User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 64
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
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) 21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason you prefer circa to {{circa}}, as here? My reading of the MOS is that the template is preferred because (a) it's a less intrusive style of link (b) it uses <abbr> (c) it suppresses a line break. Also, MOS suggests that second and subsequent uses not include the link (using lk=no). That's how I've been consistently using it. Thoughts? David Brooks (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gisa (bishop of Wells) 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. 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 equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
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) 11:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Gisa (bishop of Wells) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gisa (bishop of Wells) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
In the above article, of which you are so protective, has a statement "According to the Dialogue, the Pipe rolls were the responsibility of the clerk of the Treasurer, who was called the Clerk of the Pipe and later the clerk of the pells" which bothers me. As I understand it:
The Clerk of the Pipe worked in the Upper Exchequer maintaining a sort of Nominal ledger concerned with credits and debits.
The Clerk of the Pells worked in the Lower Exchequer maintaining a cash book, recording actual cash paid in and cash paid out.
i.e. the two jobs were different and one did not become the other. The corresponding lists of incumbents (Pell Office and Clerk of the Pipe) both start in the medieval period and continue unbroken to 1834.
Plucas58 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Now given a quickish makeover, as a by-product of The Avenue at Middelharnis. But there isn't much on him - lots of unanswered questions. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I know you do voting guides for Arbcom elections; do you do one (or does any TPS know of one) for the board elections? Surgery went well, by the way; thanks again for the good wishes. I am probably not going to type too much for another couple of days, just to avoid overdoing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I know you do voting guides for Arbcom elections; do you do one (or does any TPS know of one) for the board elections? Surgery went well, by the way; thanks again for the good wishes. I am probably not going to type too much for another couple of days, just to avoid overdoing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks for your revert. I'm about at my wit's end with this user. I've gone out of my way to be helpful (see User talk:Rachelle Perlman#Refs and minor edits), but she just doesn't seem able or willing to learn how to do the basics. Yesterday, another user with similar name and making similar edits joined her at the article (see contribs). That looks like an obvious sock, although I guess it might be a relative—but if so, it's basically a meatpuppet. At any rate, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to evaluate the content they're adding or the sources, and I'm unhappy at how few active editors seem to be watching the article. Do you think some kind of page protection might be in order? I'm still AGFing (AingGF?) and think it's a WP:CIR thing, but it's just possible I'm being trolled. Hope you have a beautiful weekend. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi, saw the ping! Sorry to be slow to answer, quite a lot to look at there and the Blamer tool seems to be playing up. Rivertorch, it seems to me that Blamer is misleading you and that the text of this edit is still in the article, because Joel Mc stuck it back after Robby.is.on removed it. That's 8k of fairly fluent text, containing at least one copyvio that I've been able to identify. Ealdgyth, I couldn't immediately see where the copyvios you noticed were added (again, blame the Blamer), but I think it must have been after that large edit (marked minor!). What I suggest:
I can deal with all of that (except the revdeletion, which I can only request) if that's what's wanted. I did look a bit at the rest of the article, there's a small amount of overlap with the Yad Vashem site that still needs to be sorted out, but it's only a sentence or two. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, as I don't know how to talk to you. Barek undo my editing, despite the fact that Longerich does not mention the US in p. 307 of his book. I will appreciate your help Henia Perlman (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for caring and explaining. I agree that "Holocaust" is a contentious subject - I have been researching it and teaching it for almost 20 years. I am retired and I am trying to help ensure, with your help, a neutral and reliable history of the Holocaust, without prejudice. 1. I will be more careful with my editing. 2. I am requesting only the page numbers, and not a "A full citation," for citation 'b' next to note '3' in the article "Holocaust" - It is not reliable to only write: "Further examples of this usage can be found in: Bauer 2002, Cesarani 2004, Dawidowicz 1981, Evans 2002, Gilbert 1986, Hilberg 1996, Longerich 2012, Phayer 2000, Zuccotti 1999.
I wrote: [page needed]. I would like to see a page number, as per example (I am making up the numbers of the pages): Further examples of this usage can be found in: Bauer 2002: 5, Cesarani 2004: 32, Dawidowicz 1981: 65, Evans 2002: 78, Gilbert 1986: 450, Hilberg 1996: 220, Longerich 2012: 151, Phayer 2000: 14, Zuccotti 1999: 98. 3. A contributor to the section Wannsee Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust a temporary solution leading up to a final solution that would involve some 11 million Jews living not only in territories then controlled by Germany, but in major countries in the rest of the world including the UK and the US.[190]
I checked 190 -Longerich 2010, p. 307-, where UK and the US are not mentioned in the e book: “11 million Jews, a figure which was broken down by country in a statistical addendum to the minutes, This list not only includes Jews living in areas under German control, but also those of Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, … and Turkey. Included in the 700,000 Jews for unoccupied France are those of the North African colonies.” https://books.google.com/books/about/Holocaust.html?id=cxYqYIn73SgC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=snippet&q=11%20million&f=false I edited by paraphrasing from the correct information written in Longerich 2010, p. 307. And it seems that Barek or somebody has been constantly rejecting my edition, at least twice, and restored the false information. What should I do?
As an involved former Holocaust educator, I have seen how some respectable Holocaust institutions and scholars have twisted Elie Weisel’s statements regarding the Holocaust victims, by shortening it: What I remember was the full Wiesel quotation to President Carter: Not all the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish, but all Jews were victims.
Wiesel is now quoted: 1. Not all the victims were Jewish, but all Jews were victims. 2. In the Holocaust all Jews were victims (something similar) I do care very much about reliable and neutral source and information, in order not to give ideas to Holocaust denyers. Thank you Henia Perlman (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan de Neville (forester) 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 QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for doing OTD maintenance from WP:ERRORS. Standard operating procedure for when you remove articles because they are no longer eligible is to move them to the staging area so that someone can re-evaluate them next year. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 08:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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) 11:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Alan de Neville (forester) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alan de Neville (forester) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have access to this article from Nature in 2012? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I do, at least at university. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
...for referring to you as "him". I'm so sorry.
I see further up the page that this has been a source of frustration for you so I hate that I have added to that. In your preferences, you can check the box that reads "She edits wiki pages" and that will make it evident when someone hovers over your username. It would have helped in this case because I did that but it didn't have an identifier for you.
I won't make this mistake again.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I truly appreciate it. I will try to read better the instructions of Wiki, but it's hard for me to understand them. Can I ask you to help me more?
Thank you. Regards. Henia Perlman (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem, as I am sure you are aware, is that what started out as attributed arms (based on the just-so-story that two lions for the Norman kings - presumably representing Normandy and England - and one for Eleanor's Aquitaine, were combined to produce the three-lion Plantagenet royal arms) came to be used as the popular arms and flag of Normandy. For this reason, I have not been as active in removing or demoting it as I am for other attributed arms. It is probably a legitimate image to have on the Normandy template, as long as no claim to antiquity is made. The bigger problem I have run into in this cleanup is that it is hard to win a content dispute when someone attributes to Eleanor or William the C one of these arms and can cite one of the various sloppy popular heraldry books that have repeated the attribution of these false-arms without qualification. I need to dig out my copy of Adrian Ailes' study that goes into detail on every documented arms used by the first generations of the Plantagenets (including, notably, the future king John using this two-lion coat) that I could then cite, but alas, I have no idea where I packed it away. Agricolae (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
My goal is to improve the article, in its current prsentation. It is very clear that the Holocaust (class B article) needs improvements in its content and its structure.
One must present a tentative definition of Nazism and its symbol, the swastika, which were not in the original article. The style: some sentences seem not to connect - I edited that, and I added a reference in "Ideology" that aonther editor requested. And how one decides which source is better than another one, especially when my editing rely on Bauer, Browning, Longerich, Gilbert, and Yahil.
I am new. I thank you all for your patience, and your help to edit with the goal of improving the article, Holocaust. I am sure we want to improve the article, so it becomes class A.
I will post this message in TALK so everybody understand that I am behaving in good faith.
Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for putting the reference with correct template. I think that chapter 40 (14 pages, if I remember) is enough, as there, Bauer compared the Holocaust to other genocide, and the current sentence in "Ideology and scale correctly summarizes the spirit of Bauer's article in chapter 40.
Thank you again.Henia Perlman (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
For your outstanding efforts on verifying sources and on your sensitive and thoughtful maintenance work on The Holocaust over the past days. Bloody good job! Irondome (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
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) 11:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Geoffrey Talbot 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the fourteen FAC source reviews and the regular review you did during May. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC) |
Ealdgyth I strongly recommend the book by Yahil.Henia Perlman (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.