User talk:Ealdgyth
 | PLEASE NOTE: I'm trying to actually edit those pesky things called articles more, and spend less time on other stuff at Wikipedia. (Thus, why I'm no longer doing much at FLC) Please understand that it might take me a while to respond to your requests for a source review, etc. I'll note that if you've done favors for me in the past, I'm MUCH more likely to jump at things quickly. (In other words, I can be bribed.) Thanks, guys. |
| I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. But if I left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'm watching your page for a bit. |
| If you want me to look at something, either an article or a peer review or a GAN or FAC, please please please include a link. I get a lot of requests for this sort of thing, and it's a lot easier if you include a link. |
|
Archive 1 May 2007 to Jan 2008 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Oxford Seasons
Thanks for the comment. I don't know why FCHD is a reliable source, but the first two seasons articles that are FLC that i have just looked at (York and Gillingham) both included it. Rage Online isn't reliale and i will try to phase that out with TwentiethApril's help. Eddie6705 (talk)#
Thanks
 | Thank you for recently reviewing an FLC candidate that I nominated. Your work is appreciated! from KV5 |
FA thanks
|
<font=3> Thanks for your references check – Sonestown Covered Bridge made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC) | 
|
|---|
Diocletianic Persecution
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)
Quick check.
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)
- How about "When I emerge from packing books"? I'll try to get to it soonish. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, that too. :) I'm not really going to be active around the holidays, so by all means take your time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
At the above noted FAC I have removed both contested sources. --maclean 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you sign off on the citations at the Richard Cordray FAC. Feel free to support as well if you like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 17 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)
- Thank you very much for your suggestions. I'll get on top of all of them. Happy holidays, Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Skulking around
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)
- I'm kinda in holding mode at the moment, due to the holidays and being in the final stages of building a new house/moving horses/moving self. Hoping after we get moved to get back to some serious editing, but it'll be a bit. Just my FAC work is keeping me busy (grins). Did you see the lovely bishops who managed to make FA while you were gone? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The above review has been restarted. Seeing that you commented on it prior, I thought to inform you.--WillC 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Query
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)
ODNB
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)
- Sent. Let me know if it doesn't get there. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
|
<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)
Another ODNB request
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)
- Sent! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Got it; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comments in FAC Review of Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
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 reliable?
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)
- Now, I'd probably question it. I think that was one of my first source reviews, back in March, and there is a lot I've learned about websites, etc. I'd like to see indepentant statements that the authors have written for those publications, not just from the NWR's site. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, well I went looking and couldn't find anything. I've contacted their Director and hopefully will receive a response. I want to use this interview from their website, which is extremely useful for an article I'm working on. Gary King (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I found a few reliable sources that cite NWR; is this sufficient?
- Okay, well I went looking and couldn't find anything. I've contacted their Director and hopefully will receive a response. I want to use this interview from their website, which is extremely useful for an article I'm working on. Gary King (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gary King (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Those help. It's still going to be best to use it only for non controversial stuff, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm only going to be using this interview about a video game's development process; I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I imagine that the developers wouldn't say anything too controversial about the game. I'll go ahead and use the reference for non-controversial stuff, though. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Those help. It's still going to be best to use it only for non controversial stuff, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gary King (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
|
<font=3> Happy New Year 2009, and may all your articles get promoted! Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC) |
|---|
Using encyclopedias as sources...
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)
- It's a judgement call thing. Specialist encyclopedias (such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, or similar) are usually better to use than generalist encyclopedias. I don't usually object to using Encarta, Britannica for something simple, such as entymology, basic fact unrelated to the subejct of the article, etc, but leaning too much on it is a sign of concern. It's just "odd" to be using a generalist encyclopedia such as Encarta as a source for a generalist encyclopedia (such as Wikipedia). It's more an unwritten rule, partly backed up by the whole primary/secondary/tertiary source thing. Generalist encyclopedia's are tertiary sources, so they are depreciated as sources for Wikipedia. Specialist encyclopedias often fall into the secondary source category (especially when they are written by experts in the field and attributed, such as the ONDB). Does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, makes sense, and thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
Dear Ealdgyth, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 2 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)
Re: Payment
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)
- Heh. I did read the Cope Sci-Fi book last fall, finally. Star Trek's fine, my mother and father were trekkies back in the original series through DS9. (I'm just a sci-fi fan, never was a trekkie per se. I'd rather see Honor Harrington done right on the big screen, but better Star Trek than Star Wars. (shudders)). Nigel (Bishop of Ely) should be ready pretty soon, I've got two more books due in to hopefully finish him up, and then it'll be polish/polish/polish time. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Irish bishoprics
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)
