User talk:The Theosophist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Catherine of Bosnia[edit]

Hi! I've reverted your revert at Catherine of Bosnia because the portrait actually depicts Isabella d'Este, being a retouched version of the Ritratto di giovinetta. See Catherine of Bosnia#Legacy. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, really. It's easy to understand why you assumed that my edit was unhelpful, considering the bizarre witchhunt at ANI. Anyway, thank you for your understanding. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. See Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course you may, but I am not entirely sure if I can answer correctly to that one. Is it not possible that A is B's legitimated child (legitimated through a decree, for example) by an unwed partner and thus not the son of C, or that A is B's adopted child who was not also adopted by C? Louis Auguste, Duke of Maine, for example, was Louis XIV's legitimate[d] son, but not the son of Louis XIV's only [undisputed] wife. Such situations rarely arise, and when they do, historians or biographers usually offer explanations, so I doubt any OR would be necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Any time! You can also ask the same question at Wikipedia:Help desk. You might get a more precise answer there. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:1930 John Nicholson Barran.jpg‎[edit]


--The Theosophist (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert John Abercromby, 7th Baronet[edit]

I noticed that you re-directed Robert John Abercromby, 7th Baronet to Sir Robert John Abercromby, 7th Baronet. Could you let me know why, please as I thought honorifics were not supposed to be used for article titles? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! Yes you are right that generally, "sir" and such honorifics are not included in article titles, but -per wikipedia guidelines- baronets are excepted because you can either call them both "sir" and "baronet" or nither.


  • Sir Robert John Abercromby, 7th Baronet (fine)
  • Robert John Abercromby (fine)
  • Robert John Abercromby, 7th Baronet (not fine)

--The Theosophist (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And of course, this does not apply only to article titles, but to article text, too.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I don't create many articles but will try to remember this when/if I do any more in a similar vein. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You're most welcome! Please check WP:PEER for the full wikipedia guidelines on peers and baronets.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


"A woman is a suffragette, while the male equivalent is suffragist." You are demonstrating your ignorance of the topic. In British history, the terms "suffragette" and "suffragist" are commonly used to refer to two distinct factions at the time in the struggle for votes for women, with the former term used to refer to the more radical group [1]. You appear to be falling for the etymological fallacy. The suffix "ette" is a derogatory diminutive that was taken up as a badge of honour by members of the movement. In other words, it is a de facto proper noun. Both men and women could be suffragettes or suffragists. Paul B (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Theosophist. You have new messages at TEB728's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.