User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 64
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)
- the plain link is just like all the other links and will be less confusing to new editors. There is also an upper limit on the number of templates that will display on a page, so avoiding templates used just for the sake of templates strikes me as a good thing. I generally haaahve a link in the infobox, in the article text, and in any footers, as people are likely to view any of those sections on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 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:
Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.- Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.
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).
Administrator changes
Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
- Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
Technical news
- You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
- There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
- Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)
Miscellaneous
- Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 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) 11:42, 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)
- Besides Chrimes' equating the two in the period of the Dialogue, we also have Bryce Lyon in A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England p. 261 where he says (describing the working of the Exchequer in fitzNeal's day) "Beside the treasurer sat his scribe (later called clerk of the pipe or pell)..." I'm afraid that's the only mention of either type of clerk in the whole work that I can see, and it's clear the Lyon sees them as pretty interchangable. W. L. Warren in THe GOvernance of Norman and Angevin England mentions neither clerk in his discussion of the workings of the Exchequer. Note that S. K. Mitchell, in Taxation in Medieval England describes the "lower" exchequer but does not call them "clerks of the pells" or anything other than "clerks of the treasurer". Nor are the "upper" clerks called anything but plain clerks. Finally - turning to the Dialogue itself - the index for the edition of it edited by Emilie Amt, published by Oxford in 2007, has no entries for either "clerk of the pipe" or "clerk of the pells". It does, however, list many other types of clerks, including chamberlains clerks, queens clerks, chancery, constable, etc. Nor does the section on the lower exchequer's office mention the title of "clerk of the pells" - the only clerk mentioned is the treasurer's clerk. Nor does the description of the "upper" excheuquer mention a "clerk of the pipe" by that name. I don't have Chrimes easily available - we're moving and it's packed up, but I'm pretty sure he does call the clerk the "clerk of the pipe". You're welcome to double check that - it's possible that someone inserted the title in later without actually checking the source. I'm not saying that there wasn't a division like you're describing later in the medieval period, it just doesn't appear to date from the period of the Dialogue. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, at least I've made you aware of my misgivings and as I'm not a Professor of English History I will leave it there and move on to other things. It might well be so that over 700 years the nature of these posts, their titles and the relationship between them evolved and developed and its not until about 1500 that individual clerks are identified by name. That's half way through the time span. Plus the posts seem to have been more of a political favour than a 9 to 5 grind and nearly all the incumbents were primarily politicians. The last Clerk of the Pipe was a 9 year old aristocrat - I can't see him doing much clerking.Plucas58 (talk) 00:56, 12 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)
- How odd. I've definitely noticed an "uptick" in interest in him - more of his works seem to be singled out for various "best of" lists, at least. Interesting. Good work! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Avenue has always had a special reputation, & the Getty has bought 2 pics in recent years, which may be a factor. He doesn't do that well in WP views.Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 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'm not actually planning on voting in the board elections, so I have no plans to do a voting guide for it. Anyone else out there know of any? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 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'm not actually planning on voting in the board elections, so I have no plans to do a voting guide for it. Anyone else out there know of any? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 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)
- They are adding a mix of secondary and primary sources. That's not really the problem, it's that they don't seem willing to try to learn how to edit properly - either with using references properly or with refraining from editorializing. And attempting to learn on such a high profile article isn't a very good idea. I'm not sure what the second account is supposed to accomplish. I find that I'm not in a very "forgiving" mood lately - fighting sinus issues and just generally cranky all around. I just don't have it in me to deal with the hand-holding necessary to help this editor/editors to figure things out. Any TPSs who want to take the project on? On the plus side, the WP:Core Contest is starting Sunday night and I've got The Holocaust on my list of things to work on, so hopefully we can whip it into shape some. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK thanks. Hope your sinuses are all better soon. I'm dealing with spring allergies, yuck. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rivertorch: Ugh. Now we're getting copyright violations. I'm sure we need to check the other contributions to see if the same thing occurred before. I've left a note on the article talk page as well as on what I'm assuming is the main editing account's talk page. If you could help make it clear this is a big no-no, that'd be great. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the Article Blamer results correctly, there is currently no content remaining in the article from either Perlman account. However, they both have contributions to related articles going back a couple of years, and there's no way I have the time or the patience to comb through each of those. The safest thing at this point would probably be to block the one account, on grounds of incompetence, and request a SPI on the other, but I really don't know if we're to that point (and I'm in too good a mood tonight to set foot within a hundred light-years of ANI, anyway). I'll leave another note on the user's talk page and continue to keep an eye out, but I wonder if extended-confirmed protection would be an option. I can make the RPP request, but I'd like an admin's opinion on whether it's likely to be granted. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- This admin isn't really up on RPP stuffs so I have no idea if it'd be granted or not. I will say that I doubt we'd get extended-confirmed because it's not more than one or two folks. @Justlettersandnumbers: - any advice on the copyright problems? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- You've got mail. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- This admin isn't really up on RPP stuffs so I have no idea if it'd be granted or not. I will say that I doubt we'd get extended-confirmed because it's not more than one or two folks. @Justlettersandnumbers: - any advice on the copyright problems? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the Article Blamer results correctly, there is currently no content remaining in the article from either Perlman account. However, they both have contributions to related articles going back a couple of years, and there's no way I have the time or the patience to comb through each of those. The safest thing at this point would probably be to block the one account, on grounds of incompetence, and request a SPI on the other, but I really don't know if we're to that point (and I'm in too good a mood tonight to set foot within a hundred light-years of ANI, anyway). I'll leave another note on the user's talk page and continue to keep an eye out, but I wonder if extended-confirmed protection would be an option. I can make the RPP request, but I'd like an admin's opinion on whether it's likely to be granted. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rivertorch: Ugh. Now we're getting copyright violations. I'm sure we need to check the other contributions to see if the same thing occurred before. I've left a note on the article talk page as well as on what I'm assuming is the main editing account's talk page. If you could help make it clear this is a big no-no, that'd be great. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK thanks. Hope your sinuses are all better soon. I'm dealing with spring allergies, yuck. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:35, 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:
- roll back to before that large edit (undoing some minor and mostly misguided copy-edits and a lot of edit-warring)
- revdelete from there to the current revision
- think about a second small rollback, to this version, to remove the unreferenced plug for an exhibition at Auschwitz (with no copyvio that I can see)
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)
- Thanks, JLAN (I think you don't mind that abreviation? If you do, sorry!). That sounds good. I am not sure if I should do the revdelete or not - I suspect I'm a bit too involved to safely do it. If you'll go ahead and start that? Hubby and I are going out tonight for mom's day (sorta kinda) and I can handle removing the bit about the exhibition at Auschwitz when I start working on the article for the Core Contest. Probably just as simple to just edit it out rather than do a rollback. I suspect there are more copyvios on the subsidiary articles that I just don't have the books in from ILL yet for. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 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)
- I took the liberty of moving your section to the bottom of my talk page, which is where all conversations on talk pages should start. See WP:TALK for more information on using Talk pages. Barek removed your edit because, as he said in the edit summary, that we don't use bare web links in articles. This is detailed at WP:EL. I strongly urge you to pick another article to learn on. Trying to edit on a high profile and relatively well-developed (and such a contentious subject) article as a newbie is going to be very very difficult. You really need to take your time and learn how to edit before plunging into editing on high profile subjects. Editors of such articles have very high standards and are not going to be willing to put up with newbie learning mistakes. It isn't other editors job to go around and clean up edits from other editors, especially when the same mistakes continue to be made. Wikipedia is a very complex editing enviroment and it can take a long time to get your feet under you. It's best to do that learning with a mentor - you can ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE for help. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 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)
- I generally don't want to set the preferences because I don't want the harrassment that often comes from such things. I wasn't really so much testy as sorta amused..... it keeps coming up and coming up... As for Neddy - I'm not sure that his putting some of my subpages into his own subpage back in 2007 and 2008 means that much, as I really can't recall that we interacted ever - and I see that the interaction tool shows that we've only ever edited one talk page in common - and we did not interact on that page (I rated it for a project and he moved it afterwards). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 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)
- I really am not a good choice as a mentor - I'm super busy in my real life and do not have a lot of time to mentor. And, frankly, I'm a pretty poor mentor/teacher for wikipedia anyway. You're better off listening to Carole. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Henia I would be happy to help you out. You have shown a really good attitude, and it is difficult learning the ropes here. If you want any help, just drop me a note on my talk page. I am not always around, but I will usually get back in 24 hours. Please leave a note giving me an idea on what edit you want to do. This will save you getting reverted and I will try to explain to you whether the edit is a good idea or not. I will try to get you up to speed with the basics first. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:31, 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)
- Oh, I know that feeling, the one of "where did I put that book, which box is it in?". Worse, we're trying to move (slowly, slowly) so some books have been packed up for a year or more so I'm having to buy second copies cheap because I can't just keep getting them from the library! No worries on the arms, I've almost given up on the whole fight about the stupid little flag icons. Not sure why folks are so bloody attached to the things... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- You realise that you're a Yank but you've been editing on British subjects too long when 1) you can't remember if it's correct Am-English for "realise" or "realize" and 2) you use the word "bloody" in a sentence that doesn't describe fluids... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 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)
- Actually, no, I did not put the reference in the correct template - that would be how it was explained to you on your talk page to use the template that starts "sfn". I just slapped some ref tags around it while I try to figure out what exactly the work IS. You haven't actually given enough information to figure out what the work is, however. Is this the work edited by Dear & Foot? Or some other Companion to World War II? And see the new section on the talk page of the article, where I express some concerns about putting in information where it appears that you do not actually have access to the source any more. This is a problem - you'll want to read WP:VERIFY. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 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).
Administrator changes
- Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
- ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
- Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
- An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.
Technical news
- Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 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) 11:44, 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) |
- To stop any escalating issues I have formally offered to WP:Mentor H. I have asked her to run any proposed edits over with me on my talkpage. Hopefully this should improve things. Irondome (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I"m off to return library books and pick up a few more. I also ordered a pile of used books from Amazon... they should be overwhelming my poor mailperson shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great job! I am thinking that that will include supporting stuff for the destruction of Mengele's medical records by Otmar von Verschuer in the medical experiments section. I am staggered that a person with such a history could slip seamlessly back into the post-war science community. Scary thought..Irondome (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I"m off to return library books and pick up a few more. I also ordered a pile of used books from Amazon... they should be overwhelming my poor mailperson shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth I strongly recommend the book by Yahil.Henia Perlman (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
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.
