User talk:Wikibiohistory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikibiohistory is busy with real life, but will attempt to get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your comments.[edit]

Current research topic (26 January 2010):[edit]

Ancient Rome: I'm working on the gens Aemilia right now, attempting to create or flesh out biographies of the Early to Middle Republic consuls from the stirps Paullus and Papus.

British aristocracy: I will post updates on British aristocracy births, marriages, and deaths, as and when I find them. Right now, I don't have time to do much more.


New talk should be posted here. For older notices, please see:

Locked myself out[edit]

so a lot of edits I did between April and November 30, 2008 are anonymous. I will try to list them later on a separate page. wikibiohistory (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Genealogy[edit]

I am extending this invitation to you because you are listed as a Wikipedian genealogist. WikiProject Genealogy seems to have ground to a halt, and I'm hoping to either "reboot" it or, if interest is lacking, eliminate it. If you are so inclined, please visit "This project's purpose" topic in WikiProject Genealogy Talk at your earliest convenience and respond to my comment. (You might have to scroll down a bit; my comment is mostly boldfaced.) If you are not willing or able to participate, please notify me of such in email, and I won't disturb you further about this matter. Thank you. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC) This was moved from a different talk page called User talk:Wikibiohistory/Userpage 7June2007/ (the original page has been preserved for the record).[reply]

I apologize for not getting back to you, but the last year has been a difficult one. I'll check this project out later. Wikibiohistory 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Cornelia Africana Major[edit]

I am looking for information on Cornelia Africana Major and so far have not managed to find anything more that what you entered into the Aemilia Tertia article a couple of years ago. I am trying to turn the red link into a blue link. It looks like you seem to know ten times more of this related information than anyone else around here. Can you turn this red link into a blue link? I started the article on Aemilia Tertia, but you seem to be the person that has improved it the most. Thanks for any help you may be able to contribute to this red link on Cornelia Africana Major, eldest daughter of Aemilia Tertia and Scipio Africanus. Basically I know nothing on ancient history, just interested in anything on Scipio.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug, I would like to help, but unfortunately I have little more information on her. I am not someone with a background in ancient history either, and like you, I like Scipio very much. I stopped editing that article (on Scipio) because I had no further information to offer at the time. Also, since I didn't have access to printed sources, some editors considered my (mostly online) sources unreliable. Barring a new biography on Scipio and his family circle and any new discoveries, I'm afraid that Cornelia Africana Major's life is the stuff of speculation. There are now editors who have a background in classical history; they might have more information. Good luck with our mutual obsession, and thanks for writing in.
wikibiohistory (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved lineage of the Earldom of Pembroke to a user subpage[edit]

I have moved the lineage of the earldom, which you recently added to William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke, to User:Wikibiohistory/List of Earls of Pembroke, where you can work on it as a separate article. This particular article is about a specific person, not the lineage of the earldom. I would support an article about the earldom generally, either as a regular article or as a list article; however, this is not the appropriate place for it. The challenge that the subject of the article faces personally (i.e., producing an heir) is already well described in the article. Please see also Wikipedia is not a directory, particularly item #2 (genealogical entries). Risker (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was not sure myself that it was appropriate there, and if it is :useful, it probably deserves its own space under the earldom of Pembroke, which :I think already exists. wikibiohistory (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Ballie[edit]

I reverted your redirect of "Lady Olive Ballie" to "Olive, Lady Ballie" because you should have used the move button rather than performed a copy and paste move. Using the move button preserves the article history. So I deleted the page you made, ready to move the original article to the new title. Then I looked for a source to support your assertion. This website disagrees. (Turns out this is a different person) Could you please provide a source to support your claim. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I moved it incorrectly, which you are right to criticize me on. However, I take issue with your argument that the name of the person is correct. She was never Lady Olive Baillie. She was born Olive Cecilia Paget, and was later Hon. Olive Paget, daughter of a younger son of a peer, who became a peer in his own right as Baron Queenborough. His title died with him - no sons. She married thrice, firstly and secondly to mere misters, and lastly to a baronet. At her last marriage, she was Lady Baillie. She would have been onwn as "Lady Baillie" during the life of her husband and as "Olive, Lady Baillie" or "The Dowager Lady Baillie" (the older form) after his death, when their son succeeded.
The wife of a baronet is NOT Lady Olive Baillie (the title given to the daughter of a duke, marquess, or earl), but is only styled "Lady [Family name]. If she is also the daughter of a baron or viscount, she can be styled "The Honourable Lady Baillie".
Here are sources on the lady herself, as you demand:
http://thepeerage.com/p874.htm
For courtesy titles, please see the relevant [Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom|Wikipedia article], or check out these sources
"A Baronet, on the other hand, received a title from the King which was passed on to succeeding generations through a direct Male heir, and was known as Sir (Sir Walter Elliot). Though his son might succeed him as Baronet, his children received no special designation (thus Miss Elliot, Miss Anne Elliot, etc.) His wife would be styled Lady ------, using the family surname instead of a place designation, as there was none. "
Burke's and Debrett's also have details.
The fashion in the British media for the wives of knights and baronets to be called "Lady [christian name][family name] is not only wrong (by custom and usage, as well as by precedent) but also confusing. Let's try to keep Wikipedia as accurate as possible.
wikibiohistory (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations[edit]

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus[edit]

Your input on my question at the Reference Desk on the subject would be appreciated. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions on the adoption seem to have been answered by others. I'll have to check for the references on his divorce and the adoption of his sons. There was no actual date in most of my sources, but only statements that Aemilianus's father divorced his innocent (and fertile) wife while their younger son was still a baby. In the Middle Republic society, a child was considered a baby until age 3 or so, so a date of 183/182 BC seems about right. I also conjecture (entirely my opinion in short) that Macedonicus divorced his wife after being elected consul for 182 BC, which election would have taken place around December 183 BC. The date of his remarriage, and the name of his second wife who outlived him, are unknown to me. Wikibiohistory 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I'm currently working on Lucius Aemilius Papus and his probable father after a long absence from Wikipedia, and will check out the Macedonicus sources later this week. Wikibiohistory 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Input request[edit]

Ancient Roman inquires[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to get back to this later, as it is not my current research topic for Wikipedia. Wikibiohistory 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:British MPs 1796-1801[edit]

I have nominated Category:British MPs 1796-1801 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to a different name. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported your motion. Thanks for drawing my attention to the error in date. It didn't occur to me! Wikibiohistory 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord Liverpool's mother[edit]

Hi Wikibiohistory - just explaining why I changed your edit about Lord Liverpool's mother. According to the book in footnote 3 she was part-Indian, also according to the biography of Lord Liverpool by Norman Gash. Of course it is possible that they are wrong. If there are any published sources that argue that they are wrong then we could put in something about a dispute.Southdevonian (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that either William Watts or "Begum Johnson" had Indian ancestry. Please see the following links for more:
    • William Watts, a Wikipedia entry, with footnotes, partly added by myself and partly by others
    • Frances Croke, a biographical entry, unfortunately with no sources provided except family archivists.
    • Ghosh, Durba, 1967- "Who Counts as 'Native?': Gender, Race, and Subjectivity in Colonial India

Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 6, Number 3, Winter 2005. available online; restricted access. This article probably provides the most current information, and I will have to look this up.

    • Ivor Edwards-Stuart. The Calcutta of Begum Johnson Published March 28, 1990 by BACSA (British Association for Cemeteries in South . link to openlibrary citation
Other references to Begum Johnson online include:
    • [1] "— Mrs. Johnson, the Begum Johnson (1725-1812) (75x62cm; 400x328pix, 23kb) _ The British Empire was not acquired in a fit of absence of mind so much as in a fit of absence of wives. Until the late 18th century, very few British women ventured to come to India. The original charters of the East India Company forbade women on its trading posts. About 1800, of the Europeans in Bengal and its dependencies, there were only 250 women as against 4000 men. The cost of landing a European wife at Calcutta worked out to Rs 5000, far beyond the means of ordinary company officials. A famous exception was the “Begum” Johnson (strictly, begum in India meant a Muslim woman of high rank), who was born Frances Croke on 10 April 1728 in Fort St. David, Bengal, the daughter of its Governor, Edward Croke [1690 – 12 Feb 1769]. (italics mine) She first got married at the age of 12 and took her fifth (but not last) husband when she was nineteen. On 24 March 1749 she married William Watts [1722 – 04 Aug 1764], Governor of Bengal; their daughter Sophia married George Poyntz Ricketts (1st), Governor of Barbados; their daughter Amelia [22 Dec 1750 – 20 Jul 1770 bur.] married on 09 February 1769 British politician Charles Jenkinson [26 Apr 1727 – 17 Dec 1808] (later 1st Earl of Liverpool), and died not long after giving birth to the future British Prime Minister (08 Jun 1812 – 17 Feb 1827) Robert Banks Johnson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool [07 Jun 1770 – 04 Dec 1828]. After the Begum Johnson died in Calcutta on 03 February 1812, having become the grand old dame of Calcutta society, she was given a state funeral. ". Her portrait is at the NPG.
Short of a full ancestry (ahnentafel etc) of Begum Johnson, we cannot be certain that she was part-Indian or not. Her portrait is ambiguous. However, to call her Indian would be correct in the language of that time. She was born in Madras and raised in India, and so counted as "Indian". Her mother's ancestry is not known, but her father was the very British Governor of Fort St. George (Madras). At best, if her mother was part-Indian, she would be part-Indian. That would not make her an Indian wife to the Englishmen then living in Calcutta, but rather an India-born English wife. There are wonderful books debating the nature of English and Anglo-Indian (then known differently) identity in early British India. Unfortunately, I don't think any books exist on the period before Lord Cornwallis and Wellesley, as materials are so scanty. Job Charnock's wife was Indian (apparently a Brahmin widow), but his daughters were apparently regarded as English and certainly married prominent Englishmen.
Wikibiohistory 00:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Rajesh khanna filmography */[edit]

We need your help in filling up the column of directors - which you can get from http://www.citwf.com/person241842.htm in the article rajesh khanna filmography in wikipedia.As you seen to be interested in working in wikipedia articles we would be gald if you contribute in filling up the DIRECTORS cloumn and in the NOTES column fill up the awards won and nominations won by khanna against a particular film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie de Condorcet[edit]

Hi, there is a strong similarity between [2] and parts of [3], which is reportedly from the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Could you explain? The article lists the latter in its external links; should it be in the references? --Chealer (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piso Frugi has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Piso Frugi has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Calpurnii Pisones Frugi[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Calpurnii Pisones Frugi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman consuls dying in year of consulship has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Roman consuls dying in year of consulship has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michael Warrender, 3rd Baron Bruntisfield[edit]

Notice

The article Michael Warrender, 3rd Baron Bruntisfield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage, and no notability claim. Never sat in the House of Lords, since this nobleman inherited his titles in 2005, after the House of Lords Act 1999. The Durham sources are primary and database entries only; Who's Who UK, Cracroft's peerage and The Peerage are all considered generally unreliable or deprecated (see WP:RSP).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Pilaz (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Warrender, 3rd Baron Bruntisfield for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Warrender, 3rd Baron Bruntisfield is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Warrender, 3rd Baron Bruntisfield until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Pilaz (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikibiohistory&oldid=1079168616"