I absolutely despise talkpage templates. Please do not use them on my page, if you really want to keep my goodwill. If you do use one, by all the gods, sign it so it archives and put it in its own section!

PLEASE NOTE: I'm trying to actually edit those pesky things called articles more, and spend less time on other stuff at Wikipedia. (Thus, why I'm no longer doing much at FLC) Please understand that it might take me a while to respond to your requests for a source review, etc. I'll note that if you've done favors for me in the past, I'm MUCH more likely to jump at things quickly. (In other words, I can be bribed.) Thanks, guys.

I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. But if I left a note on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, as I'm watching your page for a bit.

If you want me to look at something, either an article or a peer review or a GAN or FAC, please please please include a link. I get a lot of requests for this sort of thing, and it's a lot easier if you include a link.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RL0919 31 9 0 78 01:46, 26 December 2009 5 days, 12 hours no report Polargeo 47 24 0 66 15:11, 23 December 2009 3 days, 2 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by SoxBot (talk) at 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews needing feedback: Update: December 15 • Pune • Serotonin December 14 • 2009 World Series December 13 • Basketball Association of America • Fortress (Square Enix) • Scientific opinion on climate change • Special Relationship December 9 • Territorial era of Minnesota December 7 • The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest December 5 • The Climb (song)

FACs needing feedback edit North Carolina class battleship Review it now Flag of Singapore Review it now Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Review it now Post Oak Mall Review it now Trump Hotel and Tower Review it now 2008 Obama assassination scare Review it now Qwest Field Review it now Winter War Review it now Dancing the Dream Review it now Urgent FAR/FARCs edit Canada Review it now Ann Arbor, Michigan Review it now Technetium Review it now Shuttle–Mir Program Review it now

Arbitration changes • purge • v • d • e  Requests for cases Name   Link Date     Target date SeanNovack and Marlin1975 (link) 18 December 2009 — GiacomoReturned (link) 18 December 2009 — Jehochman's block of Drolz09 (link) 16 December 2009 — McCready edit warring topic ban (link) 7 December 2009 — Open cases Case   Pages Date Drafter Clerk Target date Evidence and Workshop Tothwolf (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 13 November 2009 SBa MB&DW 20 December 2009 Voting Motion to close or dismiss Eastern European mailing list (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 22 November 2009 Co&NYB KL 20 December 2009 Recently closed (see all) Ottava Rima restrictions (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 17 December 2009 WZ Sed&AGK Asmahan (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 14 December 2009 WZ HW Socionics (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 12 December 2009 Ca MB&Lv Clarification and amendment requests Case   Link Date       Requests for Clarification (Currently none.) Requests for Amendment Lapsed Pacifist 2 (link) 11 December 2009 The Troubles (link) 17 November 2009 Motions Name   Link Date     Target date Open Motions

Contents 1 Reviewing 2 Thanks 3 DYK for Robert de Chesney 4 Meet Mellitus! 5 Talking points 6 Four Award 7 Four Award again :P 8 Interesting new website 9 Mellitus 10 7th Infantry Division FAN 11 Cyclura nubila peerreview 12 Marwari horse 13 DYK for Ralph Basset 14 Re: Pond Eddy Bridge PR 15 Shale oil extraction peer review 16 DYK for Walter de Coutances 17 ISS FAC4. 18 peer review battle of yarmuk 19 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver 20 If you want... 21 Talkback 22 Gilbert Foliot 23 Edit summary 24 I think you need this 25 Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured 26 Taxes taxes oh the taxes 27 Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Japan/archive3 28 [1] 29 Talkback thingie 30 Open question 31 Talkback 32 Ealdred for Xmas? 33 Philip the Arab and Christianity 34 Wikipedia:Peer review/Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu/archive1 35 13 John

Archives

Archive 1 May 2007 to Jan 2008 Archive 2 Jan to April 2008 Archive 3 April to 15 May 2008 Archive 4 15 May to 30 June 2008 Archive 5 1 July 2008 to 26 August 2008 Archive 6 27 August 2008 to 10 October 2008 Archive 7 11 October 2008 to 13 January 2009 Archive 8 14 January 2009 to 26 February 2009 Archive 9 27 February 2009 to 9 April 2009 Archive 10 6 April 2009 to 1 June 2009 Archive 11 2 June 2009 to 25 August 2009 Archive 12 24 August 2009 to 14 November 2009 Archive 13 14 November to ??

[edit] Reviewing

Apparently I've missed out of the chance to go over William, being promoted already. Congrats on that anyway. I guess I can get straight to Hemming's Cartulary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Hemming's is gong to be a bit, I've got to track down who owned the manuscript. It appears that it might have been owned by Matthew Parker before getting into Robert Cotton's hands, but that's another whole set sources that have to be consulted... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I went over it and left some comments. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for your excellent work at FAC. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Robert de Chesney

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert de Chesney, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Meet Mellitus!

• The sentences in Mellitus are looking a bit rat-a-tat-tat — kinda all the same length and similar structure etc. Reordering some phrases/clauses, adding a couple snakes and a couple short sharp sentences etc. for variety would be good. As always, I haven't had time to really really look at it, but it looks pretty good as far as I have seen. It doesn't have any sentences that seem misplaced to me. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well... I'll try. (more like, I'll let Malleus keep massaging, it's safer that way..) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh pressure. I can't handle pressure. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No pressure would be begging either of you to polish up Walter de Coutances, which I just spent the last TWO days expanding. I hate hate hate the Angevins... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Greenway volume 3 described once as "Lincoln: Archdeacons of Oxford" and once as "Lincoln: Bishops of Lincoln"?

• Because we're going to two different urls there, one to a subpage dedicated to the archdeacons one to the subpage dedicated to the bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is it Loyn or Lyon?

• Loyn, annoyingly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Angevins don't hate you. Where is the love?

• They haven't showered me with jewels yet, so I'm not seeing the love...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are "itinerent" and "comission" British sp.?

• I'm not even sure they are correct Yank spelling (laughs) I cannot spell, so spelling is subject to change without notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Possessives -- stop me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they all be "Coutances's"? Anyhow:

• "Coutances family"
• "Coutances' part"
• "Coutances' attempt "
• "Writing about Coutances time "
• "Coutances' ambition"
• "obey Coutances' if "
• "under Coutances' successor"
• "Coutances's suffragan bishops"
• "end of Coutances service"

• I was taught, years and years ago, that names ending in s were made possessives with just an ' at the end. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's your choice. I prefer "s's", as in "Burns's", because that's the way you'd say say it (or at least the way I'd say it), but "Burns'" is OK as well. Whichever you favour though, obviously the article needs to be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I went through earlier and caught all the above to Coutances' ... I do not claim I caught them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like you never wikilink "see". I added a link to Episcopal see to your other article; hope that's the right link. In any case, you need to link the first instance of this term in every article...

• It's so you feel useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talking points

RE:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hawaii hotspot/archive2

• http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172197 was cleared by WP:RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RS query.
• Current ref 51 ("The Horn of Africa". On the Volcanoes of the World. Science Channel. 2009-06-06) is this a TV show? If so, you need to give a bit more information in order to make it clear to readers.

I added "Tv show" under work. Is that good?

• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted SDSU, NYU, but there may be others.

Cleared as far as I know, except for the K### thing at the end as it identifies itself as such.

Other stuff which has been cleared already has been left out :) ResMar^Hohoho 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) YOu still need to address the DK juvenile encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about that. Gimmie a moment...ResMar 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Barbara L.

Cirt (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Four Award again :P

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Urse d'Abetot.

Cirt (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting new website

I thought you might like to take a look at this, if you didn't know about it already. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I did not. How... handy for my work on Leges Henrici Primi (whimpers). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mellitus

I've left a few more comments on the article's talk page, and when they're done or dismissed as risible I think the old boy will be ready for FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Infantry Division FAN

Hello. I have responded to your concerns at the 7th Infantry Division FAN page and was wondering if you had any more. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclura nubila peerreview

Thanks for taking the time to read that piece and offer criticism. I went back and adjusted all those references, a few url's had moved since I first put the sources there (2007) and my formatting was hit and miss back then(obviously more miss!). The only one I did not fix was the very first one. It's a template used throughout the animal articles for IUCN...should I ditch it and use CITE WEB or something similar? Thanks again, looks like you have a full plate already!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky trick... just take the accessdate out of the template. I've done it for you on the page. You must promise to only use these powers for good though! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Cool! Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marwari horse

Thanks for the peer review comments. I've replied, could you please take a look and see if my arguments for certain sources are valid? The link is Wikipedia:Peer review/Marwari horse/archive1. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

they look good. The one you removed was the "worst" of them, I was pretty sure the DNA one would work, but wanted you to start thinking prior to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Ralph Basset

On December 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Basset, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pond Eddy Bridge PR

There, replied to your comments. The 1903 movie is a phonograph movie by Edison Manufacturing (Thomas Alva Edison). Feel free to take a look.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shale oil extraction peer review

Dear Ealdgyth. Thank you very much for your peer review. I answered to your comments at the peer review page. In general, removed all sources you questioned, except Laherrère, which I explained why this source should be considered reliable, and Farkas, which I listed at the WP:RS/N for comments. You also asked to spell out abbreviations in the notes. Could you please specify, which abbreviation you exactly mean? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The one I really noted was USGS. You're all over the place with it, sometimes USGS (which most folks even in the US won't know what it means) or United States Geological Survey. You need to be consistent, and I suggest, given the lack of knowledge of most folks about what USGS means, settling on United States Geological Survey. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find any 'USGS' in the text or notes. I think that this was used in some earlier versions, but in the current text I am not able to find it. Could you please give the exact sentence or note where it is? Beagel (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Seem to have caught them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Walter de Coutances

On December 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter de Coutances, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] peer review battle of yarmuk

hi, thanks for your suggestions they were really helpful. u gave a total of 8 suggestion, i am done with 7 of them, the one tht i couldn't understand was Alphabetize your references. wht actually did u meant by saying tht please explain it to me. regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your source section, the various entries are not in alphabetical order, which is the standard practice for most FAs. Check out William Longchamp, for an example. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• siege of damascus
• wht should i do ? except for gibbon there is no other source tht illustrates siege of damascus in such a detail.

by the way almost all the references given to gibbon in the article are further supported by modern sources, so is it all right using gibbon since wht ever he stated is now supported by modern historians as well. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then cite the modern historians instead. It's always better to cite the newest sources possible, in order to show that you've consulted the best possible sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• if i remove gibbon then density of references will gonna look less (9 references r given to gibbon from total 48 references.) i remember in past, one user said for peer review of battle of yarmuk that "density of references" is low, so wht am i suppose to do if some in AFA again pointed tht out ? i m in either case trapped from both sides....

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone is going to point out the outdatedness of Gibbon, however, so you're probably best by... citing the information to newer sources (which you claimed above backed up Gibbon's information, so it shouldn't be an issue.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• now thats the problem,,, those sources tht back up gibbon are already cited in the article. they are nicolle and akram.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem citing them again, quite honestly. You can use a source quite a lot in one article, without it being a problem. Also, can you please indent your replies with colons (:) when you reply? If you need help with how to edit talk pages, see Wikipedia:Indentation. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks, thts a good idea i will do tht, many thanks for ur help.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver

Hey Ealdgyth. I responded to your comments at the FAC page for 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver, and was hoping you could give me some feedback at your earliest convenience. As I said there, it seems to be that most of the sources in question are used for information regarding the assessment of the threat or the media coverage of it, and many of them are used in a very limited context. That being said, I'm anxious to hear back from you more to see if you think some of the sources should go, or if some can be used if the text or prose is changed a bit... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] If you want...

You could always send a few curve balls my way. I'm sure I can handle a fairly general article of another type. RB88 (T) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trust me... I don't want you burning out. I aboslutely HATE popular culture and music and celebrity and movie FACs... you're doing PLENTY. ISS wasn't really badly sourced, just a lot of citations to check... always annoying. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Colds7ream (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert Foliot

With all due respect, what you regard as trivia is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a learned treatise on medieval history. I am an historian by trade. I am also interested in films. The two are not mutually exclusive and I do not regard the portrayal of an historical character in a serious film as being trivial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page of Gilbert. I dont' have a problem with the information if its discussed in secondary sources as being of importance to Gilbert (or any of the other bishops you've inserted the information into), but when it's just a bare listing without secondary sources, it has no significance, according to my reading of the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Great edit summary. Didn't understand a word of it :-). Btw, I've responded on the FAC. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL... my browser will "autofill" edit summaries, and sometimes if I'm in a hurry, I don't look too close and get one that's really related to some other article... glad you enjoyed my boo-boo! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I think you need this

Better than a barnstar, one of my favorite wiki- articles: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I'm not a fan of appeals to authority. (Heck, at the moment, I guess I am technically a historian, too!) Enjoy, and chin up! Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the two I'll need is already at FAC, and should pass in the next week or so (it has two and a half supports and no opposes). the other is at PR... should be able to make it with no problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taxes taxes oh the taxes

I reviewed yours, so now can you review mine? :) ResMar 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Japan/archive3

Most of the time, the FOTW page is the only English pages available. So what I have is the official Japanese laws or drawings on the flags, followed by FOTW so anyone who does not speak Japanese can at least figure out what it is. Everything else I have done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [1]

Thanks for your note and review: it means a lot having another person take time to see the work! I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over the article again now the references are inline. I have tried to pull the classic powerful studies such as Cochrane reviews, systematic reviews to ensure the science is the good stuff. Ashley Payne (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback thingie

adding date so it'll freaking archive. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Open question

Is Tammen notable for anything other than being Patrick Swayze's horse? Should we keep or prod tag? Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think he won a national championship or anything. He was/is a nice horse, and all but... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My thinking, too. I may prod tag it, but I wonder what the probability is it will be readded. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good, would be my guess. The real question is, what could the possible sources be? Strictly speaking, there probably are enough "independent" sources to do the article, but is it worth digging for them? And mainly, the articles have been done because he was Swayze's horse... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it. We will see if anyone cares. The main sources will probably be Swayze's biography where he waxed mystical about the horse bit, apparently (at least according to the MAH article). And the promo stuff on the book -- Which I had more than an adequate dose of during AHA. Nice fellow and all that, but the tributes, lordy, the tributes... got a bit old. Probably will be a thing for another six months and then we won't have to worry about it.:-P Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

thanks for comments.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ealdred for Xmas?

Have you thought about nominating Ealdred (archbishop) for December 25, [2]? Christian holy figure, Christian holy day ... makes sense, and this was the day he crowned that dirty usurper king. ;) Or maybe another bishop is more appropriate? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Err.. no. I don't nominate for main page, because I hate main page day. Especially not Xmas, when I will be madly scurrying trying to clean up before the relatives descend on me for a visit until New Year's...

[edit] Philip the Arab and Christianity

Hello, Ealdgyth.

I very much appreciated your past help on my articles in peer review and at GA candidacy. Would you consider helping me again? I am currently in the middle of a GA nomination for Philip the Arab and Christianity, and I seem to be at loggerheads with the reviewer, Wandalstouring. In addition to points of dispute on content outlined in his comments and my replies in the review, we are in dispute on some very basic points of procedure: he finds it impossible to review an article written without detailed edit summaries, and I find it impossible to work with a reviewer who does not respond to points of dispute on the GA review.

He has requested a second opinion on the article on the GA nominations page, and has previously requested that I seek outside guidance on content, context, and style; he does not trust me on my own recognizance in these matters. As he wrote on my talk: "Your edits have not convinced me you are capable of handling the problems on your own within reasonable time, so do try to get some outside help?" Would you be willing to assist? I would be very much obliged if you were.

Regards, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Drop a note to Malleus also? He'd be a good one to have look at it, as I"m not sure I'm going to have a lot of time to devote to the issue. What is the main problem that Wandal is having with the article, anyway? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Malleus: Will do.

I think Wandal's main problems are: (1) that the article does not do enough to contextualize the evidence presented, and (2) that it does not (I am not as sure on this point) make its structure clear and readable.

He also has a concern that the article does not reflect "scientific opinion", which sounds completely absurd to me. When he uses the word, I feel like I am entering some weird pre-Popperian universe. I am currently following works published by Dumbarton Oaks and Historia, which are, as far as I am aware, just about the most positivist publishers in the English-language Classics market. Is this a language issue? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dumbarton Oaks is, from my recollection, the premier publisher of late Antique and Byzantine secondary works. Keep in mind, I initially intended to study early Christianity in college, but got seduced by Anglo-Norman studies, so while I have a working knowledge of the time period you usually write in, I'm not as well versed as I would expect for more medieval subjects, but the two folks I took grad seminars with that were studying the late Roman and early Byzantine time period were always reading something put out by DO. I read the review page, and read both of your talk pages, and I still can't quite make heads or tails of what is going on. You've read enough of my reviews to know that I favor rather explicit "this is wrong and here is why" reviews, but everyone is different in their reviews. I'll try to get to things tomorrow or this weekend. I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked it over, and while it's very much an article you've written (i.e. very dense and full of citations) there isn't much that I can see that's "wrong". I did do a google scholar search, and turned up the following:

• Michael Peachin (1991). "Philip's Progress: From Mesopotamia to Rome in A.D. 244". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 40 (3): 331-342. 
• David MacDonald (4th Qtr. 1981). "The Death of Gordian III: Another Tradition". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 4: 502-508. 

which might be of help. Nothing jumped out at me as "wrong" with the historiography of the thing. Like you, I'm completely thrown by the use of "science" and "scientific" which seems very odd in a historical article. Malleus would be a better person on the prose than I. You seem to have covered most of the available literature... odd that more hasn't been written about Philip! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the check-over and the Scholar search. (I no longer have access to JSTOR and the like. Can you send me the PDFs?) The skimpiness of the literature is probably a reflection of the skimpiness—and confusion!—of the surviving evidence. We have the epitomators, the Historia Augusta, Herodian, the Sibyllene Oracles, a bunch of coins, Zosimus, Cyprian's letters, and we have Eusebius. Forging narrative or analytic history out of this soup is not an enviable task; a reviewer of the Cambridge Ancient History²'s chapter on the emperors of the period, by J. Drinkwater, called it something like drudgery: a bare and uninspiring list of usurpations, invasions, and titles. Philip is right in the middle of all this, and the most any of the secular sources have to say about him is that he had a big festival in Rome, made an unhappy peace with the Persians, and probably murdered his predecessor. And these things, too, are lies (or so John York tells me), circulated to bolster the prestige of Decius and the old Latin nobility. Sigh. Better to work somewhere with big stocks of letters, documents, and inscriptions—the late fourth century, the Nicene affair, or the years covered by Pliny's epistles. Or do archaeology.

Well. You have reassured me: I no longer feel like I am going insane. I will follow Malleus' advice: ask Wandal to fail the article, and bring it up through GAR. I will wait a bit first, though. Thank you again for the read-through. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Next time I go up to U of I, I'll try to remember to get those pdfs. I don't have access here in town any more, so it's an hour trip to the University of Illinois for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've put a copy of the pdfs here. Let me know when you've downloaded them so I can take them down. (P.S. Ealdgyth, if you ever need anything from JSTOR, I'd be happy to save you the trip. I can access it from whatever computer I'm sitting at.) Dr pda (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Got them. Thanks, Dr pda! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

U of I unwisely gave me a courtesy borrowers card. I've been busy taking out my limit, suitably "acquiring" them, and returning them, so going up there is something I do about once a month to turn in the old stack and get a new stack, but should I need something in a hurry, I now know who to ask! (Required nag... Epikleros.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am actually working on Epikleros at the moment! Last week I finished going through all the ~400 Google Books results, which resulted in a list of about 100 books I need to consult. I've spent the last couple of evenings at the library and have knocked this down by 15. With luck I might finish this list over the Christmas holiday, though I suspect this may depend on my girlfriend :) Dr pda (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not incur the wrath of the girlfriend on my account, by any means. I know when my family arrives after Xmas i'm going to be too busy to do much.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu/archive1

we have addressed all the concerns raised by you. Thanks for your help. --CarTick 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 13 John

this is most interesting, but could you explain based on what you come to this conclusion? --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, common knowledge among historians of the time is that indeed, 13 John or 5 Richard or 2 Henry II means the given year of the king's reign. Also, common sense... "...copies of the important Inquisition returned into the exchequer in 13 John." Does that Bible chapter talk about an Inquisition turned into the Exchequer (i presume the English Exchequer is meant here)? I checked on Wikisource, and 13 John is about the Last Supper and betrayal of Judas, hardly anything about a Inquisition. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I might add that it would be easier to discuss if the information was inline cited to something specific rather than three different books generally. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)