User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 52
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. 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. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
William Longchamp
The other reason - apart from giving the cause of Longchamp's removal - that I reverted your recent reversion of my edit is because it mentions St Paul's Churchyard as the setting of the downfall of Longchamp. That will be of interest to those interested in the history of London. Please respect the integrity of my edit. Too many editors seem ready to just remove other people's work and I hope you're not one of those. FClef (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's still trivia and you have not only not respected WP:BRD, you haven't tried to conform the references to the system already in use in the article nor have you even added grammatically correct information (Longchamps removal... is not correct grammar.) It's undue weight in an encyclopedic article. Kindly do not edit war to include something that is so tangental to the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Quarter Horses
Hi, I created Steel Dust and thought you might want to look it over since it's on your list of articles to do. I only used two sources because I kept finding too much conflicting information, so it's a stub. I hope it's not too bad, because I tried to use the most legit sources. Thanks. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "Foundation Quarter Horse" webpage isn't reliable. The thing you're going to run into working on most horse articles is that very little that is available online is going to be considered a reliable source. Most of the information is in offline sources, often hard to find. This is especially true for horses before about 1980. And assessing what is reliable is difficult - much of what gets published is guesswork or based on other sources that were guesswork. And there is a lot of just plain wrong information published also. You're probably better off working on more modern horses because they will be easier to work with, easier to find sources for, and will have much more information available. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I was intentionally trying to avoid modern horses because Montanabw told me it was best not to write articles on still-living horses unless they were winning Grade 1 stakes races or something. Also, I have noticed the crappy sources thing as well; I've seen too many books that were just somebody rehashing somebody else's work rather than doing their own research, much less websites (I don't know how some of the authors don't get sued for plagiarism). And all the books that feature the 3 or 4 most famous racehorses and totally ignore hundreds of other horses who got famous for other things. Ugh. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 15:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- My take is that we start with what we have and improve as we go; the modern, still-living horses are sometimes equally tough because there's so much advertising out there; in some respects, the "sweet spot" are the horses from the 70s and 80s where there is good info but the horses are deceased. JMO. I do think the Western Horseman Quarter Horse Legends books are OK for the basics, aren't they? What WAM is doing with the stubs is just putting in the basics, seems a good thing to do... so long as we don't try to go for GA or FA with the sources available... Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reason unreliable sources are not used is that they are unreliable. If you build your article on unreliable sources, it's like building a house on a foundation of sand. Take the example of the Steel Dust article. It is not certain that his foaling date was 1843 nor that he was foaled in Kentucky - it may have been Illinois. I've never seen a story that he was used as a plow horse. (Is this confusion with Traveler?). It doesn't appear that Steel Dust was retired from racing until 1855 - not "shortly after his race with Monmouth". But there is not anything that is "solid" about Steel Dust's story - partly because there are so many different Steel Dust's. (I counted over 12 once). But the article gives everything as solid reliable facts, rather than guesswork. THAT is why it's not a good idea to work from unreliable sources. A reliable source would give all the "ifs, ands. or buts"... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to say, "or possibly Illinois" and took out the stuff about when he retired and the plow horse stuff. Personally, I don't care if I never do another Quarter/Paint/Appaloosa article and I'm getting tired of trying to find reliable sources: everything is either written by somebody who dealt personally with the horse, and so is biased, or it comes off a website that is supposedly reliable but that appears to be written primarily by 16-year old girls. I prefer the breed association and pro websites to most of the mainstream equestrian sites because most of them (with the exception of Equus) appear to have a bigger POV-pushing agenda than PETA. Everything is natural horsemanship-bitless bridle-treeless saddle-barefoot trimming-trail riding, and there is almost no coverage of show or racehorses (or horses that do anything except sit out in a pasture all their lives) without snarky horse abuse comments being thrown in. It doesn't help, either, that most of the books published now are written by amateurs instead of trainers. I thought the article was needed, which was why I created it. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 00:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- The main issue you're probably having is that it's websites. Much of what's written on the web about QHs/Paints/Apps isn't really ... based on any sort of source that can be traced. If the website doesn't tell you where they got the information, who knows where they got it and if it's reliable? Steel Dust (and Shiloh, and Copperbottom, etc) will suffer not just from that problem, but also the problem of the lack of contemporary sourcing for them - they were on the frontiers and they predate the formation of the American Stud Book, much less the AQHA. Lots of tall tales got spun about them, but there are very few "facts" available. I know, I've worked on research for them for almost 20 years outside of Wikipedia. The various foundation QH registries are more concerned with minimizing the TB influence on the QH, the Paint people want to minimize the QH influence on their breed, I've never understood the App sub-culture (partly because I'm not real fond of Apps and they aren't that fond of me)... and that leaves aside the whole TB researcher issue (and their interactions with QH researchers) and then we get to the Arabian people who refuse to admit they might have some non-Arabian bloodlines in the breed ... and the Morgans wanting to emphasize that THEY are the real "first horse breed of the US" and then you get the gaited horses... ugh. The Morgan folks try to claim Steel Dust as a Morgan, the TB folks want to forget that American TBs can't always trace all their bloodlines to English TBs, etc etc. To quote Star Wars - horse bloodline research is often times a "wretched hive of villainry". Welcome to the club, says the cynical oldtimer. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- You know, what strikes me in all this is how critical wikipedia is becoming; if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist, these days. Ealdgyth, I don't know how much you've published IRL (as opposed to doing private research) but you know you can ping me any time with good source material, and given that you've got the books, WP still is OK with dead tree source materials. As for these old horses, a small stub of what little is known is probably worth having, if for no other reason than to have a base. I always believe in "teaching the controversy" whether it be genetic diseases (my thing, as Ealdgyth knows) or coat colors (which I got into once I got the genetics interest piqued) or history of the various breeds. I don't know if either of you (pinging White Arabian mare ) know about my horse breeds snark page, but feel free to add content and comment at User:Montanabw/List of horse breeds promoters claim "truly primitive bred pure since Adam and Eve"! Montanabw(talk) 02:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015: The results
.svg)
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is 
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. 
Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to 
Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.- Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup Award
Hey
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| Getting back into the swing of wiki-things again after a good spell of attending to the real world (and before that, mostly keeping busy with ArbCom stuff...) and nowadays it's nice (and feels rare) to see an old name, still working away making fascinating articles I love reading. Hope things are going well! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC) |
- Thanks, David. Good to see you back. I'm not around quite as much as I'd like - we're getting ready to move - but hopefully again in the future I'll be editing more. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Article space
I took your prompt and made some article space edits, actually adding some content too. Thanks for the pointer. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2015 (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Chalcedonian
Ealdgyth-- I would be glad to discuss with you when and if you are ready but when I ask about "in your view" these are directed more at Jon's comments. Your comments seem to just be saying that you don't want to discuss anything. I never said people called themselves "Chalcedonian Christians" on a day-to-day basis, but that does not make it a bad term or an unsourced term. I never said people didn't called themselves "Catholic", but that does not make it a good term all by itself, because people use the same term to mean different thing and different times (in history, etc.)tahc chat 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've placed a very large number of sources on the template talk page. I'll note that none of those historians (except Wickham, who uses it only in terms of Eastern Christianity) use the term Chalcedonian. You can find the full bibliographical details for most of those works at User:Ealdgyth/History References. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are hoping I will read the "very large number of sources" and correctly guess how you consider them to answer the issues I raise? (I then would be forced to guess that they don't answer the issues I raise.)
- If you do want to discuss issues, then tell me your interpretation of the facts for yourself. If you do not want to discuss issues, please do not simply repeat things you have said before in an effort to seem like you are discussing. tahc chat 17:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm repeating myself because there is no other answer. We follow what the sources use to describe people/places/events. I can't use my own "view" - that would be WP:OR. I follow what the sources say- which is why I put them all on the talk page. I'm perfectly happy to discuss, but it must start from the sources. That's what all discussions on wikipedia start with - the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth, are you opposed to me helping create this chart you are working on? I have a very similar one of my own (currently in a spreadsheet rather than userspace) that I've been working on, and if possible would prefer to combine our efforts. Is that okay with you? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I actually don't plan on expanding it at this point. It was more a "quickie" chart than anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Okay -- so you would rather I put up my own chart then, rather than expand the one in your userspace? Either way is okay by me, but I wanted to check first if you cared, before diving in. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to have others edit in my userspace for things that aren't really meant for article space ever. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, that is no problem. Of course, a century from now, where there is only wikipedia, and the arbcom members are the supreme court of not merely a website, but truly The Sum Of Human Knowledge, your quick chart may yet be mainspaced. ;-) Thanks, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to have others edit in my userspace for things that aren't really meant for article space ever. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Okay -- so you would rather I put up my own chart then, rather than expand the one in your userspace? Either way is okay by me, but I wanted to check first if you cared, before diving in. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of adding my own guide recommendations to your chart, but that was before I saw your comment here that "I'd prefer not to have others edit in my userspace for things that aren't really meant for article space ever", so I have reverted it - I should have checked first, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - I'd hate to have my tail end singed by that fearsome-looking dragon ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
Bede
Hi Ealdgyth. I have come across another article on Bede at [1]. Unfortunately I do not have access to this journal. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Dudley Miles: If you want to send me an email I can forward a copy. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki. However, this is Ealdgyth's speciality, not mine. I will probably ask you for help in the future as Early Medieval Europe is far and away the most important source for Anglo-Saxon history which I do not have access to. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Per your user page: not fond of him. Why on earth not? What did he do to deserve such a fate? Peter Damian (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- He was a philosopher? I like bad boys like Rufus? I pull for the underdog like Rufus? My advisor was Sally Vaughn and I heard entirely too much about him? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- He proved the existence of God. Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Church on paganism
Hi Ealdgyth, I hope you're well. Might I be right in thinking you have an electronic copy of Church, S. D. (April 2008). "Paganism in Conversion-age Anglo-Saxon England: The Evidence of Bede's Ecclesiastical History Reconsidered". History 93 (310): 162–180, as cited at Gregorian mission? And, if so, would you share a copy with me via email? I'd be very grateful, otherwise not to worry. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do. Email me and I'll email it back.... (If I had your email in my address book I have lost it and I can't attach the file to the "email this user" form on your user page.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fantastic, email sent! Nortonius (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- And file sent. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's a great little article, brief and to the point: besides being useful it answered a couple of questions I'd had floating around for years! Much appreciated. Nortonius (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)