User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 90
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
Miscellaneous
- The functionaries email list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 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) 11:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
in friendship
 | |
| in friendship |
|---|
Thank you for your good wishes, and being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt is there anyone on WP that you are not friends with? :-) How do you do it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong here, Jen, but sadly: yes. The message of hope doesn't only go to friends, but also to people who treated me especially friendly. I'm thinking about one to reconnect to friends I lost, - help with a wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Help with a Question
I am a total stranger, but Gog the Mild recommended I ask you a question since you write in the field of history of religion. I do too, and I recently asked Gog to look at one of my articles. He commented – negatively – on how often I attribute, by name, in the text, the scholars I cite. Gog said: "Wikipedia actually requires that when speaking in its voice that you are speaking for the consensus of modern scholars, there is absolutely no need to state this, much less repeatedly - it is a given. Attribution, obviously, is different, that is what cites are for...“ But he also said I should ask others and see if I can discern some kind of consensus on this. If you don't mind taking the time to answer, how often do you name the scholar you are citing in your writing?
Four horses! I was around horses every spare minute I had, riding and caring for them when I was young, but haven't been for years now. I miss it. You are very blessed. Keeping priorities straight puts this way down the flagpole, so if you're too busy, I understand, no hard feelings. Share a carrot for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you are referring to Christianization of the Roman Empire? It's kinda helpful when you request someone look at something to tell them what they are supposed to look at. I'm going to say right now, up front, that it's probably too large. While the topic is important in history, it's currently at 12,000+ words for a subject really only covers 4 centuries - I know it currently states "first five centuries of the common era" but Christianity is really only anything more than a small sect by around 200 CE. I'll also point out that I'm not Christian, and in fact, I'm a Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionist, so ... this topic isn't exactly something I feel neutral on. (snorts). I'll take a look, and make some small copy edits. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm already finding some ... issues ... with the text. Are you prepared for me to rip this apart or would you prefer I pretend like I never saw it? Because ... the second sentence in the main body is .... wrong. And looking at the source, I can see why it's wrong - it's sourcing information about Roman paganism to a journal of Biblical Research. And checking the footnote (to p. 284) I don't see that the information in the wiki article is supported on that page. So... if you want my answer, you're probably going to find that I dig into the article and find more problems. And I'll likely be cranky during it ... both because it's a semi-touchy subject for me due to my cultus, as well as its going to eat up my time when I've got a lot of stuff going on. (A side issue is that I'm out on the road until early Feb so many of the books that I would need to reference are not with me so I couldn't possibly be completing things until mid or late Feb.) This would be a big effort on my part and I'm not inclined to do it unless you're willing to do the work to fix things... not just argue with me. I've got a million other ways I could be contributing my limited wiki time - and I'm really thinking that I should be concentrating on the major issues in the Holocaust articles - where arguably the impact of bad information is worse (but bad sourcing is bad sourcing whereever...) And I'm going to ping @Gog the Mild: for dropping this pile of worms into my lap, if I'm going to have to work on it, he'll have to help. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth Thank you, I love your willingness to jump in and start munching, but I didn't include the article title because I wasn't asking that of you. It is up for GA right now and it would not be a good time. And please don't fuss at Gog. He told me to keep it limited, so that's why I just asked the one question and did not ask for a full review.
- I certainly would not mind you tearing into it at some point when you are able and interested. I am always willing to do the work, and would even be grateful for anything you find, but - without being argumentative - I am not seeing the problem you are referring to. Currents in Biblical Research is a peer-reviewed academic journal that covers the field of biblical studies. It summarizes and analyzes the spectrum of recent research in the field. Rives is the Kenan Eminent Professor of Classics at Stanford University. In what way is the eminent professor wrong?
- Page 284 is correct. I have now added his review of the reviews of the polis-religion model.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- You do not have to work on it. I chalk up your characterization of it as a "pile of worms" as too biased to carry any weight, but if you can avoid the insults, come back and do whatever you see fit, whenever you feel like it. I will work with you to improve the article.
- I have worked with editors with biases before and as long as there are good sources, I have no problems - at least eventually. :-) But there could be, might possibly be, oh hell, probably would be some arguing. :-)
- Otherwise, perhaps an answer to your practice of attribution?Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at all your edits and am grateful for every one, they are all good - no argument! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rives has now moved to North Carolina. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at all your edits and am grateful for every one, they are all good - no argument! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Response
I did not say Rives was wrong, I said that our article is not summarizing Rives correctly - page 284 does not support the information cited to it. See below.
"Roman religion at the beginning of the Roman Empire (27 BCE - 476 CE) was polytheistic and local. Each city worshipped its own set of gods and goddesses that had originally been derived from ancient Greece and become Romanized." is sourced to page 284 of Rives. I've got Rives in front of me. On page 284, I do not see anything about "Roman religion at the begining of the Roman Empire (27 BCE - 476 CE) was polytheistic and local." Nor is anything on that page that supports "Each city worshipped its own set of gods and goddesses that had originally been derived from ancient Greece and became Romanized." So that's a problem of sourcing.
I see on page 269 that Rives states "Each city had its own distinctive set of cults, even if most of these were directed at a shared set of deities.." which would source (sorta) "Each city worshipped its own set of gods and goddesses" but the statement in the wiki article is subtly different than what Rives is saying. "Cult" or "cultus" is the worship practices - the various sacrifices and processions and related behaviors that the city did. The cities shared many of the same dieties, they just had differing cult practices. "Each city worshipped its own set of gods and goddesses.." however is saying that the pantheons differed from city to city ... that's wrong and not strictly speaking supported by the source.
I've had a quick read through Rives 2010 looking for the rest of the two sentences and I cannot see anything in the article that supports "Roman religion at the beginning of the Roman Empire (27 BCE - 476 CE) was polytheistic and local." explicitly ... although that sentence isn't problematic ... it should be easy to source. But "...set of gods and goddesses that had originally been derived from ancient Greece and become Romanized" is very problematic. Where in Rives is this statement? Having read Rupke, Beard, North, MacMullen (admittedly it's been a bit since I read MacMullen) and other works on the dieties that have called me, I'm pretty sure that we cannot say that the Roman culutus was "derived from ancient Greece and become Romanized." This is what I meant by saying that this is a big project. When the first two sentences in the main body of the article are not supported by the source given, it doesn't give me great faith that there won't be other problems in the article.
These sorts of sourcing issues are some of the most difficult problems to deal with on wikipedia. It's incredibly draining to compare every single statement in an article against its sources to make sure that the article is reliably sourced. I've already spent an hour reading Rives and then typing up this description of what the problem is. There are 403 footnotes in this article. That's a LOT of work, and I'm not sure you want me to start putting these issues on the talk page. Do you want a well sourced article that is correctly sourced and reflects the sources accurately? If I start putting issues like this onto the talk page ... it'll probably torpedo the GA nomination. That's what I meant by a "can of worms" - will it demoralize you to have someone dig into the issues and make the sourcing correct? I don't have to do anything... I can give you the answer to the question you asked - and say that I agree with Gog - the article spends entirely too much time name dropping scholars. And it has way too much quotation instead of summarizing information. Both of those things make the article hard to read and digest. If I was doing the article, I'd be cutting out large chunks of both those practices.
Here's an example of how I'd present the first two paragraphs of "Background" (and leaving aside any issues of sourcing - this example assumes that ALL the sourcing is correct and every single word is supported by the sources given - which I've shown above is not true for the all of the first two sentences in the current version):
Old version:
Roman religion at the beginning of the Roman Empire (27 BCE - 476 CE) was polytheistic and local. Each city worshipped its own set of gods and goddesses that had originally been derived from ancient Greece and become Romanized. James B. Rives, classics scholar, has written that what is identified as religion in the modern world did not exist in the Graeco-Roman world. Polis-religion was embedded in, and inseparable from, the city; religious identity was tied to civic identity, and the essence of religion lay in ritual. While the polis-religion model has been subject to modern critiques, Rives says these do not refute it so much as they refine it or incorporate it into a wider model. Religion was central to being Roman, its practices widespread and intertwined with politics, and its public practices were under the control of public officials, primarily, the Roman Senate. Members of a polytheistic group were expected to demonstrate 'piety' by observing acknowledged and inherited protocols identified as ancestral custom. According to Fredrikson: "One did not 'believe' or 'believe in' these customs; one 'respected' them, meaning that one kept them and (perhaps just as important) was seen to keep them".
New version:
Roman religion in the early Roman Empire was polytheistic and local, with rituals varying between localities. Religion as it is understood in the modern world did not exist in the Graeco-Roman world. Most religous practice was embedded in, and inseparable from, the city. Ritual was the main form that worship took. Politics and religion were intertwined and many public rituals were performed by public officials. Respect for ancestral custom was a large part of polytheistic belief and practice, and members of the local society were expected to take part in public rituals.
That's just a quick attempt at condensing and making the information more understandable. The article is full of long, complex sentences with a lot of jargon and the above-mentioned name dropping and over-quoting. It reads like, gods help us all, MacMullen - who has to be one of the most infuriatingly difficult to read academics I've ever had the pleasure of reading. He's worth it, but he is not a good exemplar for writing style for an encyclopedia. You're aiming to explain to ... at best, freshmen in college. At worst, you're going to be trying to explain to 12 year olds. You have to remember your audience, and it's not academics - so simpler sentences, less quoting, and less name dropping.
Okay, now this has eaten almost two hours of my day. If you're not ready to really dig in and improve the article, I'll go back to the Holocaust articles, where having wrong information is dangerous because then the deniers try to use the errors to disprove the Holocaust. If you really WANT this article to reach a wider audience, I'm glad to help, but it will likely be difficult.
If I sound brusque and rude, I apologize. I'm on the road and typing on a laptop in a moving semi-truck cab and bouncing around. I'm also reaching the age where I care less and less about being cranky in public and I worry less about making other people happy and more about getting things right. I don't mean to offend ... but I'm also not going to pull punches on sourcing issues, which Gog can testify to you are a Big Deal (tm) to me. Until sourcing is correct and properly supports the information in an article, all the prose polishing is useless. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is all wonderful and fair and good and I can hardly express how grateful I am that you have spent all this time and effort. I will benefit from knowing you - already am benefitting - and the article will as well. Thank you. I will copy your text verbatim into the article with appropriately updated page numbers, which would be page 269 and not page 284.
- I remember someone else asking about the Greek thing (on the talk page?) and going and finding another source for it; it was never in Rives. I don't understand why the other source isn't there, but it doesn't matter now, as I agree it isn't really a necessary point. Your version is concise and makes the main points.
- I do try to keep 12 year olds in mind! Honestly, this is me doing that! I teach adults! Groan...I will do better. I will keep trying to do better. I promise.
- Please don't ever feel like you need to modify yourself in any way for me. I love your straightforwardness. It saves time and wasted energy, and I am grateful to find someone else who sees that as clearly as you obviously do. It isn't your job to make me happy, and that's okay. I may object to the occasional gratuitous insult, but only so as not to be a complete doormat. Otherwise, I won't care. I had aversive therapy when I first joined WP from someone who makes you look like a cute and fuzzy bunny. :-) You are awesome. I am grateful. Munch away. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am attempting to check each citation, and clearly it is necessary as I found two more page # errors. I love research, but when I get to composing, I start moving things around and sometimes lose the proper citation. I'm old and don't remember things as well as I used to, but I totally agree on its importance, and am thankful you have held my feet to the fire and pushed me to do this. You are much stricter than Gog, which I am thinking is a very good thing. Gog recommended that I paraphrase more and quote less, which I was trying to do, but in doing so, I did not have a citation for every idea I included, which is a bad thing. So you have indirectly answered my question now. Cite what you say; say what is cited; in my own words – if I can figure it out! Omit entirely if I can't. Is that right? I'm pretty much through 'cause of decline' now. But there is only so much of this I can do at a time as a non-detail person. It becomes too much, too fast, so this may go slowly, but at least it's going. Thank you again. I hate that it's necessary but I'm glad it's getting done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can I suggest this is copied to and continued at the talk page of the article? It is of general relevance and should be there. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- It only seems relevant if I don't complete the recheck, which I am doing. It's going to take me a month to check all 400 citations, but I will. I will return - someday - to tell you when I am done. In the meantime, there is nothing to continue. I am working as fast as I can. Please be patient and wait. But you must of course do whatever you think is appropriate.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:58, 13 January 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) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks and a needed source review
Thanks again, Ealdgyth, for reviewing sources for The Yankee! If you're still collecting points for the wikicup, I have an FLC nomination that's been in need of a source review since September. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Articles by John Neal/archive1. Looking at its list of sources, I have a feeling it may be an even more straightforward review than The Yankee. I hope you can help! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The sound ringing in my ears
“I'm ... really getting a vibe of ‘too much WMF’ here.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Your GA review of Philinna Papyrus
Hi Ealdgyth – thanks for reviewing Philinna Papyrus so promptly! I believe I have now addressed all the points you raised in the review. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
De howevering
What are your feelings about however? Wilfrid has 16 of them; I'm with Mally, Tony1 and John (see the talk of my talk page), but don't want to keep de-howevering if you feel strongly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- If I'd felt strongly, I"d have reverted like I did on the bundling. I generally don't get too fussed about copyediting like that, I trust you not to remove a required "however". -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Whew :) I hope I don't forget your bundling preference; if I do, chalk it up to "growin' old ain't for sissies". What about {{reflist|30em}} vs. 60? That is a whole ton of scrolling for arthritic fingers. I hope to start plugging away at marking articles "Satisfactory", since the WP:MED front has become an unbearable place to be per the citation template matters, so want to be sure I'm not installing my own prefs in "your" FAs. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I dislike 30em for the usual refs I use - the "Author Book Title p. X" format - it makes them into a blob to my old eyes - I prefer seeing them all on one line. I'm less fussed when I'm forced to use sfn. I'll be home this weekend sometime - I've been working on some research for when I get back started editing (once the hubby heads back on the road about the 11th). -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Got it ... safe travels out there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I dislike 30em for the usual refs I use - the "Author Book Title p. X" format - it makes them into a blob to my old eyes - I prefer seeing them all on one line. I'm less fussed when I'm forced to use sfn. I'll be home this weekend sometime - I've been working on some research for when I get back started editing (once the hubby heads back on the road about the 11th). -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Whew :) I hope I don't forget your bundling preference; if I do, chalk it up to "growin' old ain't for sissies". What about {{reflist|30em}} vs. 60? That is a whole ton of scrolling for arthritic fingers. I hope to start plugging away at marking articles "Satisfactory", since the WP:MED front has become an unbearable place to be per the citation template matters, so want to be sure I'm not installing my own prefs in "your" FAs. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamedsuppressin around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
Arbitration
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
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) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Early Baronies
Hi. After your edit on Hasculf de Tany I noticed we share an interest in early English baronies. FWIW I've avoided working on them here too much given the question of notability for some of them, and made an effort to try to build up a foundation on wikitree. I worked through my copy of Sanders fairly studiously, checking for primary sources, more recent sources etc. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Early_English_Feudal_Baronies What might be interesting to you is that in cases where there was no clear consensus I have often spent quite a lot of time digging. A small number of fmg articles resulted in special cases but also some of the Wikitree category articles will explain things in ways that you might not easily find elsewhere, e.g. (the first) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Early_Barony_of_Aldington where for example Colin Flight is identified as a published source that could be used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- For me, it's an outgrowth of the history stuff - I'll work on someone important in some part of Anglo-Norman history and then it's like a knot of yarn.. you follow one line then that leads to another and then a third... I'm less interested in the titles than I am in the web of persons. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- My interest is a bit the same. 12th century English politics, and indeed the build-up to 1215, can't be understood without trying to work out these connections, and works about specific periods or events sometimes contain errors, or show ignorance of the actual evidence and the latest discussions. Anyway my reason for contacting you was that I know that the sources for prosopographical work about the 12th century can be scattered and difficult to find, so it can always be handy to know of any place where people have been trying to collect sources etc. (BTW I am not sure that these early baronies are best seen as "titles". I think it is more accurate to say that such concepts were codified in the 13th century.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- In case it helps, this article corrects/explains some confusions about the 1166 baronies of William fitz Aldelin, Hubert fitz Ralph, and Graelan de Tany (Hasculf's son) https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/vol-12/645-jn-12-10 and this one does the same for the Little Dunmow or "Baynard" barony which Robert fitz Walter held by 1166 https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/vol-11/613-fnd-11-10#_ftn4 . These are relevant to several notables with WP articles that you've been working through. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- When I said "less interested in the titles" - I was mainly referring to the obsession some folks have about tracing this "barony" or that... my main interest has always been the first two generations of the Anglo-Normans, when there weren't many "titles" - if you weren't an earl, you were just either a "lord" or not. I've long been influenced by Susan Reynolds' ideas on feudalism, and try to keep from imposing later notions of "titles" onto a situation that didn't really have many of them. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Right, then I agree. I just wanted to say that I think there are other reasons that it is historically interesting to work through what happened between the Norman dynasty and the later situation where things became formalized. I don't think the 12th century is one which really appeals that much to people who are mainly fascinated in titles. Too messy. But occasionally historians, and therefore our articles here, do refer to what they think happened. And as in the case of Hasculf de Tany, and Ralf Baignard (Norman era chaps), the best observations are often scattered and disconnected, and therefore sometimes difficult to assess. Could you access the articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, while it's great you're adding information - it's really ... rude.. that you're not even trying to follow the established citation style. What you've done is just add a bunch of work for me. And are you citing the RRAN for an original charter or the commentary? As a rule I folow, I studiously avoid citing primary sources ... there are very very very few exceptions, but it's a lot easier to avoid OR when you don't add any primary sources. I'm sorry if I sound cranky, I just got home from an extended road trip, I'm trying to get my stuff/office back in order to work, I had a work meeting this morning (working for a computer gaming company sucks sometimes), and we came home to a plumbing issue that my spouse is currently trying to fix and it's making HIM cranky. While normally I'm greatly up for discussing this stuff, it's going to be a bit before I have too much bandwith to spare (probably Tuesday for any thing solid, although I'll be able to pop in and out before then). Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, I'm sorry to read this reaction. My apologies for catching you at a bad time. OTOH you do not need to do anything. The above discussion was not meant to be about any specific article. Concerning the Hasculf article it is on my watchlist and I would have edited it anyway. Please put comments on the article talk page if you really feel there's a problem (but there is no deadline!). I'll try to address anything I can, if I can. Of course if you see OR, say so and we can remove it, though obviously neither of us need to follow any individual Wikipedian's personal "rules", and if you're seriously asking me to delete a perfectly respectable source there should be good reason (such as avoiding OR). I'll have a look at the RRAN citation again, but in principle OR is of course not the same as "primary sources". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not, but interpreting primary sources is best done outside Wikipedia - and unfortunately I've run into too many cases where folks use primary sources badly. Not saying you are, but I'm a bit jaundiced. I don't have that volume of the RRAN (nor access to it any more), as my main focus when I was still doing actual research was Rufus and his dad, rather than Henry and his daughter, so I can't check it. I'm not upset - it's just annoying that I'll have to fix the citation style, as I was trying to groom up Hasculf for a GA push, when I have the time (which is why I was digging for sources again - and thus the post on the talk page so I'd get back to the source once I got home from the road .. heh). And I just wanted to let you know that normally I'd be all up on a long dicussion - just not now ... (We did get the plumbing issue solved, so I have hot water in my shower once more... amazing how much that improves your mood ...) Ealdgyth (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good to hear about the plumbing. Of course I get your point about primary sources as a general comment about stuff that happens, but OTOH I am against the simplification of rules on WP because that leads to problems. I'm also a little bit worried about your insistence that my writing to you here to mention some links, or my adding of information to an article, somehow gives you work. IMHO that seems wrong on several levels, firstly because no one is demanding anything. Anyway I'll look at it now once more, and see what I can do to help with your aims as I now understand them. The citations don't look like that much work though, so is there something you are specifically worried about in those? Let me know and I'll do what I can. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. It took a few seconds to find an RRAN III link: [1]. You're welcome. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not, but interpreting primary sources is best done outside Wikipedia - and unfortunately I've run into too many cases where folks use primary sources badly. Not saying you are, but I'm a bit jaundiced. I don't have that volume of the RRAN (nor access to it any more), as my main focus when I was still doing actual research was Rufus and his dad, rather than Henry and his daughter, so I can't check it. I'm not upset - it's just annoying that I'll have to fix the citation style, as I was trying to groom up Hasculf for a GA push, when I have the time (which is why I was digging for sources again - and thus the post on the talk page so I'd get back to the source once I got home from the road .. heh). And I just wanted to let you know that normally I'd be all up on a long dicussion - just not now ... (We did get the plumbing issue solved, so I have hot water in my shower once more... amazing how much that improves your mood ...) Ealdgyth (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, I'm sorry to read this reaction. My apologies for catching you at a bad time. OTOH you do not need to do anything. The above discussion was not meant to be about any specific article. Concerning the Hasculf article it is on my watchlist and I would have edited it anyway. Please put comments on the article talk page if you really feel there's a problem (but there is no deadline!). I'll try to address anything I can, if I can. Of course if you see OR, say so and we can remove it, though obviously neither of us need to follow any individual Wikipedian's personal "rules", and if you're seriously asking me to delete a perfectly respectable source there should be good reason (such as avoiding OR). I'll have a look at the RRAN citation again, but in principle OR is of course not the same as "primary sources". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, while it's great you're adding information - it's really ... rude.. that you're not even trying to follow the established citation style. What you've done is just add a bunch of work for me. And are you citing the RRAN for an original charter or the commentary? As a rule I folow, I studiously avoid citing primary sources ... there are very very very few exceptions, but it's a lot easier to avoid OR when you don't add any primary sources. I'm sorry if I sound cranky, I just got home from an extended road trip, I'm trying to get my stuff/office back in order to work, I had a work meeting this morning (working for a computer gaming company sucks sometimes), and we came home to a plumbing issue that my spouse is currently trying to fix and it's making HIM cranky. While normally I'm greatly up for discussing this stuff, it's going to be a bit before I have too much bandwith to spare (probably Tuesday for any thing solid, although I'll be able to pop in and out before then). Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Right, then I agree. I just wanted to say that I think there are other reasons that it is historically interesting to work through what happened between the Norman dynasty and the later situation where things became formalized. I don't think the 12th century is one which really appeals that much to people who are mainly fascinated in titles. Too messy. But occasionally historians, and therefore our articles here, do refer to what they think happened. And as in the case of Hasculf de Tany, and Ralf Baignard (Norman era chaps), the best observations are often scattered and disconnected, and therefore sometimes difficult to assess. Could you access the articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- When I said "less interested in the titles" - I was mainly referring to the obsession some folks have about tracing this "barony" or that... my main interest has always been the first two generations of the Anglo-Normans, when there weren't many "titles" - if you weren't an earl, you were just either a "lord" or not. I've long been influenced by Susan Reynolds' ideas on feudalism, and try to keep from imposing later notions of "titles" onto a situation that didn't really have many of them. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Many thanks for all your great contributions to FAC source reviewing over the years, which keep nominators honest and help uphold the integrity and standards of the entire process. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
AE case closure
Dear Ealdgyth, many thanks for your input in this AE case. The case has been there for 3 weeks now, with two admins, including yourself, willing to impose topic ban. Would you be happy to close the case per that consensus? There is a risk it may get archived, without justice served. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 20:53, 12 February 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) 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the vast number of thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. In particular source reviews of cunning thoroughness, exquisite detail and nuanced conclusions. They are very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
- You may regret this... I have my eye on a couple of FACs where I can get on my soapbox...Ealdgyth (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Go for it. About time we had some excitement. And you know that we rely on you to keep our standards up.
- Er, exception: Unless the FACs are mine, in which case I suggest you forget the whole idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Manasser Biset
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manasser Biset 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) 01:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)