked shortly thereafter. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth

I added French quotes etc... to your page User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed. Should you wish some photographs of the pages in questions etc... don't hesitate to ask. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley

I don't know if you noticed it in the queue at the top of your talk page that you have for FACs, but Tyrone Wheatley could use some comments soon (of course preferably supports).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not finished addressing your comments, but in some cases I await feedback, because I do not know how to proceed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to all your comments. Also, why isn't Wheatley on the template above?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I got the last one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PR for "Irreplaceable"

Hi. Could you please take a look at this? I need more comments before I pass it for FAC. Thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Although I don't think we've ever communicated, I see your work all the time on bishops and GA reviews. From one bishop coverer to another, I award you this barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred

Hope your vacation went well! I've done some more work on Thoroughbred while you were away, and I think we're getting fairly close. Would you be willing to take a look at it and give it one of your lovely pre-GA review runthroughs? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On that topic, hope your computer glitches are smoothing out, E, and I think Dana's work has been excellent. I'm still not happy with the whole breeding families section yet, but in the research I was doing the last time I had time to think about the TB article (before current crisis that I tried and failed to stay away from) think I at least understand the Lowe system somewhat. That bit needs more work. I think the whole article could benefit from sort of an overall review because I am still not sure the whole thing as a unit flows as well as it should, but there is no question that it's a whole lot better and Dana needs kudos! Montanabw^(talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh congestion charge GAN

Ah, I see: ISP issues. Very strange and my heartfelt commiserations. This is just to let you know that I closed the GAN hold you'd put on this article, as there'd been no response since Feb 16. If I jumped the gun here, I apologise; feel free to re-open the nom. Hope your ISP gets well soon! --jwanders^Talk 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington Park Race Track

Have you seen Talk:Washington Park Race Track? We are on hold. Come by and help out if you get a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the GAC on hold commentary?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see on its talk page that there were some minor issues. I have attempted to address them, but you may want to add your assistance. Actually, I am just noticing that something marked with a pass seems to be wanting some attention. Was that table comment there before?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tech advice

Hiya, saw the post from Shell Kinney that you're having wiki-problems! Sorry to hear it. I've never heard of that particular problem (being able to read but not edit), but here is what I'd try to troubleshoot (my apologies if you've already done these):

• Try to create a different account and edit from that one
• Try to edit anonymously
• Use a different web browser (Firefox v. IE)
• Check if I could edit other projects, such as Commons
• I see also that you're on vacation? If you're logging on from someplace unusual, there might be some weird firewall going on.
• Turn off javascript
• Purge your cookies
• Check Help:Logging in to see if there are any ideas there
• Do a full virus scan of your system, there may be something more sinister at work.  :/

Good luck, and feel free to drop me a line in email if I can be of further assistance: Elonka@aol.com --Elonka 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried all those, the ISP did a major upgrade in hardware and software when these issues started, so it's pretty clear it's an ISP issue. We've tried different browsers, computers, OS's, routers in or out of the network, new cables, everything tech support and we could think of. It's not just Wikipedia either, it's some emails, and a number of sites on the web also. (NYTimes, Smith Barney, my bank and a number of other sites, some secure, some not). Luckily, or unluckily, I'm not the only one caught in this issue, there are a bunch of folks in the area having it also. If they can't get it cleared up soon, though, we're going to have to explore a back up internet option (It's interferring with my ability to actually work on my business also.) besides the one I'm using right now (going to a friends house to post some quick notices). Thanks for the support though! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A friend with internet, is a friend indeed. :) Sorry to hear that you're still having troubles, being internet-less is more than an inconvenience these days, it's like trying to get along without phone, water, or electricity. :/ Hope things get well soon, Elonka 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have you back!  :) --Elonka 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Viam agnoscere veritatis

Please note that User:Elonka has been making up the story that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam agnoscere veritatis", when I only spoke about one. It turns out it is actually just her own interpretation,[4] and is not corroborated in any way by published sources. These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except her. I am asking an apology from her, and ask you to consider this examplar case of wrongfull accusation.PHG (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In advance for Augustine's GA

For your work on the saints and sinners of England's episcopacy:

		An Award
		Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

SECisek (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal

We have more then enough GAs to put together a "Pre-Reformation Church in England" portal. Having thought about it, perhaps a tab on the existing portal would be better. I will create one ASAP and also create a work group (Anglican and Roman Catholic) to maintian it - and maybe get us some more help on these old guys. -- SECisek (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred

I've been working on it a little bit over the past week or so, although nothing major. There are still a few sources that are suspect, but I haven't been able to find anything better, perhaps you'd have more luck? They're identified by hidden text inserts... I've expanded the lead and worked on the history section a bit, so those should be long enough. I think we've got the article mainly done; it just needs some polishing before putting it up for GA. I agree with Montanabw that the article doesn't flow as easily as perhaps it should... Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Testbed

Hi Ealdgyth! I finally completed my responses to your Testbed today [5] (with one original French quote which was lacking from Grousset "L'Epopée des Croisades"... it was "Edward I (...) renoua la précieuse alliance mongole" ("Edward I (...)renewed the precious Mongol alliance") (p.301). I also added "Bohémond s'était étroitement allié aux Mongols" ("Bohemond had closely allied himself to the Mongols") (p.320). You haven't given any comments on this. Shouldn't you be reassured that, after verification, all my quotes and references have been confirmed? I am looking forward to your feedback. PHG (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On the same occasion, I would like to ask that you retract (<strike></strike>) all you claims that I would have "fabricated references that didn't even exist". Regards. PHG (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Brodie Croyle

Hey, is there any way we can have that hold extended? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start work on it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Croyle photo

[Image:Broncos-Chiefs2007.jpg] is a mistake. I uploaded this photo thinking that it was mine. I have files on my computer including Chiefs photos, and obviously my camera is not that high tech. On my computer, I have a mixed file folder full of photos from each game, but I did not intend to put this on the internet saying "self made." We need to delete this photo because I think you're right about the NFL and copyrights, and I sure don't want to get slapped with a lawsuit.conman33 (. . .talk) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to contact an admin and get them to delete it. Since you uploaded it, it shouldn't be a problem with getting it done quickly, as you would be the one requesting deletion. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Gerard

This is claimed in the Catholic encyclopedia, for Titus. D. XXIV. 3 [actually in the British Library]. This article is of some interest to the contents of that MS, but nothing about the part where Gerard's poems are supposed to be. I looked at Rigg's History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 1066-1422 and it says nothing about that, but does say that Titus D. XXIV. 3 contains extracts of the work of Lawrence of Durham, which might be a good sign (northern stuff). Other than that I can't find anything. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you;d like, your voice would be useful at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Western_clergy)#Western_bishops_proposal I think the time is long overdue when article names relating to western bishops need standardized. Either in the [[X, Bishop of Y]] format or the [[X (Bishop of Y)]]. format. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Croyle GA review

No, I didn't take it at all as criticism. I welcomed it. Thank you for reviewing this article. WP:KCC, some folks (User:RC-0722 mainly), and I are working on touching it up right now. Again, I appreciate it. I really thought it was going to sit around on that list for a long time. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you look at the article (unofficially) at see how we are doing so far? Also, I hope you don't mind but we've been using your list of reasons that you failed the article as kind of a check list. Thanks! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we did what was on your list (I think). Anything else we should do? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for passing Brodie Croyle. This is my first GA so I'm kinda excited. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ubox. And I don't know 'bout conman33 but I wasn't thinking about FA. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian Browne (cyclist)

hi there. I've made an attempt to address the concerns. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And now Tony Marchant as well. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Invisibility

Tibi gratias agimus. Your kind words mean a lot to me. Aramgar (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley has been restarted. Your renewed support would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		To Ealdgyth, for high quality reviewing at FAC Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Donegal fiddle tradition GA

Issues addressed; see talk page. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Referencing issues addressed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

I would love your help, yes, please!  :) I was actually quite surprised with the article's rejection, as I didn't think it was so bad that it would get bumped right out of the queue in just a few days, especially since I was actively working on addressing concerns.

I'm done with copyediting for now, so feel free to dive in. Go ahead and be ruthless. I trust you, and am confident that the article will be stronger based on whatever you change. :) --Elonka 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

England national football team managers

Thanks for your comments at the FAC. Good spots! I've fixed them all, I think. --Dweller (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Hi, thanks for your comments at the FAC and especially for spotting that book title that needed italics. Amazing powers of observation. Best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Article

Thanks for your message and indication of future support. I'm really impressed by the amount of attention that you gave to my article. I don't agree with everything you suggest but mostly I do, and am dealing with it. It'll take me a couple of days, but I'll post my responses as soon as possible. As you can see I seem to have a willing copyeditor, so things are looking good! Love your username Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now addressed all the issues that you raised, and have amended the article accordingly. I have summarised what I have done on the article's talk page. You may still feel that some of the sentences are awkward or wordy, but a copyeditor (Mike Christie) has agreed to work the article over, when you & I have resolved our issues. So please read the article again, judge the extent too which I've met your objections, & let me know via the talkpage what you think. Again, many thanks for your detailed interest. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest note. I'm glad to see that you are generally satisfied with the amendments I have made. I will shortly alert Mike Christie that I am ready for his copyedit, and we will see what transpires. He is very supportive, so I'm sure we'll be able to work through any problems. I have taken your advice and dumped the statue image, replacing it with a straightforward photo of Scott, which I think actually suits the article better. The article on Kathleen Scott shows the statue, and also indicates the link that entitles it to use this image. I suppose I could do the same, but on the whole I think I'll stick to the Scott photo. I hope to hear from you when the Discovery article is renominated for FAC. Good luck to you Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Mike has completed his copyedit. He hasn't changed much but has made some minor improvements. He is prepared to support at FAC when I renominate, & suggests I should do this immediately, if you are prepared to convert your mild oppose into a support. Can you do this? Thanks either way Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your last note. I have now renominated, so I hope it flies this time. If you are interested in Antarctica (you have been there) you might like to read a couple of other articles I've worked on, both promoted to FA: Terra Nova Expedition and Ross Sea party. A current project of mine is rescuing the Captain Scott article, which was previously the object of some highly partisan editing which earned it a POV tag. I've put my revised effort up for peer review, but I've no current plans for FAC - I'd like a few more people to comment and perhaps contribute. If you're interested take a look, but you've given me a lot of time so don't feel in any way obligated. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Weird stuff at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America. I'm not sure how much time you'll have for this, but you may want to add some random spotchecking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred

What are your thoughts on the Thoroughbred article at this point? I think it's about ready for GA, but I wanted to get your final comments on anything that's needed before we nominate it. I know that getting a GA eval can take a while sometimes, so thought it might be best to do it now, rather than later? Please let me know, as I have some extra time this week that I could take up with final tweaks. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, by all means, enjoy your dinner! I probably won't be doing any tweaking on the article until tomorrow morning at the earliest, so please, take your time. I'm also going to drop a note on Montana's page, to see if she can take a final look... Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards FAC

Thanks for your comments; I had not actually given a thought to reliability when I put it up. The good news is I'm quite sure almost all the references you pointed out meet WP:V; the comic letterer is an exception, and I guess a judgement call. If you think he's questionable, I'll remove him. More notes on the FAC page, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Help

Thanks for the help:

This user helped promote Washington Park Race Track to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Want to do a fun GA review about things that explode?

Check out Early thermal weapons. Lead editor is another wiki-friend of mine, one of the people who was instrumental in getting Horses in Warfare and Horses in the Middle Ages into GA shape - even though she's not a horse person. She's a good egg and wants some feedback before subjecting the article to the official GA process. So if you have the time, would you go over there and take a peek? Seems that there was more than hot boiling oil out there... a fun read. Thanks in advance. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This Charming Man

Can you revisit? I think I've resolved all your points. Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the cover. It added nothing. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal Blue (B&O train) FAC

Hi Ealdgyth,

Thanks for reviewing this FAC. As per your comment, pages numbers have been added to the citations. JGHowes ^talk - 21:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that goes "boom"

Hey, many thanks for looking over Early thermal weapons - I really appreciate the time you spent going over it; I've worked on it obsessively for a couple of weeks, and it's hard to look at it objectively. So your pointers were brilliant. I've gone through them all and made appropriate corrections. I see you occasionally over at Montanbw's page, so it's beennice to work with you. Thanks again. Gwinva (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Next lesson :-)

See my notes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of California, Riverside. Good grief, Arabians, cutting horses, and the countries you've visited: are we sisters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's helping me a *lot* ... I'm breathing much easier these days as more and more people are kicking in. I was feeling like I was holding back the floodgates, and getting into too many COI positions as a neutral closer :-) No more horses for me; I have to go home (to the other side of the country) to my roots for that. Anyway, when you see a weird format, it's usually because they've mixed styles; you just have to go in and do a search for "citation" and bingo, it always shows up :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A small token

I just wanted to let you know that your work in reviewing FAC sources has been really helpful to me - by the time I've assembled my exhaustive comments on prose, the last thing I want to do is click on a bunch of links to audit references. It's a relief to know that someone is riding herd on sources - thanks! Maralia (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maralia, knowing YOU can handle all that prose/grammar stuff makes me less worried about not reviewing every article! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't division of labor a beautiful thing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, Now if we could just replace Epbr123 on MoS review, all bases would be covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you keep saying that every time I speak up, I'm gonna get a complex :D Maralia (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, oh, sorry, Maralia, I didn't realize I was doing that :-) OK, I'll stop begging for MoS help !! Now I'm off to sleep while you all "horse around" ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

..............couldn't help myself...made a stub for fabulous Fadjur.........Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

hahaha - I recognise Ansata Ibn Halima......he had two progeny, Rahalima and Alkarim Sirhalima who came to Australia, and we had a mare (who was a daughter of Ralvon Pilgrim) go to them over a few years and we got some nice mares out of them :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it might have been Simeon who bought (and brought) Rahalima over here actually (?). I haven't thought about these things for 25 years or more. Funny what I remember. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We're going to see them again in Vegas next month, with their boss, so maybe I'll remember to ask! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cluj-Napoca, I answered to your comments.--Danutz (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Ealdgyth, I would like your help in formulating a sentence or two at the top of the history section of the Roman Catholic Church, either in the introduction or in Roman Empire that makes the statement that there were other types or Christianity, not just Roman Catholic emerging at the same time. I want the article to be NPOV. I am sorry if my response upset you, that was not my intention. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars survey

Hi Ealdgyth. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles

Hi -- saw your notes at the Æthelred FAC; thanks for finding those things. I'll respond there tomorrow -- I'm about to pack it in for the night, I think. I just wanted to let you know, both for the purposes of that FAC and for the Augustine article notes I'm making, that I have no academic background in the area at all. I'm an interested lay-reader of the books, and that's all. I know you do have academic training in history, so if you detect something that looks like a blunder ... it probably is, and please point it out! Later -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Willis Ward

I believe I have addressed your points on the Willis Ward article. As always, thanks for taking the time to do the review, and let me know if there's any further follow-up needed. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Abbots of Glastonbury & List of Bishops of Bath and Wells and precursor offices

Hi, You are obviously knowledgable about early English bishops. Would you be kind enough to look at List of Abbots of Glastonbury which a new editor has created & is populating & compare with List of Bishops of Bath and Wells and precursor offices for overlaps & inconsistencies. Thanks— Rod ^talk 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the expert help.— Rod ^talk 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference

I have to run out now, but would be grateful if you could stick yuor book reference onto Ansata Ibn Halima and Fadjur before anyone slaps on a reliable source or unreferenced label, as I have no books. Much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

....I couldn't help myself...after all we need balance WRT US-focus, so the other two really notable horses I thought of were Hadban Enzahi (really nice horse he was too) and Aswan, both of which have bronze statues. Aswan may make a good DYK. I remember my grandmother had a book on Marbach stud with lots of photos of Hadban Enzahi and Gazal in it..now trawling the web I find that all her horses are online, talk about jolting the memory as she died in '81...real spin out and quite moving as I had forgotten lots of the names until rereading them..Koh-i-noor Qahira being the first filly we got when we bred Bright Emerald to AK Sirhalima who was a prtty spiffy looking black horse..[6]...anyway, getting all sentimental writing this.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know (sigh)...anyway, I'll see what comes up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Ealdgyth. How are you? Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in your sig

A completely weird thing (something similar just came up with Casliber). It's happened to me twice now with your sig; first time, I thought it was random, but twice now. Look at my last two edits at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America, where I attempted to cap our sourcing comments. Same thing happened at Cirt's article, The "|" that you've used in your sig bombs out the code in the cap. Would it be possible to alter your sig to use something besides that line? I had to change it to a comma to get the cap to work.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

oops, forgot, I left you some learning notes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aang <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't wear yourself down :-) That's why I mentioned a few days ago that you might want to focus on certain articles and not try to do them all ... it's hard work. I know, I used to do it on every FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were going to be out of town, and I freaked out, since I have a house full of family and guests for two weeks, starting tomorrow, which means my usual amount of free time will be curtailed ... ack !!! What will be, will be :-) Have fun !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca

I modified the article very much, and explained my edits here. I wait for your opinions on that same page, if you can. --Danutz (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review feedback

Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea you might want to try is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I run the semi-automated peer review script, so I can always run it for an article if you want. I am also trying very hard to make sure every request that has no response gets at least something (hence the note), so if no one else does, I will review Hubert Walter in several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner FAC

Hi Ealdgyth, Thanks for your feedback and support on Jack Warner. I just wanted to let you know that the article was promoted to FA status. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Æthelred and Augustine

I've had a go at the lead on Æthelred; I think that's the last thing you were looking for. Let me know what else is needed. On Augustine, are you ready for me to take another look? It looks like a very busy week for me, but I should be able to spend some time on it -- perhaps while you're out at the horse show. Mike Christie (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can take a look at Hubert too -- that's rather later than I've read about, so it'll be more of a lay review. On Æthelred, are you still opposing? If not, if you could update the FAC before you go to the horse show that would be great -- otherwise just let me know what's still wrong. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ch'oe Pu

Thank you for your detailed analysis and criticism. I have responded on the FAC page to your hefty list of bulleted points and have edited the article according to your suggestions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. Also, if you feel like the real "Ch'oe Pu" is lost in all of this, I have recently added a very good quotation from Kleiner's book on Ch'oe's affinity towards Chinese culture in comparison to his own. Just another tidbit to demonstrate his opinions rather than travel times and Chinese battalion names and other technical stuff.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Color change

Thanks; you don't miss a thing :-) I didn't want to make PITA of myself by asking, but when it cropped up twice, I knew I was in trouble :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery gets its star

Thank you for all your help, which enabled the Discovery Expedition to improve up to FA. Much appreciated Brianboulton (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ernie Toshack

Are subscription webpages not allowed? I guess they are in the same boat as books. Another thing, the subscription is free - you just have to use an email address and get a password. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've updated the rest of the article, if any other general issues are still outstanding. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Help

Hi Eadlgyth, hope all is well. You know, you can delete stuff like that without using rollback. So that's what I did. I left a message on the user's talkpage too, so hopefully he/she won't take it as a personal slight. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

For taking the trouble to check all the ref links on articles at FAC. That's dedication! 4u1e (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Types of horses

Hi. I am dismembering Category:Types of horses. Care to join me? --Una Smith (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, jumping into the post by Una here, as you know, the whole question of the categories needs discussion and consensus. I reverted Una's work partly because she was recategorizing articles into red link categories, putting some into inappropriate categories, such as body type grouping lists into "breeds," , listing breed groups by tasks, etc. The "types" category has been discussed as problematic in the past, and I fully agree its imperfect, but what we have here is taking a hatchet and random chopping. I'd prefer the categories stay as is until we have an improved way to deal with them. I saw your conversation with Una on this elsewhere, and all I have to say is that I am completely sick of this little "war" that Una seems to have with everything I do on wiki and I wish she would understand that I am not the epitome of evil (and stop going round behind my back asking everyone to team up against articles or topics to which I contributed heavily. I don't know what the solution is, but I support an approach on WPEQ that looks at consensus and not just serves as a battleground for two editors who happen to rather obviously rub each other the wrong way. Sigh. So tired of this nonsense. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please speak for yourself, not for me. --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, if you don't mind I will move our discussion from my talk page to Category talk:Types of horses. --Una Smith (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Aigler

I have not had a chance to address your points yet but plan to. I hope to have time tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now addressed the points you raised. Sorry I wasn't able to do so before you left for vacation. Thanks as always for your time in reviewing the article, and let me know if there is anything else you think should be modified. Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Many thanks for your comments on this article, they're very helpful :) I especially take the point on pre-Galfridian. Bede, btw, doesn't mention Arthur -- I'll add it to the historicity section (the Brut doesn't either, sadly -- it picks up after GoM finishes). cheers :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

Hey Ealdgyth, I created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, which you might be interested in. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable

I've addressed some of your concerns and I left replies. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles revisited

Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I never got back to you about the BM manuscripts, mainly because I haven't a clue :-< Sorry)

Full moon

Most miserable wiki day; must be the moon, one of everything. When you get back, can you put any sense to this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Augustine

I thought I'd finished yesterday but I took one more pass today and found a couple more items. I hope the notes are useful; and please ask for explanations if anything is unclear. It's a fine article. I think once you've addressed the points I've raised, it's pretty close to FA standard. You might ask someone to give it another once-over, but I also think you could take it straight to FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New box

I know it says "Anglican" on it, but we are going to use it for all Pre-Reformation bishops in the British Isles: Template:Infobox Anglican Bishop. -- Secisek (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring

Can you take another look at that please? I have some questions and I've addressed most of your concerns. The Dominator (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still having some trouble with it and I've completed some more, removed the Prague life link, cited the play etc., but I still disagree about photius and spartacus, can you add some comments please? The Dominator (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Charley FAC

I've taken care of your comment with Tropical Storm Charley's FAC. If there are any more comments or if everything's good now, please tell me. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXIV

 Done with everything mentioned. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain Scott

Glad you're back, Ealdgyth. Please do review the article, it's got horses in it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in time

Glad you are back. May want to watchlist rodeo, calf roping, and steer wrestling. The PETA crowd is back. Rvv patrol may need activation. Have also alerted some admins. Last time this happened, it got very nasty. Montanabw^(talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Miss Ima"

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tel Aviv

Hi Ealdgyth, I think the issues you raised at the Tel Aviv FAC have been addressed. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Diocletian FAC

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few more responses to your continuing concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given the article a go-over: [8]. Does it look better? Or have I worsened things? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant it very nicely. Words can really trip me up on the internet, can't they? ;) It's always best if reviews are intense, churning out the bad and polishing the good. The great thing about Wikipedia is that things can always be bettered. No offense taken; picky is good! Honestly, thank you very much for the excellent review. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Augustine notes

Welcome back; sounds like a successful trip. I've struck almost all my comments at Augustine; just two left. One is a wording issue, and the other is the point I was trying to make about the cathedral. Looking back at what I wrote and I can see it was pretty confusing -- sorry about that. I've tried to clarify what I was talking about, but I will understand if you just want to ignore that point! Mike Christie (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pelagius

I don't know if you're interested in Pelagius, but I noticed this edit a while back and didn't have enough context to know what, if anything, should be done to clean it up. It seems sourced, though very un-Wikipedia-ish; and I also suspected either synthesis or undue weight problems. I mention it in case you're interested and would like to do a clean up pass; I don't have the background on ecclesiastical matters to be able to do much useful with it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Angel Asturias

Would you be willing to GA review the above article? The original reviewer has deserted the article. I have asked two other editors, but it is really important that this article receives a high quality review, and my impression is that you are one of the best. Any comments would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scartol has take in on, but your comments would still be appreciated. Geometry guy 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Too many video games!

Count your blessings for now... I've got plenty more video games coming! :P (Although I might put up an article about a book based on a video game first?) Thanks for the link check (I fixed the NYT link as soon as I saw it 'cause I knew you'd be around.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

William of York

On a completely non-Antarctic, non-horse-related matter, I happened to see that your William of York article was up for GA. I don't feel able to do the GA review, but I've left a few hopefully helpful notes on the article's talk page. (I do look at other stuff that doesn't involve ice and snow, every now and again). Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Diocletian

So, is he History or Royalty? Are all Roman Emporers Royalty? If I don't hear from you in the next few minutes, I'll put him in Royalty, and you can move him at WP:FA if that's wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred (again!)

Hope you had fun on your vacation. I had kind of dropped the Thoroughbred article for a while, due to lack of time, and, frankly, lack of interest :) I've made a couple more tweaks to it recently, though, and was wondering if you'd take one last run through it before we nominate for GA? I know there's a rather long list of GA noms, so that process could take a while... Also, you had mentioned setting up a bot for archiving the page? Thanks tons! Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...talk about fast response time! *grin* Can't wait to see the edits from the new book. Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Ealdgyth, I am considering renomination of this article for FA. I would like to know if you see any obvious problems with the article before I resubmit. I am contacting you on the advice of Karanacs who suggested I ask previous commentors to take a look and see if previous FAC issues have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. I am going to replace three of the books you mentioned as not being OK, maybe the one about the roman roads too. I am curious about your comments regarding the Duffy book though. It is a scholarly work published by a University press. How can that book even be considered to not be OK? Are you going to oppose this for FA if I keep the Duffy book? NancyHeise (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I have followed Wikipedia guidelines that suggest scholarly works published by University press. That is exactly what the Duffy book is. There are no Wikipedia guidelines that tell us what constitutes a coffee table book. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity has pictures too, so does the Norman book, all are scholarly works published by University presses. Even the National Geographic Society book which is written by several scholars is allowed per the Wikipedia guidelines. Right after they tell you to use scholarly works published by Unversity presses, they say that well known media outlets and magazines are also fine to use. National Geographic Society is one of the most respected historical institutions in the world. I would like to be held to the same standard as everyone else in Wikipedia and I feel like on the issues of the Duffy and National Geographic book that I am not being fairly treated here. These two sources fit with Wikipedia guidelines as some of the best sources I can use. If you are evaluating the article, it should be evaluated using Wikipedia guidlelines, not some unpublished standard that you are suggesting here. If I sound angry, I am not, I like you and respect you but I think you are being a little unfair in your evaluation of these sources. NancyHeise (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather front

Hi, thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather front. I saw that you struck out your concern, and I was wondering what you thought it needed before getting your support. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I often find it hard to read articles that I am not interested in full, as well. Thanks anyway, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

You don't have to use British spelling on my account, just pointing out that there's inconsistency. But if you notice, one of the UK spellings I mentioned was introduced by me! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I think I can find an AmEng -> BrEng copyeditor to help; I know Awadewit has used someone to help on this in the past, and I'll ask her who it was. Mike Christie (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can attempt to go through it if you want, for BEng v. AmEng. I'm bad for that, as I studied in the US as well as UK, and mix the two half the time myself, but I can go through it. I'll just find and replace on notepad "ize" for "ise" and "or" for "our" and scan for the more subtle ones. The Anglo-Saxon stuff has never really caught me either, and like yourself, I prefer the A-N era stuff as far as England is concerned, though that I must say is mostly because of the horrendous effects of Ševčenko's law. I can't recommend a specific part atm, as I don't have access to the book (lost it). I know it's a longie, but it is a coherent one, so would be most useful to read from start to finish. The guy's got a brain that is prepared to speculate seriously, so the main benefit you get is the intellectual overview. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)