User talk:Lady Meg

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Meg! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 talk 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message

Please Meg look at the Duches of Cambridge ancestry section - it is ridiculous! All these "psiibilities"... "matinvl" seems like a fool. Cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.129.122 (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be at the bottom of the page so I will move it and respond there.

Hi Meg, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 14:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Hungerford

I presume that the list of children you added to the Walter Hungerford (Knight of Farley) came from the Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford article. Unfortunately the Anne Dormer article carried no citations. (I have since cited what I could from the DNB article on Walter). As the Walter article is fully cited, it is a retrograde step to add information which is not supported with a citation, so I have removed the list. If you can find a reliable source, then please re-add the information citing the source, and add a citation of the source in the Ann article. -- PBS (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources and put the children back up. I thought having the children listed would be easier. I checked the list with sources before I put it in the article. I never do anything on here without looking at sources first. I am a real stickler for that. I thought since they were listed, but not specified and had a source at the bottom of the page and the same list on their mother's page that it would be fine. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. I knew I should have added my sources before I pushed save, something was telling me to.. but alas I did not. They are there now though.
Meg E. McGath (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The One of the sources you used (Sir Walter HUNGERFORD of Farleigh, Knight) is not a reliable source, the other source appears to be reliable, but as it only shows a snippet, could you quote the rest of the text so we have verification that it covers all the information (and place it on the talk page of the article for other to see). Don't worry too much about the formatting of the citations, I'll do that once the citation is in place.
I have found an alternative source that will do for most of the information. But it lacks dates. A genealogical history of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited, and extinct ... by sir Bernard Burke p. 292 So we need another reliable source with DOB,DODs for the children.
--PBS (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that not a reliable source? People use that as a source all over wiki. I have never had a problem with that source before as I check it with other sources, I don't just go with one source. The guy who made that site didn't just make up all those entries or stories, they came from sources he used, sometimes they are listed, sometimes they are not. The site is not like wiki where all of the sudden you are required to put a source after every sentence apparently. Are we not allowed to use links? There are links on wiki all the time to other pages to find the source where people found their information. The link to that book is a full book online. It's not a snippet. It was just a link to the page where it said what I found, which was -- Inquis PM jas pt H By Anne Dormer Sir Walter had four children Edward who died young Susan who married i Michael Earnley 2 J Mervyn and 3 Sir Carew Reynell Lucy who married l Sir John St John and 2 Sir Anthony Hungerford of filackbourton and Jane who married Sir J Karne. Have you never used the Tudor Place for a source or even heard of it until now? I'm not sure why this is a problem all of the sudden. Is this your page or something that you created? This is what the Genealogical History says: Sir Walter Hunger ford Knt of Farley Castle to 1st Ann Basset and 2ndly Anne dan of Sir William Dormer Knt and had issue Edmund d p Susan m 1st to Michael Ernley Esq of Cannings co Wilts 2ndly to John Moring and 3rdly to Sir Crew Reynolds Lucy to 1st to Sir John St John of Lydiard and 2ndly to Sir Anthony Hungerford Jane m to Sir John Came Knt of Ewenny co Glamor gan
Lady Meg (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not on your watch list, please see Talk:Walter Hungerford (Knight of Farley)#Sources. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford is probably going to be deleted because of copyright violations. The article was originally copied almost verbatim from Anne Dormer Notes (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford). user:Moonriddengirl has looked into it further and it appear that the notes are copied from a book. Our paragraph that starts "Will Darrell was a notorious loose-liver, and surviving letters from Anne Hungerford to her "good Will" suggest that Hungerford's accusations..." is copied from the notes "'Will Darrell' was a notorious loose-liver, and surviving letters from Anne Hungerford to her 'good Will' suggest that Hungerford's accusations ... " which it turns out are copied from
  • Bindoff, Stanley T.; John S. Roskell; Lewis Namier (1983). The House of Commons: 1660 - 1690 ; 1, Introductory survey, appendices, constituencies,members A - B. Boydell & Brewer. p. 414. ISBN 9780436042829. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).
At least not all is lost. The additional information can be added to the Walter Hungerford article and if anyone wishes to, the original source and the DNB information on WH is enough to rebuild the Anne Dormer article if they are so inclined. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create that page and only added a few things I think. Why don't you just fix this yourself as you seem to have a problem with everything that other people write?
I see now that the page was created with the notes taken from the Tudor Place. Once again, no one would be aware that this came from a book unless there was a source on that Tudor Place page saying where the person who wrote it got it from. Therefore it is not the person who created the page's fault. Are we becoming sticklers for this, checking every little thing? This is a little extreme as there was nothing saying where the notes were from on the Tudor page. One would think it was notes, not copied word for word. Would it be okay to summarize and take the information from that source, but not copy it word for word?
Lady Meg (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas I am no longer enthusiastic about being on wiki as you sticklers have ruined it for me. Thanks a lot.
Lady Meg (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that.
I know you did not create the page. The problem comes that the person who did copied it just about verbatim from the notes no that page and the problem with that was that it turns out that those notes were copied from a published source. We have a strict copyright policy that includes a section called Using copyrighted work from others which is a legal requirement because the servers are in the US and the so Wikipedia must comply with US copyright law (The States being what it is I am sure there are lots of Lawyers who would love to get Wikipedia on copyright infringement which is why it has to be shown that the people who write here do what they can to removed copyright infringements). We also have a moral obligation over the issue of plagiarism, as is generally agreed in academic publications, which is covered by the plagiarism guideline.
Yes we can summarise other sources that is what we do as we an not do original research! And if the source is copyright expired, we can copy it directly into Wikipedia providing we give the appropriate attribution (see the plagiarism guideline). I was not suggesting that you had done anything wrong. I was just suggesting that as you had expressed an interest in the article, and you might not realise that it was probably going to be deleted, and that this would mean the page will become a red link. I was explaining what was happening and where you could find reliable sources if you wanted to create a new article. I doubt if I will do it myself, as my interest is the English Civil War and I created the Walter Hungerford articles because I was interested in the biographies of some Hungerfords who fought in the war, and the Walter Hungerford articles created from the copyright expired Dictionary of National Biography helped me sort out the relationship between those civil war Hungerfords, eg (Anthony Hungerford (roundhead), Anthony Hungerford (royalist) Edward Hungerford (roundhead) etc.) -- PBS (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you will be sticking around. In the future, if I can be of any help let me know. -- PBS (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth FitzHugh

Hacked up? :D Huh. Anyway, I removed that list because it was simply silly (for example, listing the Queen of the United Kingdom along with her mother and sister). She has countless notable descendants today and it makes no sense to mention just a few of them. Her descendants are not supposed to make her notable; it's not rude, it's a fact. If she is notable only because of her descendants, the article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a geneaology database. I did not take her out of the Tudor women category; she was not in that category at all.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given a cookie, because you have really been trying hard in good faith to benefit both Wikipedia and genealogy. Don't get frustrated, and hang in there. Bon appétit, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 05:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookie, wish it was real. I am trying as I just found two more trees, one on ancestry and one just on the web where the person was getting sources solely from wikipedia and the other was just copying other people's tree. Genealogy means a lot to me, I'm not sure why I care so much -- perhaps I'm becoming some what of a history buff and want to honor those who have come before by making sure their descendants are recorded properly. Perhaps I care too much sometimes. :(
Lady Meg (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 12:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do I respond to your email -- unless you want me to respond on your talk page.
Lady Meg (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can either just reply to the email from your email client, or if you don't want to reveal your registered email address, then you can use my Wikipedia email form here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especally welcome!

My dear, I just read your most informative biography, I'm sure you must be the second cousin of the third husband of my cousin, Dippy (Lady Diptheria Rampton-Broadmoor). He too was from a prestigious American family (or so he told her - it was very sad what happened, but no surprise to me - it was prohibition, it just brought out the worst in people). I digress, I too am related to most of the notable figures from history (the noble ones), we must unite and become a force to be reckoned with. Happy editing and welcome! Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psssst, just a hint here Meg as I know you Americans aren't very good at sarcasm....someone is taking the piss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.251.6 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely being polite to someone who gave me a compliment.. whether or not this person is for real I have no clue. Why didn't you sign your name? Actually I am extremely sarcastic for an American.. a bit too much sometimes. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..LOL, dude, you have just totally reinforced the above point about sarcasm and not getting it. She wasn't paying you a compliment, she was taking the piss out of the crashing snobbery of your User Page.81.147.149.18 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I got that. Is that why you're not signing your name and just re-posting over and over? I don't see how my page is being snobby. There are plenty of people on here that have pages like mine. There is no crime in listing facts about yourself. So please stop posting on here if you're only going to make fun of me. -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Succession Act

Adams & Stephens: Select Documents of English Constitutional History: "This part of the site contains the complete text of this classic reference work, first published in 1901. Documents range in date from the Conquest to 1885. The text is scanned from the US edition of 1930." is not any homepage. Please read the extract of the 1544 Act and you'll understand the issue. Please consider also that WP:VERIFIABILITY goes for articles, not for talk pages. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland

See talk:Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland. Normally an ordinary user can move a page with the tab at the top of the page. But if the target page exists and it is not a redirect they can not do it. Usually in these cases the user needs to put in a WP:RM request explaining why they want to make the move. In this case we can bypass that (as I am an administrator) but first we have to make clear exactly what it is that needs moving or possibly just cut an pasting text between articles (called merging in Wikipedia). What is not allowed is the cut an pasting of all the text from one article to replace the text of another that is called a cut and past move and is a no no for copyright reasons. -- PBS (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello. Our paths don't seem to have crossed before - which is surprising, to say the least. But I'm sure they will cross many times in the future! Deb (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Latymer and Baron Latimer

Thanks for your message. I have reposted it to a section called "Baron Latymer and Baron Latimer" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage where there are people with greater expertise than I who should be able to help answer you questions. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you direct me to them? Thanks for your help. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I see what you did..[reply]
Click on this link -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as the person on the Talk:Baron Willoughby de Broke said they are two completely different baronies even though it was explained by Opera hat. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather here.. it is the same title only a new creation of Baron Latimer as it states 'NEVILL -- BARONS LATIMER', not Latymer, made for Sir George Nevill (Neville), son of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, by writ of summons dated 25 Febraury 1432 was summoned as Lord/Baron Latimer.

"Memorable also is this Richard Lord Latimer for the dispute he had with Robert, Lord Broke touching the Barony of Latimer to which as next heir in blood to John Lord Latimer of Danby who died sp the 9th Henry VI he claimed a right But to end the contention the Lord Broke was informed by an herald that Sir George Nevill grandfather to Richard was created Lord Latimer by a new title which therefore lineally descended to Richard by Henry son and heir of the said George and that the Lord Broke had made a wrong claim who should have claimed his style from William Latimer first created Lord Latimer of Danby the head manor of his barony temp Edward L on this the Lord Broke perceiving his error and having a title of his own was contented to conclude a match between their children and Richard suffered a recovery on certain manors and lordships demanded by the Lord Broke in with which adjustment both parties were well satisfied-- BANKS." - from Burke Peerage -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Epidemic error. If you really think that a page is wrong then see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion but usually I think in a case like this you will have to go for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

However Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough page was created by User:Konakonian a sockpuppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino and several other pages by this sock have been deleted using Wikipedia:CSD#A7 so I am going to delete this page under Wikipedia:CSD#G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users).

You might like to look through the edit history of User:Konakonian and see if there are any other pages of dubious authenticity. If there are let me know and if I agree I'll delete them. BTW if you look at the user:G.-M. Cupertino page you will see links to categories of socks run by that user one I know you will recognise is User:LoveActresses.

Excuse my ignorance but what is a 'sockpuppet'? Also, someone went in then and reverted the Baron Cobham page back to the 21 September 2010 Mercurywoodrose edit. Do I have to re-make the pages that were lost again? Like Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough I'm guessing was deleted even though I tried to rename the page and fix the errors. Let me know. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work 8-) -- PBS (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a !"@$ing mess! I followed the links from Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough to Baron Cobham and have just gone through all those links deleting additions by sockpuppets of user:G.-M. Cupertino. This included deleting a dozen or so pages created by him/her with no sources at all! -- PBS (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me.. I didn't know what to do.. whether to let someone know or try to fix it on my own.. after awhile I was like "I can't fix all this.." and said exactly what you just wrote 'What a ...... mess!' How did this go on -- I thought once you were banned from Wiki you couldn't edit anymore. Like I said under the entry that LoveActresses left, will the pages deleted have to be made again because it looks like what I tried to do with renaming the page got deleted.. or am I wrong? -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppets

It is easy to have more than one account. For example I have an alternative account called user:PBS-AWB, because I sometimes use AWB to semi-automate changes and I do not want hundreds of those changes cluttering up my ordinary edit history. The term for such an account is a Sockpuppet account.

But if a WP:Sockpuppet account is used for nefarious reason for example to make it appear that several different editors agree on a point of view, when there is only one editor pretending to be more than one editor, or an blocked user uses an alternative account then that is not allowed. To help to stop blocked users just creating a new account and carrying on regardless their edits can be reverted and the new accounts blocked as sockpuppets.

The problem we have here is that user:G.-M. Cupertino almost never adds sources when (s)he makes a change. Sometimes (s)he adds information for which sources can be found. But often (s)he adds stuff for which there is no easily available source. The historian Richard J. Evans summed up this problem when discussing David Irving work

So apart from not rewarding cheats, the above is a better reason to delete all text added by user:G.-M. Cupertino rather than leave information in an article that may not be true. Therefor yeas I reverted the Baron Cobham, the information added by sockpuppets of user:G.-M. Cupertino to links to that page, and any pages linked to that page that sockpuppets had created. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sandbox

I have created a Sandbox page for you User:Lady Meg/Sandbox and placed in it the content of the last edit of "Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough". You can edit that page as much as you like, then copy the text into an article and then blank the User:Lady Meg/Sandbox ready for the creation of a new project.

Three comments on "Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough"

I do not think that www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk is a reliable source as they do not cite their sources. I think you need to find another source to confirm what they are saying.

You do not need to add "of Sterborough" to the name unless it is needed to disambiguate the page "Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham" will do.

Are you sure that Sterborough is in Kent because I have just been editing Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester and as footnoted there in her day it was in Surrey.

-- PBS (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, crofts peerage lists all the baronies, which I just use as a starting references sometimes, I usually use the books -- I did look up the baronies elsewhere, in the google ebooks, in the peerage books put out by Burke, Mosley, etc. In the book that was listed as a source for Thomas Cobham -- it says that Sterborough is in Kent. "COBHAM BARONS COBHAM OF STERBOROUGH CO KENT" -- Cobham of Sterborough, Co, Kent. If that book is correct, than Daryll Lundy's page is INCORRECT which I have been finding quite often lately. He states on his page that the 5th Baron was another Sir Reynold, brother of Sir Reynold, huh? -- [2] who married Lady Anne Stafford of Buckingham when it clearly states in the above link that Thomas Cobham married Lady Anne. It also states it here with the same sources only completely different name, perhaps he copied it wrong: [3] Should I write him yet again?! Take a look at this as well -- Topography of Surrey -- but this link says it's on the border of Surrey and Kent Sterborough Castle
Also, with making a new page for Thomas Cobham, we had the issue of another 5th Baron with the same name of the 3rd creation -- the name has not been taken as I'm guessing someone deleted the page -- how would we differentiate between the two if someone were to make another page?
Thanks for the sockpuppet -- I looked it up after wards... quite strange that a person would do something like that if only to make their work look more convincing by reassuring themselves. What person would not realize that the IP address would be exactly the same -- unless they got someone from across the US, oh wait, I'm giving people ideas! I'll stop. lol. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County boarders are not fixed they move around, so depending on the date that an event occurred a place near a boarder may be in one county but on the date it was written about in another and today in a third.
Here is an authoritative source:
The text comes in several formats, one easy to read is page 355 the other is in plain OCR text:

V. 1460? 5. Sir REYNOLD DE COBHAM, of Sterborough Castle,

apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord Cobham, but never so styled, uncle and h., being 2nd but 1st surv. s. and h. of Sir Reynold de C, by his 1st wife, Eleanor, da. of Sir Thomas COLEPEPER abovenamed. He suc. to the family estates on the death, s.p., of his niece abovenamed. He m. Anne, widow of Aubrey de Veer (beheaded with his father, the Earl of Oxford, 26 Feb. 1461/2), da. of Humphrey (Stafford), Duke of Buckingham, by Anne, da. of Ralph (Nevill), 1st Earl of Westmorland. He d. s.p.m. legit. ,[a 1] 1471, and was bur. at Lingheld. Will dat. 2 Apr., pr. 10 July 1471.[a 2] His widow d. Apr. 1472, and was bur. at Lingfield. Will dat. 12 Apr., pr. 2 May 1472.

Notes
  1. ^ Inq. p. m. of Sir Thomas de Cobham, 2 Edw. IV.
  2. ^ In it he mentions "my bastard son, called Reynold Cobham," to whom he leaves his manor at Pentlow, &c.
As it is a Public-domain source, providing you properly attribute it, you can cut and past it into the article Wikify it (get rid of the abbreviation, add appropriate link etc) and then expand on it.
BTW a link to this book and others in the series (and other PD volumes you might find useful) are in my library see User:Philip Baird Shearer/Library -- PBS (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- what I don't understand is where the Thomas is coming from then -- Why does Cobham of Sterborough, Co, Kent state that it was Sir Thomas who married Anne Stafford and had Anne Cobham who married Lord Burgh? Topography of Surrey says the same thing. Here, I know people don't like Stirnet for some reason -- but it says the same thing.. Cobham. Is there a mix up here? -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Page 351 and the creation of Baron Cobham (of Rundale) then look at the 5th baron on page page 352 could that be your Thomas? probably not but I am in a hurry to meet someone now so do not have time to look further. I suggest that you look through all the creations of Cobham in Cokayne book and see which one if any fits best. Please let me know here which if any it is.-- PBS (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also likely that Kent is a simple confusion (in Burke's? I wouldn't be at all surprised) with the rest of the family, which is from Kent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can put Kent to one side for the moment, and look at the name of the man.
  • I found the reference that the prototype article uses it is http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk and found by searching for "Thomas de Cobham", but the site done not cite sources.
  • I found the man in the link Cobham of Sterborough, Co, Kent that you gave to A genealogical history of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited, and extinct ... by Sir Bernard Burke on page 126 under "ii Thomas (Sir)" but no claim he was a Baron.
  • Daryll Lundy's page is based on the book by George Edward Cokayne, he cites his source, and is quoted above. I think we should go with Cokayne on this one but with the name "V. Thomas de Cobham" instead of "V. Reynold de Cobham". For my reasoning in the box below this:
Extended content

Looking at the A genealogical history of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited, and extinct ... by Sir Bernard Burke (pp. 124,125).

COBHAM—BARONS COBHAM OF KENT. By Writ of Summons, dated 8 January, 1313.

  • Henry De Cobbeham gave to that monarch 1,000 marks for his royal favour. This Henry had three sons, viz.,
  • Jobn De Cobbeham, the eldest son, executed in the 26th Henry III
    • John, his successor.
    • other sons and
    • Reginald, from whom the Cobhams of Sterborough sprang (see below).
  • John de Cobbehama baron of the exchequer, in the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I.
  • Henry De Cobbam, being then styled Henry de Cobham, jun. (his uncle Henry, of Bundell, then living), he was in an expedition into Scotland; and, in four years afterwards, he was constituted constable of Dover Castle and warden of the Cinque Ports. In the 10th of the same reign he was again in the wars of Scotland, and in the 15th he was made governor of the castle of Tonebrugge. He had been summoned to parliament as a Baron on 8 January, 1313, and in continuation for the remainder of his life.
  • John de Cobham, 2nd Baron Cobham, summoned to parliament from 12 September, 1342, to 20 November, 1360. This nobleman, who had been made admiral of the king's fleet .. In the 28th of the same monarch he was made a banneret.
  • John de Cobham. (3rd Baron?) was summoned to parliament from 24 February, 1368, to 9 February, 1406. In ... Richard II.'s reign being impeached, received a pardon, but was sent prisoner to the Isle of Jersey. Lord Cobham married Margaret, daughter of Hugh Courtcnay, Earl of Devon, and had a daughter Joan (1) who had a daughter Joan(2) who had a daughter Joan (3).
  • Joan (2) married 1st, Sir Robert Hemengdale, but had no surviving issue. 2ndlyl Sir Reginald Braybroke, by whom she had one surviving daughter (Joan (3)) 3rdly, Sir Nicholas Hawberke, but had no surviving issue; fourthly, Sir John Oldcastle; and 5thly, Sir John Harpenden.
  • Joane (3), m. to Sir Thomas Brooke, Knt. (see Brooke, Lord Cobham).
  • John de Cobham. (3rd Baron?) (d. 1409), leaving his above-mentioned granddaughter Joan(2), then Lady Hawberke, his sole heiress, who marrying subsequently Sir John Oldcastle, that gentleman was summoned to parliament, jure uxoris, as Baron Cobham, from 26 October 1409, to 22 March, 1413. ... Joane(3), by the heiress of Cobham, who d. young, and the Barony Of Cobham appears to have remained Dormant from the period of his execution, until revived in the person of John Brooke, great-grandson of the above-mentioned Joane de la Pole, in 1445.

I don't see a Thomas de Cobham in there.

page 125,126 also has:

COBHAM—BARONS COBHAM, OF STERBOROUGH, CO. KENT. By Writ of Summons, dated 25 February, 1342.

  • Reginald de Cobham, of Sterborough, sprung from the 2nd marriage of John de Cobham, of Cobham, with Joane, dau. of Hugh de Nevill, had a chief command in the English army at Creasy and Poicticrs, and was summoned to parliament from Reginald De Cobham, summoned to parliament 44th and 4Gth Edward III.
  • Reginald de Cobham, summoned to parliament 44th and 4Gth Edward III.
  • Reginald De Cobham, who m. 1st, Eleanore, dau. of Thomas Culpepper, and 2ndly, Anne, dau. and co-heir of Thomas, Lord Bardolf, and widow of Sir William Clifford. His issue were
    • I. Reginald, who d. v. p., leaving an only dau. Margaret, who was 2nd wife of Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland of that name.
    • II. Thomas (Sir), m. Anne, dau. of Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, and had an only dau. Anne, who m. Edward Borough, or Burgh, whose son Thomas was afterwards created Baron Borough or Burgh, by Henry VIII.
    • I. Elizabeth, m. to Richard, Lord Strange, of Knocking.
    • II. Margaret, m. to Reginald Curteys.
    • III Alianore, m. to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, iv. Anne, a nun at Berking.

Son ii must be the man in your sandbox but Berke does not state he was a baron nor does he state that his nice Margret was. (BTW I also see that a sockpuppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino has been busy in the articles Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland and Baron Borough in the same sort of way).

Cokayne pp. 353,55: COBHAM (of Sterborough)

  • I. Reynold de Cobham, of Sterborough, C') in Lingfield, Surrey, s. and h. of Sir Reynold de C, of Orkesden and Eynesford, Kent, by Joan, da. and h. (or coh.) of William d'Evere, was b. about 1295; was distinguished (1327-60) in nearly all the battles in France and Flanders; Knight Banneret 1339.
  • II. 1361. 2. Reynold (de Cobham), Lord Cobham, only s. and h., b. 1348, being aged 13 at his father's death,

[After (1372) 46 Edw. III no writ of summons was issued to any members of the family. Presuming the writ of 1347 to have established an hereditary dignit, those that would have been entitled thereto are as under.]

  • III. 1403. 3. Sir Reynold de CoBHAM, of Sterborough Castle, apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord CoBHAM, but who was never so styled, 2nd() but 1st surv. s. and h. by 2nd wife. He was b. 1381 ...
  • IV. 1446. 4. Margaret, Countess of Westmorland, and apparently, according to modern doctrine, Baroness Cobham, granddaughter and h., being da. and h. of Sir Reynold de Cobham
  • V. 1460? 5. Sir Reynold de Cobham, of Sterborough Castle, apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord Cobham, but never so styled, uncle and h., being 2nd but 1st surv. s. and h. of Sir Reynold de C, by his ist wife, Eleanor
  • VI. 1471. 6. Anne Cobham, apparently, according to modern doctrine. Baroness Cobham, only da. and h. She w., when very young, between 18 June and i Dec. 1475, Edward (Blount), 2nd Baron Mountjoy, who d. s.p., aged 8, and was bur. i Dec. 1475, at the Grey Friars, London. She m. 2ndly, in 1477, Edward (Burgh or Borough), Lord Burgh, and d. 26 June 1526. He became "distracted of memorie," and d. 20 Aug. 1528. See "Burgh," Barony by writ, cr. 1487, with which dignity any supposed right to this Barony of Cobham became, on the death of this lady, united.

I think I have found the discrepancy. The entry for "Margaret, Countess of Westmorland" says "when the family estates were settled (by her grandfather) on her and her issue, with rem. to her uncle, Sir Thomas de Cobham." and then the V. one says "He suc. to the family estates on the death, s.p., of his niece abovenamed" So it is a mistake by Cokayne the V entry should read

  • V. 1460? 5. Sir ReynoldThomas de Cobham, of Sterborough Castle,...

--PBS (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I was correct then? lol. What do you want to do with the Thomas in my sandbox? Should I make it in to an official page then.. I wanted to make sure everything was correct before doing anything. Thank you so much for looking into this. Truly been confusing! -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should we add the suo jure de jure barons to the actual Baron Cobham page??
Interesting to find this Corrections and Additions to The Complete Peerage: Volume 2: Burgh. So Fyi. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.-M. Cupertino

FYI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive (10 February 2011) -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a mess.. also.. what's up with User:LoveActresses? That is another sock puppet? That person does edit a lot on nobility pages -- I have noticed that. Why does this person insist on making new accounts over and over? If you can't follow the rules the first time around and are banned.. don't get it. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark and Dove

Talk:The Ark (ship)#The Ark and Dove. I will not comment on this because it is outside my area of interest and as you invited me to, someone who objects might accuse you of Meatpuppetry (so many dos and don'ts). But if you want to do it you will have to put merge templates (see {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} at the top of the articles. Then if there is a consensus choose the most developed article and merge (by copying) any missing information into it. Then once the merge is done move the merged article to the new name, and redirect the other article to that new name. -- PBS (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, No.. I'm not trying to sway you -- no one has even talked about it. I just brought it up and was wondering if you would have a say in it. And how would you go about doing it I suppose because I have no idea how to merge two articles together. You just answered that and I suppose I will try it. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Project

I saw some of your edits and wondered if you would be interested in joining WikiProject Women's History. We have a mix of very new and experienced editors, and there is lots of work to be done on medieval and renaissance women. - PKM (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Funny how I ended up in music but spend more time reading History on my ancestors, especially the women. It was suggested to me to minor in Women Studies; I took more than a few classes in that area. Alas I dropped the minor. I would love to be a part of the Project, thank you. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Auto-assessment. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, Meg!

I have just read your latest article Alice Neville. Congratulations on a well-written, well-sourced page. It's difficult writing about someone about which so little is known to scholars and biographers. You managed to convey quite a bit of information on this relatively unknown person, and provided the references to back it up. Good job!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It took awhile to write that and I still have not gotten the book on 'Warwick's sister's'. Appreciate the compliment. I worked hard on it. Warwick's sister's are somewhat obscure, but they did have a part to play in history - even if it was small or to the point of just giving birth to the next generations. It was really amazing to look at the genealogy and now I really realize why it was called the 'cousin's war'. Talk about intermarrying.. I think it was more than Queen Victoria's family! Is this title ok? I noticed that his other sister's that had articles had their husband's title in the main title of the page. Alice Neville, Baroness FitzHugh or should I just leave it for now? Again, thanks, means a lot. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think just Alice Neville is fine. I moved her mother's article to Alice Montacute as she was the suo jure Countess of Salisbury. The reason I added Baroness Hastings to her sister Katherine's article is because there was another article about the author, Katherine Neville. Would you happen to know whether or not Katherine or any of Alice's other sisters served as lady-in-waiting to Anne Neville? As regards the Baldwin book on the Kingmaker's sisters, it doesn't receive good reviews. As one reviewer said it doesn't really contain much information about them as individuals, it mainly deals with their husbands, kids, brother, genealogy, and the political events taking place at the time. It's a pity really as I had assumed it would have a lot of info to add to articles. Your article is very good, Meg. Keep up the good work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Kingmaker's Sisters', yes, I saw the one review. Pity there isn't more info. The only reason I know that Alice and her daughter served Queen Anne was because it was in Katherine Parr's biography as they were her grandmother and great-grandmother. I'm sure if you did research on them individually you could find something. I'll see if I can find something. I agree with the Alice Montacute as well. Alice will do then. Thanks again. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wedding dress of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

The article Wedding dress of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears not to be notabie - context is difficult to determine

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I made that page is because in the box with all the rest of the royal brides Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll was a proposed person in red. No one had made the page; so I made the page. There is not that much information to find on the Duchess and her wedding gown other than what was put in the article. I was just helping out because someone listed all of Queen Victoria's daughters and daughter-in-laws wedding dresses -- ie see box. If people don't want small articles on not "notable" subjects then don't put them in the Wedding Dresses Worn at British Royal Weddings box or Wikipedia at all; do we really need all these pages on wedding dresses? Perhaps they could be merged into the person's actual article?

-- Lady Meg (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A silly deletion warning, no need to explain.. Thankyou for your hard work in starting these articles!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

Issues with member

Sorry I can't help with this at the moment. If you read my talk page you will see that I am tied up in another issue. When that is resolved I'll be happy to look into it. I am sure that there is a suitable forum to ask for help -- trouble is I do not know what it is -- I think Moonriddengirl should be able to advise you on what is the correct forum. -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Members' input needed at WikiProject Women's History

Hello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here.

If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Project – Final call for comments on the Scope draft

Our workshop on revising and clarifying the scope of our project has produced a draft outlining our project's scope and criteria for article inclusion. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop#Scope draft to discuss this document. There's a separate section beneath it for final comments, which will remain open through Tuesday, June 14th. As Cynwolfe says "with good participation, we should be able to revise our project page soon, clearing up the issues we've been dealing with and preparing us to go on to the fun stuff." Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Great Work on the English ancestry and your work on the Green family of Maryland! Also great work on the Governor Thomas Green article. I'd like to talk to you about that, if you don't mind - the possible connection between Governor Thomas Green of Maryland and English royalty. Abmaoja (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The Green family is connected to royalty and nobility; Thomas was a younger son who ventured to America. His brother who had joined him for a short time returned to England to inherit their father's lands in Bobbing, Kent. Sure -- what would you like to know about the Green family? - Lady Meg (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeth Palace's Catherine Parr portrait

Hi Lady Meg! Greetings.

I was browsing some pages at The Telegraph (starting from Henry VIII's Holbein propaganda portrait, moving towards the Duchess of Cambridge's too realistic portrait, and somehow...) when I saw this. Hope you can examine.

I immediately began going towards Catherine Parr's Commons category, and voila, it is still labeled as Catherine Parr. So yeah I made a comment at Catherine of Aragon's talkpage about the news.

Hope you can give a reply, and also update File:Catherine Parr Portrait at Lambeth Palace with new info.

Thanks. ☺ Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been aware that it is actually now Katherine of Aragon for months now (you can see that on my profile page) -- even before they announced it. I had no idea how to change the file name. Will chime in. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Already a few months? Then why did the UK websites just announced it recently? The first website I saw the article on (Telegraph) was dated 24 January...
Talk about reliability... *eyeroll* Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew since I wrote them in early 2011 when they told me the portrait had been taken for further research by the NPG. I don't remember what made me change it months ago because I wasn't fully convinced myself that it was KOA. Here is a full account though including the email. Which Queen Katherine? --Lady Meg (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge

Please Meg look at the Duches of Cambridge ancestry section - it is ridiculous! All these "psiibilities"... "matinvl" seems like a fool. Cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.129.122 (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem over at the page? I took a look at it. Are they trying to link her to those people from the "Daily Mail" article? Technically -- she is only related to the children of her cousin and isn't related to the previous generations at all -- even if her cousin did marry in to the family. It's ridiculous! Is that the problem? -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi meg Thanks for answering - the problem with the Duchess of Cambridge page is her "possible" ancestry (at the end of the page) with Sir Thomas Fairfax. The research on her ancestry with Sir Thomas was disproven some time ago. (see the published article - "Ancestry of Duchess of Cambridge - a correction")

By contrast, her more immediate family connections are very well researched and referenced - Sunday Telegraph, Burkes Peerage etc.

But for a futue Queen of England's OWN wiki page we need to have her ancestry spot on - not presenting disproven material. Cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.54.101 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph isn't a good enough source. As for the Fairfax genealogy. I never found a concrete connection to the line, but as "Wargs" is a top genealogist according to some (strangers on Wiki who have not identified themselves as being genealogists themselves) I went with it even though the guy at Peerage.com agreed with me that he could not find a connection himself! People kept telling me I was wrong when I showed them proof that I couldn't find the lineage they were talking about (on Wikipedia). So it's all over Wikipedia that "Kate is probably a descendant of ..." Key word being probably. Wargs still states it's not authoritative about the lineage on their page. People need to be using better sources if this lineage is correct. I believe Wargs is publishing a book -- but the sources listed on her page are not good enough. Here is a blog about it: Ancestry of Kate Middleton Debunked -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for such a quick reply! I guess as long as there is always a "posssibly" and a "likely" in relation to Sir Thomas Fairfazx - we just have to accept that! I see now that you tried very hard to convince wiki readers that it was all genealogically disproven. I suppose it will stay up there on Kate's page for 20 years as a "possibe" ancestral link!!! You don't see that with any of the other royal pagse! Certainly with this silly Sir Thomas Fairfax thing there is no "signing off" from the Royal College of Arms or Burkes. Good to see William Bortrick (Burkes) being quoted in the Sunday Telegraph article! 

 Thanks again Meg from Ted  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.53.173 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny because on Catherine Parr's page -- since Wikipedia has been founded up until a few years back -- her first husband was incorrect. No one caught it or cared to change it until I came along. They made Parr seem like she married an old deranged man who had children that were about her age. Genealogy wise and proof from her mother's will revealed who the real husband was, the deranged Lord Borough's grandson, also named Sir Edward (heir to Lord Borough's heir and son, Sir Thomas, 1st/3rd Lord; his lordship depending on whether or not you count his crazy father (the 2nd Lord Borough) who never went to Parliament and the fact that Thomas was given a new writ). Anywho, I think Wargs identified the Edward III connection -- however they never gave me sources or showed any documentation as to how they got the connection. The books certainly don't have the ancestor in question. Perhaps they found something I don't know about. Why would they keep that secret however unless something is amiss? They are continually trying to link her to whoever. The Lupton and Middleton pages on Wiki are so not needed (they are not royalty). Perhaps we should make a page for every family related to the royal family through out time. They certainly have Anne Boleyn on every page possible! ::laughs:: -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Francesco del Balzo, 1st Duke of Andria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT

I have just been checking and amending the citation for the article William Feilding, 1st Earl of Denbigh. I noticed that secondary sources were taken from

but were not credited to that site. I have a look back through the history of the article and it appears that you added them way back on 9 January 2011. By now, you may already be familiar with the guidance, but in case in the 1,000 of lines of guidance you have not come across it, please see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Lundy on his own is not a reliable source, but using citing his website with his citations to reliable sources makes the Wikipedia citation almost as reliable as an editor checking the source directly. If of course you had access to his sources, then there is no need to mention his site. -- PBS (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- yes, I'm pretty sure I did that edit a LONG time ago when Wiki was accepting that site as a source. I am aware that it is no longer valid. However I can't remember every page that I used him as a "source". I will take a look at it. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where were the citations for Lundy in the article? What is in question? -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citations that you added came from Lundy. I recently added Lundy to the existing citations (the ones you added back in January 2011) under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (see the current version of William Feilding, 1st Earl of Denbigh). I was not asking a question, I was simply bringing WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to your notice in case you were not aware of it. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of it PBS and I have been for years now (that Lundy is not an acceptable source yet people still have him up). I no longer use Lundy as a source. I just updated the article using legit sources btw. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Lundy is a perfectly acceptable source providing that his reliable sources are cited via WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, because as like {{Rayment}} he has not been shown to be factually wrong, but unlike {{Rayment}} he cites his sources. Occasionally Lundy cites an email from an unreliable sources to support an entry (often of a child) and I would not consider that the information on his website that is supported by such a correspondence to be reliable. In other words if a page on Lundy is cited without citing his sources I would either fix the wikipedia citations to include his reliable sources or tag the citation to his page as {{self published}}. Of course if one has alternative reliable sources, that contains the same information that is better than using Lundy. -- PBS (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catherine Willoughby, 12th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linda Porter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Buchraeumer#Not_listing_spouses

I see you had your run in with this snob. He reverts on the run without discussion. Check out Talk:Third_Succession_Act#Proof where I initiated a discussion to no avail. Now, he seeks administrative bullying on User_talk:Favonian#Persistent_POV_pusher.2Fvandal_at_Third_Succession_Act.

An invitation to join WikiProject Women writers

Hello Lady Meg! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Fogge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linda Porter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

How to pick up more women...
Hello to the members of WikiProject Women writers! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pac move to Neville

An official move request has opened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pac_(wrestler)

Feel free to add your opinion 78.148.127.93 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lady Meg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lady Meg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lady Meg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dresses etc

I've just created an article on Princess Louise's dress. Really impressed by your many articles on the dresses in 2011. Great stuff. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Lady_Meg"