User talk:Ealdgyth

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Pickersgill-Cunliffe 171 0 0 100 Open 00:35, 15 June 2024 1 day, 20 hours no report

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024 Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024 Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

FACs needing feedback view • I'm God Review it now 2023 World Snooker Championship Review it now George Floyd (American football) Review it now KNXV-TV Review it now

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Clarificaton

Hello, Ealdgyth. You have new messages at Justin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

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)

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)

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)