User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 72
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth; I know your interest in Christianity is generally medieval, but we have a new editor putting some serious time into our article on biblical criticism with the aim of taking it to FAC. No doubt there are changes that need to be made, but the article does seem to be improving rapidly. If you have a chance to drop by, I'm sure your comments would be warmly received. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I wonder if you can think of anyone else who might be interested? I had a few more names in mind, but they don't seem to be particularly active at the moment... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Worcester history articles
Hi there, I've been editing Worcester#History, History of Worcester, Bromsgrove#History and History of Worcestershire. Plus some other odds and ends. I noticed you're responsible for Urse d'Abetot and some other related content. If you have time to look at the medieval bits of these pages and give any pointers I'd be very grateful, as this has been a rather long and lonely task so far. Jim Killock (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ealdgyth, for your note on my talk page, but the links don't work and I can't find the right place to comment. Sorry to be so dim. Happy to comment, natch, if you'll take pity and point me in the right direction. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 20:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Explanation on my talk page gratefully received, thank you, Ealdgyth. (I think we all know that sort of overload, here or elsewhere.) Tim riley talk 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
re: William of Tyre
Looking at some of your recent edits, you removed parameters that are no longer supported by the infobox. Likewise, when you reverted the edit I made to the article for William of Tyre, the religion parameter is not supported by the infobox person. Your revision only produces an error message which appears here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infobox_person_using_religion. You will also see the error when you click the edit tab and then the show preview button for the article. His religion was neither visible in the 'infobox person' before I made the edit nor is it visible after your revision. There are no restrictions from including it in the body of the article. Gene Wilson (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to switch his infobox over to the clergy infobox - his religion is actually quite important to him as he was an archbishop. I'm just swamped in RL and need to get enough time to actually do the switch which takes a bit more effort than just removing parameters. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I had to laugh when I saw that after all that effort you put in to change that Infobox, the religion parameter ultimately shows up as 'denomination' on the screen. Gene Wilson (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
- Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
- The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
- Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
- Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
- Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
- While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- -Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
John de Gray TFA for 9/29/2018
Says it all, doesn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Cullen (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morning Call (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding self published source for Catholic bishops wikipages
Regarding my adding of" [self-published]" to webpages that use Catholic-Hierarchy.org and GCatholic.org. I already took the webpage up to the reliable sources noticeboard and they have been deemed reliable albeit self-published (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org). I did it because people were going around and removing all the citations leaving a wikipage without any sources. Considering that the two webpages are basically the foundation for most bishop's pages across all languages, I did a little research and got them certified as reliable by consensus. So if they are deemed to be reliable, then we do not need the self-published tag? I was doing this as a compromise with several others who felt that we should put the reader on notice that the webpages are self-published but did not want to create a workload. I asked at reliable sources noticeboard but no one seems to care there. Personally, I don't think the tags are necessary and the sources track with the Latin-based (and abbreviated) Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi which I am citing on each wikipage with its page link and then following up with the English language page. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Personally, it's a poor source even if the RSN discussion sorta-kinda decided it was sorta-kinda RS. It IS self-published and I suspect if you took the sites to the RSN now, it'd be more likely to be considered a problematic source. If they quote reliable sources - use those sources instead. But that's neither here nor there - since it IS self-published, it should probably be tagged that way and the correct way to tag it is not some homebrew tag but to use the correct tag that flags the article for others to improve the sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:
Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.- Other contestants who qualified for the final round were
Nova Crystallis, 
Iazyges, 
SounderBruce, 
Kosack and 
Ceranthor.
During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Robert fitzRoger
Ealdgth, I have been attempting to provide additional important information into the article, which you have objected to based on the historical sources provided. I am not a scholar and have been attempting to appease you by providing more recent sources, however you still object to the information being added. So that that I don't waste your or my own time in edit warring, can you advise whether you accept Richardson's "Magna Carta Ancestry" published in 2011. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest you read up on what is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Richardson is a fine source to point out other sources if you are a genealogist. It is not, however, a good source for Wikipedia because it is self published. I say this with all due respect to the work he’s done (I own both it and his other work and use them in my own genealogical research), but it is not a good source for Wikipedia. Check his sources, if he gives them, and if they are current historical sources, they may be useful...but quite frankly any Victorian era genealogical or heraldry source is going to have severe issues. They are riddled with errors and promotional bits. With Robert fitzRoger there is the added complication of another person in the same time period with the same name...it’s quite likely that the older sources you’ve been finding have mixed the two of them up. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Administrator changes
None
Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Interface administrator changes
- Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux
Guideline and policy news
- Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
- Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
- Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says
Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example isarticle_textwhich is nowpage_title. - Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is
page_age.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Roger Norreis scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Roger Norreis article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 19, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 19, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- handsprings of joy...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Try not to kick the lights out in your celebration ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. This recent edit broke the ISBN of the book by Malcolm Bull. Hope it is not an issue with the script. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that the ISBN was wrong .. not the script. When the script put the wrapper around the ISBN, it didn't like the error message. I have replaced the incorrect ISBN with the correct one. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- So it is. Thanks for fixing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This page was tagged for speedy deletion. I looked at it and my gut feeling was there was far too much unsourced or non-neutral content in the article for a BLP, and it would be better to rewrite it from scratch. So I deleted it per WP:G11. However, I notice you recently did a bit of cleanup on the article, though, so would you like it userfied for future improvement? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. I’ve been working through some maintenance categories...that’s how I came across it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, is that "no worries" as in "alright, I'll take a userfied version" or "no worries" as in "no thanks, I'm busy on other stuff"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Verifying an email message from an RS
Hello Ealdgyth,
Please see this discussion. May I forward to you the email so that you may verify to the best of your ability that it is indeed from the source discussed? François Robere (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, because it's not a good idea to do such things. I would have to agree that it's not a reliable published source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's the author of a reliable published source explaining a statement he made in that source. Do we need him to "tweet" it instead? François Robere (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think of "published" as being something a bit more public (and lasting) than a tweet/email/social media post. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but a person writing about their own writing or their own experiences are a source on that, regardless of where they wrote. In this case it's a clarification by an author about their own writing that was only asked for the purpose of correctly citing the source - in other words, as a form of arbitration in a TP discussion. And it can be verified. So what's the problem? François Robere (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I believe I stated my issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I believe you did, I just don't understand the reasoning behind them. "Published" in itself is not an end, it's a means to reliability and verifiability - two requirements that are already satisfied for social media posts, which are quotable on Wikipedia, and could be satisfied for emails too. Also, that.
- Cheers. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I believe I stated my issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but a person writing about their own writing or their own experiences are a source on that, regardless of where they wrote. In this case it's a clarification by an author about their own writing that was only asked for the purpose of correctly citing the source - in other words, as a form of arbitration in a TP discussion. And it can be verified. So what's the problem? François Robere (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think of "published" as being something a bit more public (and lasting) than a tweet/email/social media post. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's the author of a reliable published source explaining a statement he made in that source. Do we need him to "tweet" it instead? François Robere (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)