# Talk:Ecgbert of York

Image:Sceat Ecgberht of York and Eadberht of Northumbria obverse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lapidge's little article on Ecgberht in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England credits him with the Dialogus, but says "other works which pass under Ecgberht's name, such as the Excarpsum de canonibus catholicorum patronum, or 'Penitential of Ecgberht' in Paris, BN, lat. 10575, are certainly spurious". As an aside, I have an undoubtedly public domain image of a coin of Ecgberht's, only it's rather small and blurry. I'm hoping I'll have more luck printing out a pdf image and then scanning that. We shall see. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add that in. We're still working off some of the 1911 text on here, I think, or at least someone else's text. The DNB shows the Dialogus as his, but I didn't see ANYTHING on the Pontificale anywhere I looked. I will admit that I'm not the best on who wrote what thing in Latin, all the titles tend to swim together in my brain after all these years. And I swear, did everyone have to write a Summa??? Ealdgyth | Talk 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

With these edits, the sources and information that were removed with very detailed explanations of why they were unreliable/unsuitable or did not support the given information have been returned with no edit summary whatsoever. The information is not supported by the references given or it is from unreliable sources or .. both cases for some of it. The solution is not to keep edit warring the information in, but to find better sources that actually support the information being given. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I've undone the recent edits by Pisarz12345.  Ealdgyth had reverted them with detailed reasoning but Pisarz12345 re-added the information without comment.  Per WP:BRD once an edit has been reverted the next step is discussion.  I had a look at the added sources and they don't look like the best choices to me -- two 19th-century encyclopedias and a religious website that does not appear to support all of the text it cites.  Pisarz12345, please don't re-add the information without consensus.  If you still think it should be added, please say why. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)