User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 24

DYK for William de Chesney (sheriff)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Geoffrey Talbot

Mifter (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussing old reviews

Following what you said here, I'd been thinking of returning to reviewing articles, but one thing I still want to try and get sorted is the right way to handle source spot-checks. What happened at the review of Geoffrey (archbishop of York) shook my confidence more than I realised at the time. Following a subthread at WT:FAC, I've asked Fifelfoo (see their talk page) if they would be prepared to look at reviews I've done and advise on how best to tackle that aspect of reviewing. Would you be OK with us discussing (at a suitable venue) both that review and the subsequent discussions on the talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. As I've tried to explain to you ... some of the reaction you got was not just from the spot checking aspects, but from the long drawn out (over a week or so) nature of your reviews. That sort of review is better suited to a peer review or a discussion on talk pages - rather than the pressure cooker of FAC. I find it makes me feel like the goal posts are constantly moving - you post some comments, I fix ... you post more, I fix, ... you post more, and I start getting frustrated. If you can't see that part of the problem, I'm not sure what good it's going to do to dig up old reviews. From what you've said above, you seem to think the reaction you got from me (and others) at Geoffrey was all due to the spot-checks, and that was not all the issues for me. Nor am I convinced this is the best time for you to be poking around in FAC things - tempers are running very very high all around the project and my own participation in all of wikipedia isn't as secure as some folks might think it is. I'm not sure I need to rake over old coals, quite honestly. I'd be more comfortable if I thought you'd taken on board the concerns about the length and long time your reviews take at FAC, that might make me feel like the exercise with Fifelfoo might actually bear some fruit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, Ealdgyth. I hadn't forgotten what you had said about the 'draining' nature of the way I do reviews, and I am still considering how best to address that. It just wasn't what I had intended to ask Fifelfoo about, though I will mention it to them now you've brought that up. FAC shouldn't be a pressure cooker, though. In my view it should be a positive experience where articles are subjected to a rigorous inspection that balances respect for the work done (if it meets a minimum standard) with the need to check carefully against the criteria. What I'm trying to get a handle on is what the best reviewers do to achieve that. What I'd like to ask some regular nominators, including you, is what they appreciate most about the reviews they've had of the articles they've submitted (regardless of the reviewers)?

As for tempers running high, my own participation in Wikipedia tails off during the week (work and other things), so I likely won't get time to do much more on this until the weekend. Hopefully things will have cooled down by then, though others managed to get me rather angry as well, which doesn't happen often. The bit about only getting small amounts of time to edit in the week partly explains the sometimes drawn-out nature of the reviews, though you might be seeing things only from the perspective of the reviews I've done that you are aware of. I've listed the reviews I took part in during late 2010 and during 2011 at a page in my userspace here (a rather mixed bunch in terms of what I contributed). If you read that, you will see why I'm reluctant to do reviews in just a few days or at a single sitting. The best thing, I think, is to make that crystal-clear up front when I start a review, though it is not always clear when looking at an article how long it will take to review it to the level where I'd be happy to support.

Going back to this idea of discussing past reviews, I'm trying to strike a balance here between looking back at past reviews myself (not just mine but those of others as well) and learning from them, and asking others for their thoughts on reviews I've done. I don't want to do too much of the latter, because that takes up valuable time better spent elsewhere, but if you have any thoughts on what I've said on that page I pointed you to, or thoughts on what I've said here, it would be very much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fiction

I removed the 'In Fiction' section of Judith of Flanders, and an editor undid it with the comment: "restore in fiction section - well established that we can treat this as encyclopedic". Do you know whether there is a Wikipedia policy on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA would seem to cover it, I'd think. Or WP:IPC. In general - if something tells us more about the subject, then yes, it's useful - see Henry II of England#Popular culture for an excellent way to handle "in fiction". It mentions high visibility things that are likely to impact the reader's perception of Henry, but doesn't list every single episode which briefly mentions Henry II. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in for a moment, I'd agree that TRIVIA usually covers the problem. One of the tests I try to apply is whether I can find any secondary sources discussing the fiction (i.e. has anyone written books, or articles, or decent reviews about them and the subject); that's usually a good indicator to me of whether the popular culture section belongs in an article, and fits in well with the wiki's desire to be based off top quality secondary sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think the best thing is for me to put these points to the editor who restored the section. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Neville GAN

I've opened a review page at Talk:Ralph Neville/GA1 and listed a few questions and suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Monteverdi's lost operas

I'd be delighted if you would look at this peer review. Renaissance/baroque opera may not be your first choice for relaxation, but your sharp reviewer's eye is always welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I will look later tonight. The teenaged stepdaughter has a friend over working on a school project (it involves videos and stuff ... ugh!) so I'm not going to get anything done while they are giggling in the background. I'm going to go organize my journal article files, that's safe (and quiet!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe I read an article on LOST operas... yikes. I don't even like found operas, so what the heck was I doing reading one on lost ones? (Although I guess I prefer the "lost" versions, they are less likely to offend my ears.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Think of it as a selfless service to mankind. Anyhow, many thanks for your review which I have addressed, usually though not absolutely in accordance with your suggestions. If you can bear to take another look, to see if there is any profound disagreement outstanding, I'd be pleased. If it is too much to bear, I'll understand. The article will, all being well, be at FAC before the week's end. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are the dead ponies and dogs, by the way? Surely any operatic composer would have written about dead puppies and ponies? On a serious note, I did look through the changes and everything looked much better. I did reply quickly on two things, but nothing else really seemed to need a reply. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The nearest I can get to the ponies and dogs is the wounded deer in Le nozze d'Enea. However, I have moved the article to FAC (with a sly bow to you in the nom statement). Any further comments should be made there. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed

Hi Ealdgyth,

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your thorough review and comments at the FAC of Nyon Conference, which has now been promoted. Thanks!Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Replies to your request for peer review

Hey, Ealdgyth. I've added comments to the peer review of John de Gray. So has another user, I believe. DCItalk 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

I've been playing around with Qwiki, and I thought I'd try it out on something really obscure like William Cragh. Imagine my surprise to hear the introduction I'd written read out by an American female voice. Mind you, she did stumble over some of the Welsh words, particularly those without any obvious vowels. Weird feeling. But it made me wonder why Wikipedia doesn't have something similar instead of relying on volunteers to laboriously record each article, a recording that's probably out of date before it's even completed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Qwiki has an $11 million development budget, and a lot of quiet backing from Apple (who are pushing Qwiki as an Ipad "killer app"). Wikipedia has whatever Jimmy and Sue can schmooze from corporate donors, plus whatever paltry sums the annual fundraiser brings in. Also, Qwiki is run as a business and has a clear management and accountability structure, who can sign off on major changes—if you tried to amend the Wikipedia interface it would take fifteen Requests for Comment, all of which would be closed "no consensus", before someone complained that the design of the new interface was offensive and/or discriminatory and the whole thing was abandoned. See Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal for a salutary lesson. 188.28.136.207 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth! Montanabw^(talk) 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited William the Conqueror, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Waltham Abbey and Eustace of Boulogne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

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

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Alfred Baring Garrod			Inveraray Castle
	Ustad Ahmad Lahauri			Hachiōji Castle
	William Alnwick			Eyre (legal term)
	Gesta Stephani		Merge
	Richard of Gravesend			John Arundel
	Saltire Society			Slave Castle of Cape Coast
	William of Kilkenny			Earl of Mercia
	Richard Hill (bishop)		Add sources
	Richard III, Duke of Normandy			Charles Ponzi
	John Fordham			Walter de Gray
	Thomas Polton			Robert I, Duke of Normandy
	Journal of Medieval History		Wikify
	William I, Count of Boulogne			Darkwater: Voices From Within the Veil
	Gunnora, Duchess of Normandy			Trunk show
	David Carpenter (historian)			Economy of force
	Judith of Brittany		Expand
	Spot Resolutions			Guaraní people
	Thomas Charlton (bishop)			The Last of the Mohicans
	Wulfheard			Steinsberg Castle

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Herbert of Winchester

Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please halt user

Please tell or stop User 23.143.236.49 Special:Contributions/24.143.236.49 (talk) and User:207.62.246.50 Special:Contributions/207.62.246.50 (talk) (the same user) to stop vandalizing the Chinese zodiac signs, Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig. I keep fixing the problem, but the user believes this is a game, please at least try to warn the user or stop the user from taking chances on reviewing the user's contributions, please halt the person's actions. I appreciate your concern.--74.34.83.89 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No clue why this got dropped on my talk page - I'm not an admin nor am I interested in those articles... any talk page stalkers? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Passing mention at AN/I

Hi, Ealdgyth, this is just to let you know that in defending myself at AN/I, I mentioned your name. I hope and trust I mentioned you only in a neutral or positive light. Sorry about this, best regards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion to you, JLAN? If you want to work together with folks on this project, the description that you did of Dana on that ANI isn't going to garner a lot of collaboration from other editors. Why should I want to work collaboratively with you when you describe other editors in that manner? Easier to just ignore you, honestly. I don't need that sort of stress. I get that you and Montana rub each other the wrong way... that's a totally separate issue from Dana's editing. She's quite well respected, not just at FAR (where she's a delegate) but also at MilHist. She's hardly likely to have gotten that sort of respect if she was really "hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style". If you want to collaborate successfully, it's better to not be that forthright when describing someone else ... they tend to hold grudges when people describe them in that manner. Might I suggest striking that description? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Review?

Hi Ealdgyth, I don't think we've interacted before, but I noticed that you wrote most of the entries at the Featured Article Religion biographies section. Another user and I have been working on George Went Hensley for a while and it is now at FAC. Would you be interested in reviewing it? I think we have it in decent shape and I've been told that it's a pretty entertaining read, but no problem if you are busy with other things though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try but currently I'm suffering through a very nasty cold/flu/something that has really sapped my energy. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I can sympathize, I've just recovered from about the worst case of the flu I've had in at least a decade. Really just a miserable feeling to be in the grips of that kind of sickness... Hope you feel better soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Baldwin of Forde

This is a note to let the main editors of Baldwin of Forde know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 18, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Baldwin of Forde (c. 1125 – 1190) was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1185 and 1190. The son of a clergyman, he studied canon law and theology at Bologna and was tutor to Pope Eugene III's nephew before returning to England to serve successive bishops of Exeter. After becoming a Cistercian monk he was named abbot of his monastery, and subsequently elected to the episcopate at Worcester. Before becoming a bishop, he wrote theological works and sermons, some of which have survived. As a bishop Baldwin came to the attention of King Henry II of England, who was so impressed he insisted that Baldwin become archbishop. In that office, Baldwin quarrelled with his cathedral clergy over the founding of a church, which led to the imprisonment of the clergy in their cloister for more than a year. Baldwin spent some time in Wales with Gerald of Wales, preaching and raising money for the Third Crusade. After the coronation of King Richard I of England, the new king sent Baldwin ahead to the Holy Land, where he became embroiled in the politics of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Baldwin died in the Holy Land while participating in the crusade; his long-running dispute with his clergy led one chronicler to characterise Baldwin as more damaging to Christianity than Saladin. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

TWO WEEKS!!! Gee, what a vacation... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You should try switching to fossil mammals; they get picked for TFA much less often than medieval bishops. Ucucha (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

James G. Blaine

Thanks for the review! I think your suggestions are good ones, and I'll be glad to make the changes. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work on the "Mark Satin" bio!

		The Helping Hands Barnstar
		Dear Dank, Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Ed, Jimfbleak, Nikkimaria, and Noleander, - I could not have brought the Mark Satin bio up to Featured Article status without the unique contributions (not to mention tact and patience) of each of you. I am probably two to three times your age, and not at home with this technology. But working with you gave me a glimpse of a beautiful 21st century world in which individual initiative, collectively honed, can produce socially (in)valuable work that is also first-rate. God bless! - Babel41 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly question time again (Pain fitzJohn)

Under Henry I

• "The Gesta Stephani indicated that Pain, along with Miles of Gloucester ...". Why the past tense? Doesn't it still indicate that?

Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just me being me... fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I wondered if it had maybe been lost or destroyed. I should be able to finish looking through this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "In 1115 he was rewarded with marriage to an heiress, thereby gaining control of Ludlow Castle, which he augmented with further land acquisitions." I'm a bit uneasy about that, as the augmentation presumably wasn't to Ludlow Castle but to his holdings of land? Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, but my brain isn't coming up with a better wording .. any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll think of something, watch this space. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• It wasn't just Ludlow Castle Pain gained, but most of the lands previously held by the Lacy family. So perhaps the emphasis needs to be taken off the castle, though the town was the caput. Something along the lines of "In 1115 he was rewarded with marriage to an heiress, thereby gaining control of her family's property, the head of which was Ludlow, and was augmented with further land acquisitions."? Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Ealdgyth? Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• That'd work, but I'd like to make it clear that he got control of the castle also... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• What about something like "... which included the town of Ludlow and its castle"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Works for me. And Nev, I put Josce de Dinan up for GA today... eventually we'll have enough for a GT or FT for Ludlow. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• So I'd noticed. I hadn't thought about a GT, guess I'll have to get my act together and finish Ludlow Castle. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• On a more general point, it seems to me that there are just a tad too many "lands" in the article; could we introduce a bit more variation by calling some of them "properties"? Also, I have a nagging feeling that the lead is probably a couple of sentences too short. Any objection to me maybe adding a little bit? Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Both work for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and lands

• "Others such as Bruce Coplestone-Crow and David Crouch agree with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's designation of Sybil as Hugh's niece ...". Every article I've ever looked at in the ODNB is attributed to a specific author, so it right to be saying that the ODNB asserts something? Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point - need to change that to whoever was the author of Pain's ODNB entry... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Henry I

• "Pain was too young to serve King William Rufus ...". Is that really significant? Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, someone mentioned it in one of my sources... so someone thought it was significant... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I was only asking! :D Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• LOL... I'm fine if you want to take it out .. I don't feel that strongly either way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've added some context, which I think explains. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The story continues that Pain once drank the wine and was caught out by Henry when the king later demanded his nightcap." Later than what? Than when he normally demanded his nightcap? Or would this be better as "subsequently demanded his nightcap"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Subsequently, yes. Me being dense again. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to break off for now, but I think we're getting there? Demain. BTW, I love the idea of lying in bed and shouting out "Bring me wine!" I do that sometimes, but it never works. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "... it has been speculated that Pain's mother was a daughter of Ralph Mortimer, who held Wigmore in Domesday Book.[10][c] As well as being a moneyer, his paternal grandfather, who came from near Avranches in Normandy, owned a mill". I'm not sure whether we're talking about Pain's paternal grandfather or Ralph's here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pain's. I don't have the energy to delve into the Mortimer's yet... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• " Pain's brother, Eustace fitzJohn, was also a royal official, who later owned lands in the north of England." This doesn't seem to be in the right place to me; we're talking about Pain's early life, and he hasn't become a royal official yet. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestions on where best to stick it then? His connection with his brother is important - they were both noted royal officials. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Might this section better be renamed something like "Family"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• That could work fine ... although maybe "Family and early life"? We discuss his marriage and his children later... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Relations with the Church

• "She also gave to two churches in Hereford: St Peter and St Guthlac". How do you give a church? Established the churches? Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Err.. "She gave TO two churches...".... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty happy with this now, so good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roger de Bussy

The DYK project (nominate) 06:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI map caption

FYI: The "Pain" article you just nominated at FAC: when displaying it in my browser the map caption (in section Under Henry I) is overlaying the article body text. The overlay is happening no matter how I resize the window. I'm using Chrome browser; Modern CSS style. --Noleander (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pestilence. I have NO Idea how to fix that - I stole the whole thing from Welsh Marches - anyone have any idea how to fix it? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Welsh_Marches looks okay in my browser ... but in that article, that the lower part of the map (where the caption is) is within a "See also" bulletized section. Contrasted with the Pain article, where the bottom of the map is in a article body region. --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It only looks OK because there's no text beneath it in the Welsh Marches article. Basically I don't think you can use the {{Image label}} template to correctly generate captions. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bother - anyone have any ideas how to fix it? THere really is no good map of the marches on commons - and I suck at making maps Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Might this work? I'm not great with coding, but even with the weird double border this seems marginally better. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

● Chester

● Shrewsbury

● Ludlow

● Hereford

● Gloucester

A map highlighting the traditional counties considered in modern use to form the "Welsh Marches", with some major towns.

I trimmed the caption and moved it a bit higher so it doesn't overlap the text (at least on my screen), but it doesn't look great. Coemgenus' suggestion looks viable. Nev1 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's only possible to correctly position the caption by setting the y coordinate above 1, which isn't recommended, and I really don't like that weird border. I just don't think this template is the right way to go. I'll look for an alternative. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The simplest way is probably to ask someone at the graphics lab to draw the map as a png or something rather than use a template, that way it could be treated as a normal image. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be pretty simple to capture the image as a PNG or whatever and then add the caption later in the normal way; I'll do it later if no-one else does first. But the basic problem is that this template is designed to add overlays to images, not to areas outside the image. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The counties considered to form the Welsh Marches are shown in red, with some major towns

... and done. Any good? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

looks fine to me. I'm going to crawl back in bed. I was outside too much yesterday and my fever has returned, damn it. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made the switch. The description will probably need some expansion for the image police though, explaining where the base image came from for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine in my browser now. Good job! --Noleander (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's far easier fixing Ealdgyth's graphics than it is her prose ... "I'll get my coat". Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I heard that! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The map helps!  :) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn!. I thought you were in bed! Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

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

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	George Washington Middle School (Virginia)			National Presbyterian Church
	Devizes Castle			Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell telephone controversy
	Roger of Worcester			War Horse (play)
	Austin Lane Poole		Merge
	John Chishull			Ickham and Well
	Sidney Painter			Jenny (donkey)
	Kaugel language			Brien FitzCount
	Roy Martin Haines		Add sources
	Peter Quinel			Herleva
	Legalization (international law)			Anna Karenina
	Rockingham, Northamptonshire			Ælfweard of Wessex
	David Bates (historian)		Wikify
	JP du Plessis			Welborn G. Dolvin
	Constance of Normandy			Ivy May Bolton
	Nicholas of Ely			St Andrew's Cathedral, Singapore
	David C. Douglas		Expand
	Ralph de Warneville			4th Hussar Regiment (France)
	Robert of Chichester			Jineteada gaucha
	Cervical dislocation			City

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review suggestion

With all that stuff from SuggestBot, you may not even notice this, but you may be interested in peer-reviewing an ancient history article (not one of mine): Lucius Arruntius the Younger. Personally I'd tell SuggestBot to get lost - does he think you've got spare time or what? Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I always get amused by the suggestions - I mean... I HATE Russian lit - so why is the stupid thing suggesting Anna Karenina??? I'll check in on Lucius Arruntius soon... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ISBN 978-1-74384-138-8

• ISBN 978-1-74384-138-8 is invalid; should be:
• ISBN 978-1-84384-138-8

I fixed this in Pain fitzJohn and a few others (ok: Constitutio domus regis, Regalian right, Tenant-in-chief). I'm thinking these are all you and a typo has been copied about. This is offering 31 hits on this isbn, and I'm gonna toss it back at ya. Best, Alarbus (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. The script Advisor.js points out invalid ISBN and this tool will format them with proper dashes. Alarbus (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas of Corbridge

Per the note at the Jcuk CCI, I'm letting you know that I removed a paragraph (the one originally in the article) as a copyright violation. The rest of the article is of course fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Edington

SV has suggested (see talk PBS: Battle of Edington) that you are the person to take a look at Talk:Battle of Ethandun#Requested move to Battle of Edington. Please could you do so? -- PBS (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Josce de Dinan's name

This small edit got me wondering about the "de Dinan" aspect of Josce's name because of the similarity with Ludlow's supposed old name, Dinham. Most recent writers think Dinham sounds very Saxon so plump with that sort of derivation, and Derek Renn takes this one step further suggesting that Josce de Dinan took his name from the town. I assume he didn't check what Josce's father was called because Geoffrey de Dinan rather messes up that explanation. I added a note to the town's article that an alternative theory to the Saxon derivation is that the town took it's name from Josce, do you think it would be worth noting in Josce's article? Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth an explanatory footnote - or whatever you think best - I will admit that I think we're completely plumbed out on Josce - I just can't see much more turning up until someone writes something new on him. I suspect he's stuck at GA for the forseeable future. By the by - Pain fitzJohn got up to FA today ... Ludlow's looking more possible as a Good Topic or a Featured Topic ... maybe. You're the architecture expert, not me. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw Pain was promoted today, that was pretty swift. There's probably enough on the castle to get it to FA, though I'll aim for GA first. Josce's article already has a note regarding Dinham Bridge so I've expanded it a bit with information about the town, but I'm wary about making it too long. How does it look? Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Pain fitzJohn

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Pain fitzJohn. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Woruldhord

Hi Ealdgyth, perhaps you also care for a link I dropped on Mike Christie's talk page, at User_talk:Mike_Christie#Woruldhord. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

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

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Liberation Day			Rouen Cathedral
	Ceolnoth			Great Malvern Priory
	Simon Keynes			Rufford Abbey
	Protobranchia		Merge
	Thomas Langton			Boughton under Blean
	Truthdare Doubledare			William Edington
	John of Sittingbourne			Cure of souls
	Canterbury West railway station		Add sources
	St Augustine's College, Canterbury			Thomas Arundel
	Henry Sandford			History of Coventry
	Peter Hunter Blair			Michael Ramsey
	Canterbury cap		Wikify
	Reginald (sub-prior)			Westwork
	Tom Burke (actor)			Seoul Anglican Cathedral
	Frank Stenton			Robert Flemming
	Ali Younesi		Expand
	St. Dunstan's, Canterbury			English National Ballet
	Hrotheweard			Ivo of Ramsey
	William Chillenden			Canterbury Parish, New Brunswick

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day

	Award for a great woman
	On the internet no one knows if you're a dog, but I think you're of the female persuasion. Against kitchen slavery, and for women's writing: this award presented to a deserving woman. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry II - basically done...

Hi! Right, I think Henry II is now done, baring a few points where I've left queries for you. Hope all's well - spring is beginning to break out here and I'm hoping the last of the winter 'flu bugs have passed on....! :) 08:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Walter de Lacy (died 1085)

The DYK project (nominate) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

John de Gray

Something seems to have gone wrong with the image for this article. Allens (talk | contribs) 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing it! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure... Allens (talk | contribs) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "... the elder de Gray was a surety for the younger de Gray's payment of a fine of 5,000 marks to secure the chancellorship". Is "fine" the right word? Sounds more like a bribe. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Fine" is the technical term as it would have been listed in the fine rolls, though to be honest it did pretty much amount to a bribe. Nev1 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, OK, scrub that then Ealdgyth. Might be worth a footnote though, for drongos like me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Shortly after John's accession to the throne, de Gray travelled from the continent to England for a while". What does "for a while" mean here? He travelled to-and-from for a while, or he was away from the continent and in England for a while? Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• "De Gray was elected Bishop of Norwich about 7 September". What year? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• "His consecration took place together with that of the new Bishop of Hereford Giles de Braose at Westminster, at the conclusion of a provincial church council held by Archbishop Walter ... Walter performed the consecration ceremony, held in a chapel of the monastery. What monastery? The link to Westminster goes the the modern-day City of Westminster. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bishop of Norwich

• "Besides financial efforts, the bishop also served as a royal justice." Does that work for you? Does it mean something like "As well shoring up the royal finances, ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1203 de Gray accompanied Archbishop Hubert Walter of Canterbury on a diplomatic mission to King Philip II of France". That seems a bit bald. Why did John send a mission to Philip? Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Source states "In 1203 he accompanied Archbishop Walter, then chancellor, on an abortive mission to Philippe Augustus." At this point - King John was sending embassies to Philip like every week, it seems like. I'll try to expand this a bit more in a few, if I can find anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1203 some of de Gray's knights were part of the garrison at the castle of Vaudreuil in Normandy". There's been no mention of knights until now, and to the modern eye a bishop having any knights at all seems strange. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Will work a bit on this in a few. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Early life (again)

• "Shortly after John became king, de Gray periodically travelled between England and the continent ...". That doesn't work for me. "Shortly after" would be fine if we were talking about a single event, but here we're talking about an extended pattern of travelling. Does this mean that de Gray began his periodic trips shortly after John's accession? Why was he undertaking these trips anyway? On John's behalf? Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Archbishop-elect

• "The bishops of the province of Canterbury claimed the right to a say who was elected". Should that be "a say in", or just "say"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Episcopal affairs and later career

• "De Gray was the addressee of a 1203 missive from Pope Innocent III decrying the continuing practice of some secular clergy being married." That reads very oddly to me. Why "was the addressee", rather than just "received"? I'm also not fond of the "continuing practice of ... being". Would something simpler like "the marriage of secular clergy" work? After all, there would be no reason for Innocent to complain if the practice wasn't continuing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Besides de Gray's ability to raise large sums of money for John,[39] de Gray remained close to John for the rest of the bishop's life." I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but the first half of the sentence seems to bear no relation to the second half. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "... feudal payments for England between the king and the pope". Should that be from England? And presumably the agreement was between the king and the pope, not the feudal payments? Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "After obtaining a pardon, Innocent recommended de Gray's election as Bishop of Durham in 1213". That just isn't right. First of all, it looks like it was Innocent who was pardoned, not de Gray, but do we really need to mention the pardon again? Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In Ireland

• "De Gray suffered a defeat at the hands of Cormac O'Melaghlin in 1212 at Fircal, Offaly, and left Ireland the following year." The lead says that he left Ireland to help deal with a threatened French invasion of England, but there's no mention of that here. And it looks like he left because he got a spanking from Cormac O'Melaghlin. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bishop of Norwich (again)

• "Besides his financial efforts for the king ...". I still don't know what that means. "In addition to providing financial support to the king ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's it from me. It's probably a good thing I don't do many GA reviews now, as I'd have brought up all these same points at GAN. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, think I whacked at most of these - I swear this schedule hubby's work has him on is totally messing up MY life - he's going into work at 2am and that's totally messing up my sleep AND work schedule. Eventually I'll settle into it, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. I spent four months working a night shift one summer as a student, and it was just as tough on the last day as the first. By the Thursday of each week I was like a zombie. But why are you getting up with him? I'm damn sure my wife wouldn't. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Silly me ... I'm kinda fond of him and want to see something of him. But... how long this will last is an open question... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is about ready now for FAC, but I do have a few final points:

Archbishop-elect

• "Innocent then excommunicated John in 1209, but John was unconcerned until 1213". We're left kind of dangling with that. What happened in 1213 to make John change his mind?

Episcopal affairs and later career

• "As bishop, de Gray settled a long-running dispute between the monks of his cathedral chapter and the bishops." Which bishops?

In Ireland

• "When the king was persecuting William de Braose in 1209, William Marshall gave Braose shelter on Marshall's Irish lands. When de Gray demanded that Marshall surrender Braose to him as a traitor ...". Should that be de Braose?

Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoo! They get easier... done! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Old bishops and things

I thought you might find this interesting. Parrot of Doom 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. There were three "missions" working in Britain at that time - the Gregorian ones with Augustine, the Irish ones up north, and then you have the native Britons who probably were still Christian and doing some conversion efforts also. I'll wait to see what the actual scientists studying the grave say ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I just like things like that. Used to be a big fan of Time Team, and the other week, while working in London, I had chance to visit the British Museum. Wonderful treasure in there. Parrot of Doom 19:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert de Lacy

In case you missed this on my Talk, as I responded to myself: I note that Judith Green, in "Aristocratic Women in Early Twelfth-Century England" (Hollister, ed., Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, pp. 59-82) explicitly addresses this controversy, stating, (p. 77) "The theory that Gilbert de Lacy was a grandson of Walter by a daughter, Emma, was dismissed by Wightman, Lacy Family, p. 169; cf. Cronne, Reign of Stephen, pp. 157, 161." She shows Gilbert as son of Roger. This seems to represent the new consensus of the field. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer - I did see it but I have been utterly swamped under with real life issues. Hoping to get to this in the next few days... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Real life is so inconvenient. Agricolae (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Escheat roll, propose rename

Congratulations on having set-up this much needed article. I have expanded it and requested a move (back to!) Inquisition post mortem ( see Talk:Escheat roll), which curiously I note was your first choice as a title which you reconsidered. Inq.p.m. seems to be the modern term. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

Thanks...

Just to say thanks for the review of Henry II - it was a humongous job! I'll take it through A-class review over at MilHist next and see how it fares... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for David fitzGerald

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

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

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Starý Plzenec			Canterbury Cathedral Appeal
	Abensberg-Traun			Viking
	Ealdwulf (archbishop of York)			Byron Wood Community Primary School
	Pseudotrapelus sinaitus		Merge
	Henry Marshal			Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
	Philip Morgan (bishop)			Livery of seisin
	The English Historical Review			List of monarchs of Mercia
	John Moore (archbishop of Canterbury)		Add sources
	Wulfsige of York			John Kemp
	Matthew Hutton (archbishop of Canterbury)			Volcae
	William Whittlesey			Walthamstow
	Eadwulf of Lindsey		Wikify
	Walter d'Eynsham			Coercive Diplomacy
	William Middleton (bishop)			Ciubotaru v. Moldova
	Æthelbald of York			Green Party of Rhode Island
	Samir Ghanem		Expand
	Walter (Bishop of Rochester)			Wacom
	Wigmund			1998 FIFA World Cup
	John Stafford (bishop)			New Order (Nazism)

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Maria Ulfah Santoso

I've replied. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing

	Have a local brew
	Thanks for reviewing Maria Ulfah Santoso! Have a local brew, and I'll take a look at Middle Ages (but perhaps not review it). Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Like, wow.

Giving it a quick once-over. Or a slow one, as my onwiki time is very limited these days. But I owe you one several, and the subject is one close to my heart. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Later Roman Empire

• "In the late 3rd and early 4th century, the Emperor Diocletian split the empire into separately administered eastern and western halves in 286". That doesn't make sense. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Civil war between different emperors became common in the middle of the 4th century". Should that be something like rival emperors? It's kind of self-evident that any civil war would have to be between different emperors. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily - it could be between an emperor and a faction trying to force him to take particular action rather than to depose him, or between two religious sects both professing loyalty to the same emperor, for instance. 188.29.99.214 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But it very specifically says "civil war between different emperors", not civil war in general. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thank you for the copyediting, by the way ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Religious ferment and Islam

• "Religious beliefs in the eastern empire and Persia were in flux during the late 6th and early 7th centuries ... After Muhammad's death in 632, Islamic forces went on to conquer much of the eastern Empire." This seems to an issue throughout the article; should "eastern empire" (and "western empire") be capitalised or not? It doesn't seem right to be capitalising "empire" if "eastern" isn't also capitalised anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think we should go with? I have a slight leaning towards "Eastern Empire" but... I'm aware that others feel differently. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to go for eastern empire, as I don't think that "Eastern Empire" was actually its name? Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Society and economic life

• "Accounting, including double-entry bookkeeping, advanced and letters of credit emerged in order to allow easy transmission of money through the trading networks." I don't follow that; what's an "advanced and letters of credit"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• See how that rewrite works? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)