User talk:Daytrivia

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

Edmund Sheffield[edit]

This article has been expanded and referenced since I added the notability tag, and so I'm happy for it to be removed. Thanks. NostinAdrek (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Joan of France, Duchess of Berry[edit]

I've heard of various forms of "marriage before marriage" -- betrothal, precontract, marriage by proxy -- but I've never heard of a marriage being "recognized by the Church" at a later date than it occurred. In 15th century Catholic Europe, Christian marriages were made by the Church, and so automatically recognized by the Church; if the marriage was somehow said to have occurred without ecclesiastic involvement, then it wouldn't be "unrecognized", it would be totally invalid. As far as I can tell, the marriage may have been agreed to in 1473, but the actual ceremony of marriage was not held until 1476 -- possibly because Jeanne and Louis were too young in 1473. In any case, it seems that the 1476 date is the effective one, and that Louis and Jeanne were not living together as husband and wife before that date. RandomCritic 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this site, Louis and Jeanne were contracted to marry on 19 May 1464, very shortly after Jeanne's birth; Louis' mother, Marie of Clèves, contested the contract and tried to have it annulled; and 20 October 1473 was the date on which she was finally persuaded to agree to the validity of the contract, with the marriage following on 8 September 1476. RandomCritic 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link! RandomCritic 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rochester[edit]

Have you any information on poems falsely attributed to Rochester? It would make an interesting point about his reputation. JoeBlogsDord 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any solid evidence yet about poems attributed wrongly to Rochester. I am trying to find a place that list all of his impromptus about Charles II. I have read where he made as many as 14 variations including the one on the page. I would like to have a link or citation pointing to the others. One site that mentions several is: [1] Daytrivia 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Notability of Henrietta Villiers[edit]

A tag has been placed on Henrietta Villiers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ozgod 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Re: Eleanor Talbot[edit]

Hello. This was clearly a cut-and-paste job so I've removed the whole text. Well spotted on your behalf too, even if it has been there for over a year now - better late than never. Regards, Craigy (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your EAR[edit]

Hello,

You recently posted a request for editor assistance (subject: "Charlotte of Bourbon"), and there have been a few responses. Please review the comments and let me know if they were helpful.

Feel free to leave a note on my talk page; better yet, post your remarks below the responses provided. Cheers, --Aarktica 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello again. Your request for feedback regarding naming conventions (subject: "Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier(->):) was marked as resolved. Were the comments at all helpful? Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page regarding this matter. Cheers, --Aarktica 21:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The information you provided was very helpful indeed and quite logical. I appreciate your prompt and efficient response. I just wanted to double check if, for instance the French "Henri" stays "Henri" and not changed to "Henry" in English. Your examples were very clear and "nips" my curiousity in the "bud" so to speak. Again thank you. Daytrivia 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Glad to see everything worked out for you. In the future, please leave a note with your request; such an update makes it easier to see if any further action is necessary. Cheers, --Aarktica 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Emanuel Scrope, 1st Earl of Sunderland[edit]

A response to your comment: Not at all, and please feel free to add more content and references!

More on my talk page, and thanks.

wikibiohistory 11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Notability of John Hooker (Connecticut court reporter)[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on John Hooker (Connecticut court reporter), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because John Hooker (Connecticut court reporter) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting John Hooker (Connecticut court reporter), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John Hooker (Connecticut court reporter)[edit]

Hi - I have copied the deleted text to a user subpage; you can find it here -User:Daytrivia/Temp. Once you've updated the article so that it passes notability, just move it back to the original name. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ward Beecher[edit]

(text copied for reference)

Hi Lendorien, you recently made references inline which is fine but I had used the MLA style which is similar to the Harvard indicated at [2] because it may "can be simpler for the reader than flipping back and forth to footnotes or endnotes full of "ibid" citations."

"For a quotation that is within the text and marked by quotation marks, the citation follows the end-quotation mark ("), and is placed before the period (.), "like this" (Smith 2005).

No problem just curious about our different motives. Daytrivia 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After further review of the article and having read several of the referenced books and material I am of the opinion that most of the content, not just the quotes, comes from them. With this in mind I believe it would be misleading to use a referenced book just for a quote. Naturally a quote should be properly cited (see above). I would prefer using MLA over Harvard because of the clarity of page number. A page number that is in the reference full citation section could be misleading beacause it refers to that particular quote when in fact a large portion of the article may come from that source and therefore the entire book stands alone without specificatioon to page number except after the quote itself. Daytrivia 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your rational seems logical. Go ahead and revert my edits. --Lendorien 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is great knowing there are editors like you keeping a watchful eye and working hard to improve and validate articles. Daytrivia 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham[edit]

Circle-style-warning.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham. Thank you. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Margaret de Stafford[edit]

Hi, I found the reference of Richard Glanville-Brown at The Peerage, Person page 10 Noles1984 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition - I wonder if the email is still valid for Richard knowing how peoples addresses change from time to time... surely the mailing address might yield something. Noles1984 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A White Pages search produced an R Glanville-Brown (undisclosed box number) at Route 2, Milton, ON with a phone number of (905) 335-3927 Noles1984 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Perhaps it will be easier to find the "correspondence" mention. Again thank you. Daytrivia (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Frances Sargent Osgood[edit]

Hi, I see we are both helping out with this article. Please feel free to alter anything that I do, or make suggestions. I love to do the research but I do not fancy myself any kind of writer and my grammar is terrible! Thanks - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Sheffield, 1st Baron Sheffield of Butterwick[edit]

Hi Daytrivia. I think it's best to leave a note for that editor, explaining what you'd like to do with the article, and ask him/her whether you can remove the tag. The second option is to upload your material ASAP, ensuring it meets the notability guideline (all it needs I feel is one sentence at the top explaining why he's notable), and then remove the tag. If you've worked on it to address concerns, then you'd be in your right to do so. Hope this helps, and if you need any help, let me know :). PeterSymonds | talk 08:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(An addition) It also seems that his notability as a "1st Baron" would have made him notable in his own right. Services to the king etc: if he was made a Baron then he must've done something right, and must've been pretty notable at the time. Just a note to explain what he did might do the trick; I don't think this would be deleted at AfD even as it is. PeterSymonds | talk 08:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs! Good luck with it. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wriothesley, Countess of Southampton[edit]

Hi Daytrivia. Hmm, the quote did seem a bit out of place, and a reader unfamiliar with her wouldn't understand the significance. I've expanded that section a bit to establish context; I hope you don't mind the changes. As for the name, yes, it's tricky, but accuracy has to come first. "Elizabeth Vernon, Countess of Southampton" makes her look like an unmarried life peer. She gained her title upon marriage, so we shouldn't refer to her maiden name as part of her title (in my opinion; I can't find any naming conventions to back that up unfortunately!).

If the maiden name is more significant than the married name, then maybe the article should be at Elizabeth Vernon; what do you think? The title and maiden surname should be kept separate I think. PeterSymonds | talk 18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I suppose it does keep things in one place. I think the way it is now is appropriate, especially as Elizabeth Vernon redirects there anyway. I think if it's the full title, the maiden name should be replaced by the married name, and then the maiden name made clear in the lead. If you approve of this, maybe the other articles could be moved for consistency. PeterSymonds | talk 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's frustrating at times! I'll leave a note on WT:MOS and WT:NC, and hopefully that can get the naming conventions going. I've moved a few pages in the same way so I hope you approve. When I've got a response I'll let you know; hopefully you can add your contribution to the potential discussion as well. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've started the discussion here: [3]. PeterSymonds | talk 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. I think I've moved all the pages (Elizabeth was moved to Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester (1556–1621) because of another page at that title). Best, PeterSymonds | talk 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Giles Daubeny[edit]

I guess I didn't realize there was a preference to either. I thought it looked a little messy having the Google Books link all by itself, so I combined it with part of the reference. Go ahead and change it to whatever you think looks best, since you have more experience with this type of article than I. Hope this clears it up. Psychless 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change that will hopefully please both of us. Tell me what you think. Psychless 01:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Despenser/Despencer[edit]

I'd certainly agree that the medieval Despensers should be at this spelling, but I'm not sure about the one you created. Presumably you saw it spelled that way somewhere. Orthography wasn't standard in the middle ages, but later generations may have standardised on the "c" spelling in later years, for all I now. So we need redirects where there are dead links. Deb (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Earl of Galway[edit]

At first I agreed, and moved the page (similar to where Marquis de Lafayette is). But I'm not sure to be honest. Theoretically the highest title is his hereditary French title "marquis", but then that could be redundant to his English style. I'll do some research on the matter in the next few days; I'm not quite sure at the moment. Thanks for your patience. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: notability tag[edit]

I see an article that doesn't really say why she is notable, rather who she is related to. Therefore, why does she deserve an article? This reasoning must be expressed in the prose. --Tom (talk - email) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid Tom's right, the article isn't really notable at present. I'm guilty of having created "genalogical" articles before without any notability too, so I know what's it like.
However, There's a painting of her by van Dyck on the net, so you could add that. The only notable things I can find are that their marriage was a clandestine one and Pope Urban VIII sent Cardinal Mazarin to Louis XIII to persuade the latter to accept the marriage (as well as to restore Lorraine to her brother, Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine, and to prevent Cardinal Richelieu engaging in war with the Habsburgs). [4]. Good luck! Craigy (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that article's not particularly notable either, but most can usually be improved in some way or other. If you think nothing more can be added, you could take it to WP:AFD. Craigy (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: notability/nobility[edit]

Thanks for your message. I understand people's points, but I'd be upset if dozens of articles were taken off, they chart the history of generations of the families who have run England. It's good to see I'm not the only one who thinks they're important Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Date linking[edit]

Even though date linking is not an issue for me, I think you have a good argument for keeping the discussion open. I admire the fact that you are taking a stand. Thanks for the update. - Epousesquecido (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on Dmadeo's page. I wonder whether you've looked at this page and its ancilliary pages. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about the matters raised there. Tony (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tony but the page you want me to see [5] doesn't seem complete. There is mention of "two years" worth of evolution of the DA discussion, however, the first time I became aware of it is reflected by the first post of this section when I thought Epousesquecido did it. Now, only a few days later, I see it more and more.
From other discussions I read where many nonregistered users don't see what we see, but this is not the case with unregistered users that I assist everyday. So it is difficult for me to grasp not being plagued with it. I do not "log in" at the library information desk and both the researcher and I are seeing the same thing. Personally I think DA is a benefit for the users I know. I prefer the seeing blue linked dates over seeing them bare. The linked dates seem to be very useful and do not point to unrelated pages or "trivia" but rather expand the depth of research when needed. I hope that the issue can be resolved by improved templates.
My perspective probably falls into the "comfortable old shoe" syndrome, I guess. Thanks again for your communication and your concern. Please feel free to contact me again if you desire. Daytrivia (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Day, I don't understand how as an IP reader at your library, you could possibly see autoformatted preferences, since youd weren't logged in and thus couldn't have chosen a date preference on your personal preference page. I wonder whether this was via some library-wide log-in in which the library itself has chosen a preference. I've never heard of that, but it might explain it. The other issue is that you might not have sampled articles in which international dates are used, and in which there are mixed formats, the bane of our work as date auditers.
"do not point to unrelated pages or "trivia" but rather expand the depth of research when needed": can you provide an example of how either a month-day or a year link expands the depth of an article? Tony (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I will try (time allowing) to double check my assertion about what a library user sees in Wikipedia. Expanding the research not the article. There are huge benefits for doing research exclusively on Wikipedia, especially with the wonderful "clickable links" for instance: Trying to research 1854 economic development in America. Once they get to the year they can find out in a few more clicks what establishments (located in the "1854 in topic" info box) began that year. The information obtained can expand research quite effectively. Daytrivia (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Peerage Articles[edit]

Go to my jump page here "Sources" on CountyHistorian.com and you will find a great number of printed sources on the British Peerage that would be acceptable. Some of these are free on Google Books, such as Burke's Peerage. Be sure to cite to the page number where you find the relevant factoids. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry Augustus Wise[edit]

You added an external link to Henry Augustus Wise which contains no more information about the subject of the article than is already there. When I removed it, with that comment, you simply reverted me without even an explanation. I would appreciate it if you would address the topic; I have created a section on Talk:Henry Augustus Wise for the purpose. Tb (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. When it seems as if your changes have been lost, please always check the edit history to be sure. Tb (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Brugge, 5th Baron Chandos[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Thomas Brugge, 5th Baron Chandos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Aka042 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work[edit]

Daytrivia, you are doing a great job creating so many articles on noblemen and women. Keep up the good work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Names[edit]

Hi, generally we use only one forename and redirect the full name (there are however exceptions from this, mostly for disambiguation or if the subject of an articles was better known by more forenames). In this case I see no reason for a longer name, so Sarah Trench, Countess of Clancarty would be the correct place.

By the way, be careful with articles about wives of peers! They are not automatically notable and I would consider Sarah Juliana Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty an AFD-candidate with a fair chance to be deleted. It would be not bad to provide the article with a reason for her notability. Best wishes

~~ Phoe talk ~~ 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sarah Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sarah Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability?

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kittybrewster 11:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Phoe (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wives of peers[edit]

I don't think User:Erik9 had any grounds for removing the tag from Sarah Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty. His and User:JeanneBoleyn's personal preferences when it comes to notability is after all irrelevant, there are guidelines for this. As Phoe said, you have created the articles in good faith. However, in my mind there are great problems with these articles. Firstly, they are superfluous. All the material in, for example, Henrietta Margaret Le Poer Trench, Countess of Clancarty, is already covered in the article on her husband (with the exception of her probable birth year). A redirect would work fine here. Secondly, the articles are likely to annoy readers. When you see a blue link on Wikipedia, you expect to find an article on a noteworthy subject. With articles like the ones on the two Countesses of Clancarty, all you end up with is her birth dates, who she married, how many children she had and when she died. This is acceptable in a genealogical work but not sufficient to merit its own article on Wikipedia.

I hope you will consider merging some of the articles you have created on wives of peers into the articles on their husbands. I am not going to propose a mass cull of the articles but I would consider adding {{mergeto}} tags. Tryde (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Perhaps you should have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing. Tryde (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing for Logan's Raid[edit]

Interesting point; I'd not seen that before. Thanks for noting it.

Because each source is only used once, I've converted the article to inline referencing: as you can see at Citing Sources, this method is used when each source is used multiple times with different pages. It should be simpler, now that there aren't multiple sections for referencing. If you're going to add more references to each source, it's possible to use this format without having to create multiple complete citations: you can add {{rp}} after a reference to cause the page number to appear immediately after the reference number. If you'd like to see how this works, look at references 2 and 3 at St. Henry's Catholic Church (St. Henry, Ohio). Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Katherine Hervey, Marchioness of Bristol...[edit]

...is where I've put her. I have simple advice on peeresses for you:

  1. If she's more notable for pre-marriage stuff, give her her maiden name eg Lady Katherine Manners
  2. If she's more notable post-marriage, give her her married name eg Katherine Hervey, Marchioness of Bristol
  3. If it's about equal, go for the most common usage or most recent
  4. If she's not actually notable, she shouldn't have an article

Hope I've been helpful DBD 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there is no need for middle names. Use only her given name (not necessarily her first) and surname(s). (By which I mean surname(s) like "Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott" and "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" not "Lady Katherine Manners Hervey") DBD 00:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Newent[edit]

I was not certain about the correct that I made to the Wilmott article, but Derwent is certainly wrong. This is why I left a query in my edit note. To the best of my knowledge there is no river Derwent in Gloucestershire. Newent is on the Ell Brook a tributary of the river Leadon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Paulet, 2nd Marquess of Winchester[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article John Paulet, 2nd Marquess of Winchester has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY as no evidence provided for any act, feature, act of God descendeth upon him, or the tongues of gossips relateth, beyond being apparently related by birth to similar non-notables

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lady Margaret Butler[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Lady Margaret Butler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Genealogy-cruft, little notable about the woman herself.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Paulet, 2nd Marquess of Winchester[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article John Paulet, 2nd Marquess of Winchester has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:Notability, born, married, had issue, died. Titles do not bestow notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
nice article at Jennie Maas Flexner. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 02:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
not at all, hope you'll stick around and write more, in spite of the bitey culture. there's a nice editathon coming up Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Astronomy and Space Sciences Edit-a-thon - SpaceFest; remote editors welcome. these happen periodically. check out [6]; [7], lot's of support. cheers. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge†@1₭ 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)