![]() | 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. |
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks for your reference and link review of
Colton Point State Park, which made
featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Hi!, thanks for the peer review for the above mentioned article. I have taken on board the references you have listed, and replaced them with something I beleive is more realiable, as well as deleting statements I cannot citiate with reliable sources. I have however kept a few in the article that you flagged up, with the reasons below :).
Looking forward to your suggestions :), I will the more than happy to address the points you will have made if there are any problems :). Cheers! Marcus Bowen ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
...for the reminder. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your concerns and corrected the errors, replacing the sub-standard cites. I'd love if you could check the new ones and make sure they're up to par. Thanks! -- Golbez ( talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Have addressed your concerns. Please strike out comments that you feel are addressed satisfactorily. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armageddon (2006) a user is saying that you agreed http://www.wrestleview.com/ fell under the bounds of our reliable source criteria, but he references your cheatsheet (which doesn't mention it.) Can you check it again? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your detailed peer review comments. I've gone through and tried to understand and address all of them, but I'm afraid I'm still a newbie when it comes to FAC, so I'm not clear on some of the sourcing concerns. I would really appreciate it if you could swing back by and take a look at my responses--I sense that some further clarifications would help get me working in the right direction. Thanks again! Jclemens ( talk) 04:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
what do you think of the new links? Nergaal ( talk) 23:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Boo! Another wicked archbishop. There is a rather nice image of his missal here. Since Wikimedia Commons have decided that "PD-Art" and "PD-Scan" are fine regardless of any copyright notices the Bibliotheque de Rouen may think to apply, I could PNGify this and upload it to Commons. But do you want a picture of the missal? I need hardly say that it's a great article, as usual. You'll catch Mike Christie yet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Done Gary King ( talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please could you revisit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie to see a question I have about your concern. Thanks, -- JD554 ( talk) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Would you be so kind as to review your comments on the FAC review of History of Indiana and strike out the items you think have been addressed. Thank you. :) Charles Edward 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice new article out there called Ranch Sorting. I am in a discussion with the creating editor over if s/he needs to footnote every single sentence if it's to the same source. I also toned down a little of the Peacock wording. Was wondering if you'd like to take a peek over there on the talk page and discuss footnoting protocols because I don't want to be too harsh on the topic and WP:FOOT doesn't really offer any clear guidance. Montanabw (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I am the original author of Ranch Sorting and thought I would leave some additional comments here on why I use my unique style of footnoting.
I understand that Ranch Sorting is not a controversial subject nor is it a particularly complicated subject and that providing citations for every sentence is overkill for this article. However many of the articles that I have worked on have thirty or forty citations and I have found the procedure I use to be an invaluable aid to to keeping the citations straight as the articles evolve.
I specifically started using the process when I rewrote an article on US Senator Paul Coverdell that did not contain a single citation and I had to go in sentence by sentence and verify the facts in the article one by one, and then completely reorganize the article based on the new information added. The point I am making is that there are processes from engineering and programming that may be applicable to writing articles for wikipedia, and that it is good practice to follow the processes even when they aren't really required.
There are two specific problems I see time and again on wikipedia that the process addresses: A paragraph may be properly cited, then someone comes in and adds new material to the paragraph that is not supported by the citation or moves a sentence from a paragraph that has a citation to another part of the article. In the first case, someone should add a citation needed notation to the added material until a citation can be provided. In the second case, someone should replicate the citation and move it along with the sentence. Usually neither takes place and both these cases degrade the quality of the information in a wikipedia article.
"Citation Entropy" is not an issue in written research. When an author writes an article for a book, it is acceptable to provide a single citation for a paragraph or an entire section since the written work is immutable. However, Wikipedia differs from the written work because the collections of facts are not immutable and that is why wikipedia needs a process that provides what programmers call Inheritance (computer science) to the programming primitives - in this case the "facts" in a wikipedia article.
Best Regards,
Reservoirhill (
talk)
15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Have a nice trip, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok - I can cover the art ok, but if you can get access after your trip to Gem's collected papers a look at the indexes might clarify & give more material for the architecture side, which is more off my beat. Johnbod ( talk) 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me if this source is reliable or not? Thanks in advance! iMatthew ( talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the reference that pointed to the Alumni magazine. I recast part of that section, as well, to provide a slightly fuller view of Lafayette's involvement with the societe des amis des noirs. Many of the cites you brought up I had left in because they had been added by editors who were helping early-on; and, the information was easily verifiable elsewehre. Anyway, I've applied your suggestions. Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ealdgyth, I know you're traveling and have FAC sourcing checks to attend to, but if you have time, the List of Archbishops of Canterbury is at Featured List Review. You're the only person I know who is knowlegeable on the topic, so I decided to alert you. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Edward the Martyr is up for GA review and the reviewer isn't so happy. I will have a go at fixing it, but I am wondering if you still have access to the books on Dunstan, Oswald of Worcester and Æthelwold of Winchester? I may need some help. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed your concerns dealing with WP:RS police. It would be very nice if you <s></s> the suggestions, because I would get in trouble for doing that. Cheers. Wildroot ( talk) 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Juliancolton is gone for a while apparently, so FLC will need some reference checking if you've got the time. I guess some more link checkers should be recruited. Gary King ( talk) 15:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#About.com. Three different about.com authors in one article, varying levels of expertise. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked the first reviewer, but they appear to be offline, and I'm impatient, lol...This is my first FA nom, do I strike out your suggestions after I complete them, or is that something you do, after you verify I did it. CTJF83 Talk 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?
Thanks for commenting,
-- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I hope you got back safe from your journey. Your comments on Netley Abbey were very useful indeed: you gave me your thoughts on what to change and told me where, which meant I could fix the problems. More importantly, you told me why, so I don't make the same mistakes again. One thing I thought was particularly good was that you pointed out where something might not be clear to international readers. I know that I tend to write in a very formal UK academic style when writing about things like this so a heads up on that is cool. You said that you might be able to fix the link to the online version of the VCH in the Netley bibliography, I'd be very grateful if you could as I don't know how to do it.
If you get bored with Hereford and decide some time to do Peter des Roches I'd be happy to help as I have some good material on him, especially his foundation of religious houses and his dealings as a property shark. Soph ( talk) 15:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am very grateful to you for your generous offer to help me in my hour of dire need! I will personally chastise anyone who gives you any kind of hard time for your ideas. Thank you very much for your past and present help, I hope I can return the favor eventually. NancyHeise talk 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your near-instant feedback on my efforts to satisfy your questions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Veronica Mars episodes. Jclemens ( talk) 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted comments at User:Marskell/RCC. Feel free to chime in. Marskell ( talk) 13:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! I know this is well outside the realm of what I usually ask for your help on, but I'm involved in a rather knotty GAR on Attachment therapy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1. A few weeks ago, I offered a second opinion on a GA review of the article, and after some work by the editor, passed the article. Immediately after passing it, another user posted a series of complaints, and then almost immediately listed the article at GAR. Some of his complaints were valid and work has been done on the article, but he still continues to complain about the article - the problem being that most of his complaints are fairly vague and unsubstantial. I still think the article is of GA status, but the main editor and I are looking to get some outside input to see if we're in the right or wrong. If you could take a look through this article, and some of the issues in the GAR (they're sort of summarized at the bottom, if you don't feel like reading through the whole thing), it would be fantastic. Also fantastic would be if you could bring in some of your other editing friends to comment. If not, then I understand completely...I know you're busy with everything else you do on WP. Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
In the failed FAC of the article ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba/archive1), you had commented on the reliability of some references. Those references have been replaced and new ones are added. Would you please take a look at the new references and analyze if they qualify for FA. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 08:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've left some comments at Nigel's peer review. If you found them helpful, or indeed if you just want to get revenge for my nit-picking petty-mindedness <grin>, it would be great if you could have a look at Max Mosley, which is on peer review here. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 10:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This award was created for people who: "May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day, but especially where their involvement in something that is bothering you lightens your load." Thank you for your sincere kindness and efforts to help bring
Roman Catholic Church through FAC. I know you did a lot of work and kindly spent a lot of time to help this be a succesful effort. Thank you very much for being there to help at key points in the process and for your offer of continued help. I will take you up on your offer after some time passes. Thanks again.
NancyHeise
talk
23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Added the sandbox at Horses_in_warfare#The_Americas. Tweak away. Based on what I think Gwinva was saying, the big deal about the Civil War is that cavalry was used a lot in a time when Europeans were using other types of units more. But the big thing was that I tried to keep it short, seeing as how there is a whole separate (largely unsourced) article on US Cavalry. Montanabw (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for removing citation tags. On another note, you're doing an excellent job on the article. Well done. OpenSeven ( talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you watchlist Talk:Curb bit? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I used to own a very smart horse that was half Arabian, half Quarter horse. He was a gelding and had the high spiritedness of an Arabian with the dependability of a Quarter horse. He was a horse with a sense of humor and fun, neat mix. His name was Whiskey Sour (I didn't name him, breeder did). If you need help on any future horse articles I know a little bit and might be able to offer something of value. NancyHeise talk 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed all that you asked for at the article's FAC. Is it enough to warrant a support at the nomination? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Ealdgyth/Archive 7 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder that I've responded to your comments at the Myst V: End of Ages FAC, so whenever you've got time, they're waiting your deliberation :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey E, when you have a sec, you DID say "On access we want to go with Sandy, and the pics I'll run by Awa or Masem before FAC. Easier to check before than during FAC." Can you do that? I think Dana and I addressed all Dr pda's comments (which were excellent), so now it's time to figure out which pictures are actually going to present real problems. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Replied. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Citation Barnstar | |
To Ealdgyth, whose dedication to purging Wikipedia of unreliable sources is unparalleled. You have made FAC a place where the quality of sources must always be considered. Thank you! Awadewit ( talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
When you have a moment, could you quickly revisit the FAC page for Mozart family Grand Tour and check my response to your source query? I'm happy with whatever you decide, but I'd like to do whatever is necessary to clear the matter. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, Yohmom now has Banker Horse at Peer review and because apparently the entire class flooded PR with about 20 simultaneous requests, Ruhrfish asked if WikiProject Equine would help review this particular article. I am definitely COI on doing a neutral review, and you might also be (not sure, you more commented on the talk page) but FYI, I'm asking some of the other horse article editors if they'd like to take a look-see at the article and comment at the peer review page. If you want to comment at PR, you are the best there is, so if you don't think there is a COI go for it and thanks in advance. If you think you are COI, maybe ask some other good PR people you know to take a peek? Montanabw (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind taking the liberty to redirect the wikilink on your user page about the List of Bishops of Leicester. Scrivener-uki. There is another wikilink on User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 4 about the Bishops of Leicester, but because its an archive page I've left it. ( talk) 04:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Citation Barnstar | |
Ealdgyth. Often imitated, but never excelled. A legend standing tall among FAC reviewers. Speak softly, reverently when you say her name... Ealdgyth. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 04:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Ealdgyth, listen, if you have time do you think you can maybe check out the sources for Maggie Gyllenhaal's article, since I have the article up at FAC? I would appreciate your help on this, that's if you have the extra time to do it. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't let it bother you; I don't think anyone even thought it worthy of response, I would have defended your efforts, but at the risk of engaging another 100KB of ramblings taking over the FAC talk page. Everyone knows how much you do and how hard you work. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You know, I've heard rumors of other wikis, where they don't stand for this sort of thing. :) Awadewit ( talk) 05:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks very much for your comments on the 13th Airborne Division FAC. I hope that I've solved all of your issues with the article - I think I got all the British spellings, and I've explained why I now abbreviate the military ranks on the FAC page. Thanks again! Skinny87 ( talk) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ealdgyth. I'm Geuiwogbil. You might remember me from such articles as Diocletian and Maximian. (Goodness, those were a long time ago, weren't they?) I've been tweaking up our article on the Great Persecution recently, and have come across a problem I think you might be able to provide some basic help with. You see, the works I've read often allude to a sort-of medieval "dark ages" between the actual age of martyrdom and the glorious enlightenment that was Edward Gibbon, wherein many lies and half-truths were bandied about about the early martyrs, but they don't provide any details. Since you're some sort of medievalist, I thought you might be able to direct me to some relevant works on the topic, or to some fellow Wikipedian who might be able to do the same. I apologize if I've got you at a bad time, or if your relevant expertise doesn't extend that far. Thanks anyways! Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to leave comments about the sourcing at the above Peer review for Over the Edge (1999), which I plan to nominate for FAC? Thank you.-- TRU CO 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ealdgyth, Sandy left a message for me on my talk page suggesting perhaps directly involving just those editors who offered to help instead of doing another peer review. At your convenience, please feel free to post any suggestions on the RCC talk page or just be bold and make some edits. I will go through and make sure any rewordings still match the sources. JB Murray, Awadewit and Marskell also offered to help so this message is going on their page too. There is really no hurry here so please - stop by at your convenience. FYI, Oppose summaries are at [ [2]] and User:Marskell/RCC. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 23:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what Edith of East Anglia should be called, and not getting anywhere. Do you have any ideas? We can't call her Ealdgyth(?) can we? And The woman who was married to Sigeferth and Edmund the Ironside who might have been called Ealdgyth is a bit lacking. Ealdgyth, wife of Edmund Ironside? Ealdgyth (floruit 1015)? Help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ealdgyth! You helped me with sources for a FL sometime ago, so I'm here looking for help again. Can you tell me if http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ can be considered a reliable source? Chamal talk 14:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Chamal
talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Ealdgyth, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year please? The article Mark of the Year links to a bunch of videos of the marks (spectacular catches in Australian Football League games) that are on YouTube and seem to be likely copyvios (there is no indication that the uploaders have permission to do so, or are the original creators). The video links are used to illustrate (like ELs) but are in the list table like refs. My opinion is that we should not link to copyvios in any case, but I am not an expert, so any advice you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your source review of the page. In regards to the site everyhit.com, I have found an alternative, but I'm not sure if it's a lot better [3] What do you think? -- Scorpion 0422 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I addressed your concerns about the article. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
When you have time, could you take a look at the references for The Day the Violence Died and post the results on the article's talk page? I'd like to get the references ready before submitting it to FAC. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I just did it to make sure Raul or SandyGeorgia didn't make a speedy "not promoted" because only two of the complaints were crossed out. Just try to keep an eye on the peer review so you can make any comments needed. Tez kag 72 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally YouTube is obviously not a good source for citing things. I was wondering however if you would consider a partner video to meet the criteria. Say for example, this interview with Patrick Stewart (first thing I could find) is from the BBC and is published by BBC Worldwide. It's from an actual program, but would youtube be able to serve as a convenience link? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 16:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think all your objections have been dealt with now - could you take another look? Richerman ( talk) 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help to get it featured! I though the ref would be OK, because I tried hard, but you found a lot of bad things I left over. Next time I will try to improve!-- Stone ( talk) 00:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I replied to the issues about the sourcing at the above FAC. Thanks for the review Ealdgyth, I really appreciate it.-- S R X 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. I know you are busy on FAC, but I was wondering if you could comment on this PR on Calvin. Thanks in advance for your help. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 07:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Left responses to your comments on its FAC, mainly reasoning for the source queries.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found any article that states something about Tornadohistoryproject.com but I've matched it up against the SPC and NCDC and there is no factual difference between them. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ealdgyth, could you please offer your opinion of the Florida Catholic Newspaper picture being discussed here [4] ? The Florida Catholic Newspaper is published by the Archdiocese of Miami. I took this [5] picture of the newspaper myself and uploaded it with a release to public domain. The picture is part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami page. NancyHeise talk 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think User:Tezkag72 and I have addressed all your concerns. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested to know that it snowed in Houston (and at least as far south as Lake Jackson) yesterday. We had over an inch sitting on the grass, although by this morning only the snowmen were left. It was really, really weird but lots of fun! Karanacs ( talk) 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you pop on the watchlist! Hope all is well, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks for your references check – Sonestown Covered Bridge made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Ealdgyth! Since you took the time to review Diocletian and Maximian at FAC, would you care to take a look at Diocletianic Persecution, which is currently at peer review? If not (since you're always so busy), I'd still be OK. Best wishes for you and yours this holiday season! Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Whenever you have time/the mood strikes you/Venus is in the 12th house (whatever that means), if you could look over the sources for Super Columbine Massacre RPG!? I'm pretty sure all Kotaku and Water Cooler Games refs meet WP:SPS as their authors are deeply involved in the subject matter, but your fine eyes always catch that which I miss :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
At the above noted FAC I have removed both contested sources. -- maclean 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I needed some escape from the work situation in our fine state, so I have been poking around here again. Mostly just process stuff with the projects. I am trying to avoid the frustration that heavy editing can cause at first.
For work, I personally oversaw the 13 most southern counties (out of an office in Marion) in Illinois for the last 3 months of the election, so I have my downstate chops down now. Glad to see you are still here and you are still active.
Let me know if there is any English Church, Crusade, or Middle ages stuff in general brewing that I might be able to help with. I refocused my efforts and edited my user boxes to relect this. I was working on quite a few projects that didn't even intrest me that much before I took my Wikibreak. No wonder it took so long to get back. Best wishes, -- Secisek ( talk) 00:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The above review has been restarted. Seeing that you commented on it prior, I thought to inform you.-- Will C 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth: long time no speak. Best wishes for the break. I wonder whether you can manage a quick response to one of the FLC Directors at my talk page, concerning citation consistency?
User_talk:Tony1#Citation_templates
Tony (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, is there any chance you could send me the ODNB entry on Coenred? The Deacon is opposing the FAC and suggested I use it as a source. I just asked Angus but then checked his contribs and it appears he's not been active for a day or two so I was hoping you'd be able to help. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I am trying to get this article to FA status, and have been given your name as one of the top experts on sourcing for FA-level articles. Would you mind having a look at it when you have some free time? Thanks in advance, Crum375 ( talk) 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
---|
Thank you for reviewing the article I started.-- MONGO 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, is there any chance you could send me the ODNB article on Beorhtwulf of Mercia? I'm working on an expansion and would like to see what they have. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi !
I have responded to your comments regarding the sources for a FAC nomination for this article. You may find the review here. Could you please take a look and let me know if that was satisfactory ? Thanks Perseus71 ( talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this source (nintendoworldreport.com) reliable? I noticed that it was accepted at this FAC. They have a staff, with editors, etc., and here is their "About" page which states "The experienced Nintendo World Report staff members have written for many publications, including N64HQ, 64 Source, NintendoNation, Next-Generation Magazine, Nintendo Gamer Australia, America Online, Fusion's Intelligent Gamer, Prima's N64 Guide, AOL Critics Choice, GamePro, and many others. We have been also been featured in major publications such as USA Today, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Asia, Famitsu, 64 Dream, and BBC Online." etc. Gary King ( talk) 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
|
<font=3> Happy New Year 2009, and may all your articles get promoted! Brianboulton ( talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC) |
---|
Hi Ealdgyth...long time no talk. A quick question regarding some GA reviews that I'm doing, and just for my general knowledge. I know in the past I've seen you comment against using encyclopedias (MSN Encarta, Brittanica, etc) as sources. Is this a personal opinion, an unwritten rule, or policy someplace? I've got one current GA review and one review that I'm considering doing that use these two encyclopedias as sources, and I'd like to clarify the situation, at least in my own mind. Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again Ealdgyth for all off your hard work at FAC. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to lend whatever skills I have to the task. And just wait, I'm backing off of video game articles for now, and soon you'll have sweat through Star Trek. Oh, and possibly some more dead white guys, but that's not until the end of 2009 :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a template here that can tell you quickly where all the pre-Ref [[Bishop of x]] articles go as of this moment. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 15:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank you for any comments you left during Lockdown (2008)'s FAC review. They helped to promote the article.-- Will C 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, is there any chance I can beg a favour? Tony is asking me to get another copyeditor for Coenred of Mercia, which is at FAC. He's actually been through more than half the article now, so it mostly needs focus at the end. If you have time to give it a look, I would appreciate it. If not, no problem. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Just a quick question - did you mean January 7? On my page you said Dec. 7 :) Dana boomer ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how we might get a copy of this? I'll ask some of the UK editors. -- Secisek ( talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll let you know what I find. -- Secisek ( talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You go to T:TDYK, look up the criteria (yours passes), find an interesting "hook", and paste this (completed) into the top of the section for the day in which you expanded the article:
{{subst:DYKsug | article = Robert de Bethune | hook = ... that this [[article]] is an '''[[example]]''' ''(pictured)''? | creator = | expander = Ealdgyth | nominator = | image = Example.png | comment = }}
Which would be January 6, here. I'm out and about just now (hence the sockpuppet), but I can nominate a hook if you'd like when I get time later today or tomorrow. All the best, Deacon's sockpuppet ( talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to submit a DYK? Thanks for the help. Karanacs ( talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the barnstar! Happy editing! Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 02:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for the barnstar! It was much appreciated. Cheers and Happy Editing! Andy ( talk) 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Andy (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
No problem; I don't expect Bede to be a quick process. I was delighted to see Angus chip in at the books list page; the more the merrier for a big article like this. I would expect we'll end up cutting quite a bit to ship out to sub-articles--there's a sub-article to be written just about the manuscript history of Historia Ecclesiastica, for example. I plan to keep working on other articles at the same time. If we get Bede into shape for a peer review in under two months I think we'll be doing very well, so there's no hurry. With luck we'll attract other contributors of the quality of Angus. I did mention it to qp10qp, and he said he was too busy to help but promised a detailed peer review when we're ready. Mike Christie (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as a random note... If you thought Go Man Go was bad on the front page, just think what the babysitters of Robert F. Kennedy assassination are going to have to go through when that article hits the front page on Jan. 16th... Dana boomer ( talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know i've finally replaced the tripod source in the article. Wizardman 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments about the article's sources. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
Sandy, noted that no one has checked sources on this candidate. You are the go to guy (or gal) on this issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On Nigel, I fixed a couple of obvious errors and added a link, but most of what I saw was copyediting, and you said you're going to do some more work so I left that. If you tell me when you're done I'd be glad to do a peer review/copyedit for you, so long as you don't mind the fact that I am ignorant about Anglo-Norman history.
I do have a couple of points I thought I'd raise that came up when I read them; just input for your next pass.
It looks complete, as far as I can tell, and the sequence seems right. Good narrative throughout; it reads naturally with the reader being pulled from one event to the next through Nigel's life. Very interesting. Let me know when you're ready for me to get out a blue pencil and I'll have another go at it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's ready for a hellacious CE. Anytime you feel up to it. I think I got most of the duplicate wikilinks, etc. Anything you can think of to add to the lead would be good too. Otherwise, I think he's pretty much done on the research end, just the polishing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That was a short one! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Robert de Bethune at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
hamiltonstone (
talk)
06:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)