User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 91
 | 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. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Feologild you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sibyl of Falaise
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sibyl of Falaise you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Manasser Biset
The article Manasser Biset you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Manasser Biset for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Robert fitzRoger
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert fitzRoger you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Feologild you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Feologild for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you not think that fully protecting the page for several days and threatening me and the other editor after a discussion was started on the talk page was a bit overkill? --TylerBurden (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion should have started long before the three reverts you did in the last 24 hours. I could have instead taken it to the edit warring board and let you get blocked, I suppose. Talk it out. Use an RfC if needed. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, so no longer block me yourself. If you look at my edit summaries my last 2 reverts both asked the other editor to discuss it on the talk page, per WP:BRD that is what should have happened and since the stable version should remain during discussion. I attempted to steer the dispute to the talk page, and did not break the three revert rule. You threatening us and protecting the page after a discussion had already started seems unreasonable to me but hey, you're the admin. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Robert fitzRoger
The article Robert fitzRoger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert fitzRoger for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sibyl of Falaise
The article Sibyl of Falaise you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sibyl of Falaise for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Roger fitzReinfrid
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roger fitzReinfrid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Josef Glazman
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Josef Glazman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
A request
Greetings. Could I request one of your source check specials for A and B Loop's FAC in the light of Nick-D's qualms? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Surely. Tomorrow though. Hubby was unexpectedly stuck in one spot today (In Reno trying to go to Sacramento but they put chain-restrictions in on the Donner Pass, and for his company that means they pay him to sit tight until the chain restriction is off - they don't want them risking themselves in that sort of nasty weather conditions. So we had a day to play 7 Days To Die together while half a continent apart... the joys of the internet!) Ealdgyth (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Source-check-specials ... heh. That reminds me of when I was very very young and K-Mart did "blue light specials"... am I that discounted now??? (tongue very firmly IN cheek). -- Ealdgyth (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay @Gog the Mild:, done. I'm redirecting all rotten tomatoes thrown at me to you, just so you know. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Source-check-specials ... heh. That reminds me of when I was very very young and K-Mart did "blue light specials"... am I that discounted now??? (tongue very firmly IN cheek). -- Ealdgyth (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Roger fitzReinfrid
The article Roger fitzReinfrid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roger fitzReinfrid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Sibyl of Falaise
I am doing nothing on this, but I noticed something interesting. I wanted to let you know that I noticed that what K-R says about Sibilla's parentage might come from Maxwell-Lyte (and K-R only cites the primary source I guess, which is unfortunately a bit how DD is). See https://actswilliam2henry1.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/h1-lonlay-2020-1.pdf . Found it here https://sanhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/07Lyte-1.pdf . "Although we have no categorical information as to his issue, it is practically certain that he left two daughters, Emma and Sibyl, whose names immediately follow his own in his charter to the monks of Lonley. While the former got Stoke and Wootton, the latter got Williton and the maternal estate at Worspring." The argument seems good at first sight but more to the point it is obviously influential. I don't have the Stogursey chartulary I'm afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW I wonder if Sanders made a typo and meant to say Sibyl was evidently not one of Henry I's illegitimate children. The CP citation he gives is a list of those, where she does not appear. None of his references seem to account for his statement otherwise. KR and David X Carpenter both seem fairly confident about Maxwell-Lyte's 1920 explanation of the evidence. It seems her descendants are coheirs of William of Falaise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which still leaves the vexed issue of ... how is she a nepta of Henry I? I'm not seeing William de Falaise as being that closely related to the ducal family ... Same sort of issue runs around Herbert of Winchester. They get called relatives, but we're left hanging as to the exact relationship... heh. Ah, the fun of medieval research.. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Probably not by being his daughter? :) (Nepta is a pretty broad term in practice, but never daughter as far as I know, so I sympathize with that argument.) Anyway, I do notice that K-R has an explanation for the connection between the Williams in her entry for William de "Faleise". Apparently William the bastard's mother is a potential link. As far as I can see K-R hasn't done this one by mistake and there are other recent writers backing her up. I have not yet found anyone who cites/knows Maxwell Lyte and then argues against him. Maxwell Lyte has his RS papers in order as far as I can see. Yes, this period is fun. The differences between RS's show just how needed that K-R's work has been.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which still leaves the vexed issue of ... how is she a nepta of Henry I? I'm not seeing William de Falaise as being that closely related to the ducal family ... Same sort of issue runs around Herbert of Winchester. They get called relatives, but we're left hanging as to the exact relationship... heh. Ah, the fun of medieval research.. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey
I don't think the vague term "cousin" is a good way to explain "consanguineous". I think a clear definition would be "blood relative" or something which says the two people have common ancestry. That is in any case the normal and common implication. For an authority, see http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/handle/2042/3399 which is still widely cited. (Useful reference.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Uh... I don't think I've edited William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey very much... nor recently. I'm totally baffled as to why this is being brought up? If there's a problem with an article, that should probably go on the article talk page... Ealdgyth (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oops. I must have misunderstood something. Will do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Heh. I know I've edited a bunch of Warenne articles, but I haven't touched that one since I first stated editing here ... where I ran into an <censored because I'm supposed to assume good faith> editor who had no clue at all about recent scholarship. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly can't explain why I thought you were responsible. I was doing a round of related articles and I can't reconstruct it. LOL --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Heh. I know I've edited a bunch of Warenne articles, but I haven't touched that one since I first stated editing here ... where I ran into an <censored because I'm supposed to assume good faith> editor who had no clue at all about recent scholarship. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oops. I must have misunderstood something. Will do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Josef Glazman
The article Josef Glazman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Josef Glazman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Dominic of Evesham
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dominic of Evesham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Your GA nomination of Dominic of Evesham
The article Dominic of Evesham you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dominic of Evesham for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hamo (dean of York)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hamo (dean of York) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2022 (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) 11:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.- Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hamo (dean of York)
The article Hamo (dean of York) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hamo (dean of York) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Dominic of Evesham
The article Dominic of Evesham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dominic of Evesham for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hamo (dean of York)
The article Hamo (dean of York) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hamo (dean of York) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
So sorry about SlimVirgin. I had noticed her excellent work on many articles over the years.
Would you mind looking at the same edit that I wanted to ask her about -- namely this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haddon_Hall&type=revision&diff=1075131968&oldid=1075130672
Note that the new information is written in passive voice. Who identified the problem? Who will fix it? The editor did not follow the BRD process. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Paynel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Paynel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Collaboration help
Hi, Ealdgyth - I was hoping you had a bit of time to collaborate with me, and help fix whatever it was that caused Staffordshire Bull Terrier to go to GAR. My goal is, of course, to resolve the issues, but I'm having a bit of trouble seeing them. Also, please see this revert and resulting tag because I find it confusing. I was of the mind that editors could use editorial judgement, along with a bit of engaging prose to summarize what is presented contextually in the article. I would also appreciate your thoughts about the context of this first paragraph in the breed's History section. I interpreted it to mean that the names "hung on the breed" are confusing because the modern breed is not the same dog implied by those historical aliases, perhaps because there are 6 distinct breeds with the same ancestry. Atsme 💬 📧 00:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm going to decline that. I have no desire to step into THAT hornet's nest, as I have very little interest in dog breeds, dog breeding, or getting into interminable arguments on the internet. I've got enough on my plate trying to clean up some Holocaust-related articles. Sorry. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Saving that edit summary for a general description of my life (you know we're all gonna look!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well poopers!
Sandy, you were next on my list of potential collaborators. 
I certainly understand the rejection but this particular case needs editors who are familiar with at least 2 or more of the following: (a) promoting GA/GAR, (b) a bit of insight into the genetics & evolution of domestic dogs, (c) understands dog breeding, breed standards, and the breed creation process with the registries, etc. (d) kennel ownership/conformation showing - knows someone who has done it, (e) perhaps a bit of animal husbandry experience would help? Who on WP, besides me, has palpated a mare or cow, or has done any dog collections or AI in the past decade...or 2 decades...3 decades? How about just watched it...on a video? Heard about it? Read about it? Egads! Please tell me I'm not the only editor on WP at that level. 
I think Cwmhiraeth would be a great choice, but she hates conflict, too. Suggestions anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)
- Well poopers!
- Saving that edit summary for a general description of my life (you know we're all gonna look!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Alan de Neville (landholder)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan de Neville (landholder) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Alan de Neville (landholder)
The article Alan de Neville (landholder) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alan de Neville (landholder) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kavyansh.Singh -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Paynel
The article William Paynel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Paynel for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Paynel
The article William Paynel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Paynel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thankseverso
.jpg)
|
For all your editing help |
| Stephen Bishop must have been an amazing man, am glad his article is now in better shape. Shearonink (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frithegod you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of I'ma editor2022 -- I'ma editor2022 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Just spreading the love! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (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) 12:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Your reversion on Frithegod!
Hello! Can you please explain why you reverted edit on Frithegod? Your reasoning (edit summary) says that the addition of my citations was not required for GA status or FA status, although to keep Wikipedia verifiable, inline citations are needed at any texts that are WP:LIKELY to be challenged, and to ensure that their are no WP:ORIGINAL research. Even if it is not required for GA status, Wikipedia policy states that all "content must be verifiable" (definition hyperlinked), and that any WP:UNSOURCED material may be removed. — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC) — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant guideline is WP:CITEDENSE - it's common sense. If there are three sentences in a row, and at the end of the third one there is a citation, then it is assumed that the citation covers all three sentences. Your edit even acknowledged that as you put the citation for the third sentence on the first and second ones... but all that does is needlessly clutter the article text. May I suggest that perhaps you should get a bit more experience editing and working with content before doing a large number of GA reviews? There is a LOT to editing and the learning curve is pretty steep. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for responding on time and for the explanation for the revertion. However, when doing an edit summary, please rember to explain why you reverted the edit, as it leaves other users a bit confused and wastes a lot of time. And also, that page isn't Wikipedia's guidline or policies, but is an WP:SUPPLEMENTAL page, so please remember that having a shortcut does not mean it is Wikipedia's official... but thank you for recomending that page. And I do have a lot to learn so thank you. — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 04:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Geoffrey Talbot (died 1129)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Geoffrey Talbot (died 1129) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Geoffrey Talbot (died 1129)
The article Geoffrey Talbot (died 1129) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Geoffrey Talbot (died 1129) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Internet Archive Scholar vs. JSTOR
Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
help with Bach
 |
Thank you for your the source review for Bachh's No. 1! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA Nomination on Frithegod
Hi, I apologize that I have kind of paused the GA review on Frithegod, but an influxe of work has come up😅 , but I assuredly will work on it today. Sorry for not notifying you before, but I hope you understand :) — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Frithegod you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frithegod for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of I'ma editor2022 -- I'ma editor2022 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Find a grave reliable source?
Is Find-a-grave a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:RSP, which is pretty much on the "no its not" side. User generated, so not reliable. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Ealdgyth! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Should user:BezosJohnson be warned about adding unsourced dates/places of birth[1][2]? It appears they have at least two other warnings concerning the addition of unsourced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
My GA review on Cobra Kai (season 4)
So, taking you up on your offer as a mentor, see Talk:Cobra Kai (season 4)/GA1. This is a quick one to answer I'm sure. The editor has Tweets as references. It would be easier if you just checked it out. You can't miss a couple of them. One is 10 lines long and one is 5, the rest are shorter. This is a two column ref so they aren't really that long. I pointed them to a policy which they then used to justify the tweets. And maybe the tweets are okay if they are verified. But I still think they are too long. His other three seasons of the show have just 1 tweet each for two of them so it's not par for the course. Thoughts? Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- So... the GA criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. In regards to sources - the relevant bit is "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines" So... you don't strictly speaking need a ref on everything. Just "direct quotations, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Extra guidance is at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. So... let's look at this tweet which is being used to source "A promotional single titled "It's Karate Time" was released on December 17, 2021." This isn't about a BLP and it's from a verified account that appears to be Zach Robinson, and the detail isn't that contentious. While a better source would be .. better, it's not required. As to the other issues - one of the things you can't get too picky about is the formatting - if you can figure out the reference and it's reasonably consistent in style, there isn't a requirement to be completly perfect in referencing style. If they use a long title in the tweet - as long as it's correct, it's okay under the GA criteria. So for the CobraKai season - tweets from the official twitter account for the series are likely reliable enough - as long as it's dealing with BLP stuff. Same for instagram - the series official instagram account is going to be reliable for basic facts. You don't want to see it used for opinions or for BLPs but it's okay enough for GA, especially a GA on a TV show. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Extremely helpful. While I got caught up in the criteria outine in the talk page, I tended to absentmindedly forget the two criteria pages. I'm glad I pushed myself to ask for help. Sometimes I need to ask for help more than I do. Thanks so much that's very helpful. I'm going to go over those policies again. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your advice helped very much. Although we kept in the tweets overall, the editor did choose to shorten the length of two that were very long. Sometimes telling them what the issue and then letting them decide works well. I just finished reviewing this one. As its my first, would you just check it over quickly and let me know if you see anything that jumps out at you? I promise this won't become a habit. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I took a very quick look and didn't see anything that jumped out at me as being wrong. Looks good! Especially like that you praised the nominator... that's important. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch. Yes, I agree it's so important to praise the nominator. I have a bit more to say when I close it out too. I'm glad you found it looking good and thanks for checking. I really feel less intimated by this process now and like I could do it on a regular basis. montanabw and I had discussed doing them regularly a bit ago and it could be a natural next step for me in my Wikipedia progress. Have a great night! dawnleelynn(talk) 23:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I took a very quick look and didn't see anything that jumped out at me as being wrong. Looks good! Especially like that you praised the nominator... that's important. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your advice helped very much. Although we kept in the tweets overall, the editor did choose to shorten the length of two that were very long. Sometimes telling them what the issue and then letting them decide works well. I just finished reviewing this one. As its my first, would you just check it over quickly and let me know if you see anything that jumps out at you? I promise this won't become a habit. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Extremely helpful. While I got caught up in the criteria outine in the talk page, I tended to absentmindedly forget the two criteria pages. I'm glad I pushed myself to ask for help. Sometimes I need to ask for help more than I do. Thanks so much that's very helpful. I'm going to go over those policies again. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (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) 12:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Any chance this falls into your general area of familiarity with the old bishops? It's one of the last 111 FA's on the oldest block of URFA/2020 and the URFA team is hoping to be able to get all of those cleared by the end of 2022. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not in my wheelhouse - Scots ecclesiastical issues are ... outside Anglo-Norman ones. You want @Deacon of Pndapetzim: who is sometimes around. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Rhys ap Gruffydd
Ealdgyth, there are three map images at Rhys ap Gruffydd. The first is sourced, and it's likely the next two came from the same source. Are you able to cite them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- They do not come from the next source - Walker only has three maps, and the second and third of his maps cover the Edwardian conquest of Wales in the 13th century. I've updated the caption on the first map in our article to reflect what it actually does source. Let me keep digging... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I got nothing that can source those last two maps... I'm not saying that they look wrong but I don't have the sources for it. Still about half my books packed up so ... heh. Although I did look in most of what I have on Wales and it didn't have anything ... but my Welsh books are pretty sparse. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The editor who upload those files (back when we were young women :) did not source them. The article has been deemed "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A. Should I comment out those maps, or are they not a big deal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I got nothing that can source those last two maps... I'm not saying that they look wrong but I don't have the sources for it. Still about half my books packed up so ... heh. Although I did look in most of what I have on Wales and it didn't have anything ... but my Welsh books are pretty sparse. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
Technical news
- Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentryanddeletedhistoryrights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Arbitration
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
Your GA nomination of Philip de Thaun
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip de Thaun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've left a few minor comments and quibbles for your consideration. Tim riley talk 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Philip de Thaun
The article Philip de Thaun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philip de Thaun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- All satisfactorily attended to. In the list of GAs I've put him under "Thaun, Philip de", but if you think he should be "de Thaun, Philip" please move him. (I know no rule for indexing "de" French names, e.g. it is definitely "de Gaulle, Charles", but "Montaigne, Michel de". I think it's because one always refers to the former as "de Gaulle" but to the latter generally just as "Montaigne", and I leave it to you to say which is appropriate for Philip.) Tim riley talk 07:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)