User Talk: Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hi Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez! I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button 2|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  Drmies (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time

<div style="border: 6px solid #2bbf08; background: #FFF; background-color:#FFFFFF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%">
100px|right ↗
Hello Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez:

'''WikiProject Women in Green ↗''' is holding a ''' month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024 ↗'''!<br /><br />
Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme '''Going Back in Time'''! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least '''20 centuries''' by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!
Grnrchst (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)</div>

Mary Anne Arnold ↗

What were you trying to do here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Anne_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=1224318097 ? Whatever it was, you left a mangled reference. Please take a look and fix it. 76.14.122.5 ↗ (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

:Oh my appologies. Seems when I was trying to remove the reference to Tuckers book I accidentally snagged part of Cordinglys book by mistake.
:The issue has been fixed. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! 76.14.122.5 ↗ (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

<div style="border: 6px solid #2bbf08; background: #FFF; background-color:#FFFFFF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%">
100px|right ↗
Hello Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez:

'''WikiProject Women in Green ↗''' is holding a ''' month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024 ↗'''!<br /><br />
Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme '''Around the World in 31 Days'''! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least '''31 countries''' (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!
Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)</div>

Anne Bonny ↗ article

Dear Madam,

What is so wrong with this edit ↗ for Anne Bonny's wikipedia article that it should be removed from her article? Dr Rebecca Simon gave her views on the fate of Anne Bonny and cited 17th and 18th century English law practices regarding the fate of women pirates in a 2024 National Georgraphic production which I watched on cable TV and took the time to write down. Why wouldn't wikipedia welcome such information since it comes from a 2024 National Geographic source. If I was an editor of this article, I would welcome this information...since so much information about her fate is lost in the fog of history.

Please let me put it another way. Do many wikipedia readers know that 95% of female pirates who were sentenced to death were actually pardoned or let go in the 17th and 18th centuries by the English...which would explain why there was are no known records of Anne Bonny's execution? I doubt it. This is important information by Rebecca Simon. Please kindly consider reverting your edit here. Thank You for your time. Regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

:I watched the entire documentary episode before making my decision. It mostly just quoted A General History which in the article is noted to be unreliable. Even at the end it was indirectly quoting Mistress of the Seas. I'm in general wary of pirate documentaries because they usually do this.
:Also the quote from Simon is not really a question anyone is asking. There is no record of execution for either female pirate, and one definitely died in April 1721 and the other has no burial record until at least 1733. So really the only conclusion is she was let go, its after that where it gets fuzzy.
:Also at the end Simon says it was 1731 the burial record, so there is a lot of errors.
:Its nothing personal I promise, I'm sorry if you put in time to write all that down. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::Also quick aside, I do not believe that math checks out. There's only 4 female pirates in the Golden Age of Piracy so 1650 to 1730, Bonny and Read, Mary Critchett, and Martha Farley. Bonny and Read we know well. Critchett was an escaped prisoner who briefly helped some pirates before being caught and tried in 1729, likely executed. Martha Farley was the wife of a pirate and tried in I believe 1726 but was let go because she said, she's just a wife. In the 1780s there's Rachel Wall who was the associate of a pirate and definitely hanged. None of these people were pardoned, the ones not executed were either quietly let go or found not guilty during the trial. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: This is my Wikimedia Commons webpage ↗. Wikimedia Commons is wikipedia's online catalogue of free images such as this image ↗, this image ↗, this image ↗, this image ↗, this image ↗ and many more images which were uploaded by me with a license change from the flickr copyright owners. Please reconsider my suggestion about adding the new information into the Anne Bonny article. Have a great day. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I was hoping perhaps that the general English law practices quote by Dr. Mary Simon regarding female pirates could be added into Anne Bonny's article since it is by a respected female professor. But if you do not, I respect your decision. As I noted, most people in the world would not know about this fact. But whatever you decide, I respect your decision. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

:I appreciate you understanding. Simon is a good historian, I have her book on Bonny and Read. Heck, I'm actually quoted in said book, I'm the woman who found the 1733 burial record and I have two papers on Bonny in peer review currently. If I ever write a book on this topic, I'll be sure to do my own research into those statistics. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | for all your work on John Rackham ↗, Mary Read ↗, and Anne Bonny ↗! I know how much misinformation there is on these pirates and how hard it can be to find reliable information and separate fact from fiction so I appreciate your work. PharaohCrab (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you very much. It means a lot really. Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Deletion of sourced material and adding unsourced material

Hi Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez,<br>
Last year, you {{diff3|1224330561|removed a paragraph}} from 1717–1718 Acts of Grace ↗ despite its being entirely sourced. Per your edit message, the statements from Woodard's ''The Republic of Pirates'' are unreliable, while Mary Read ↗'s receipt of a pardon (from p. 299 of Snow's ''Pirates and Buccaneers of the Atlantic Coast'' ↗) ''"absolutely never happened"''. Looking at the page on John Rackham ↗, I guess this is because you believe that,
# ''A General History of the Pyrates ↗'' is unreliable enough to probably be false; and,
# ''A General History of the Pyrates ↗'' is the only primary source for these statements.

The first of these points is in line with WP:PRIMARY ↗ – though given the paucity of reliable, primary sources on these pirates' lives, I like your approach on Rackham's article of including an '''Early life according to ''A General History of the Pyrates''''' section. (After all, the further back in history we go, the more historians must ultimately rely on such sources even as they merit more scepticism.)

But the second of these points is hard to prove. One option would be to spend time following up the sources used by the cited sources, ideally showing your working so that it can be verified – at which point it starts to look like WP:OR ↗. A quicker, better option would be to find a secondary source stating that a claim originates (only) in ''A General History''. Do you know of such a source?

On Rackham's page, I see you have added that ''"Rackham does not appear in records prior to August 1720... nor does any newspaper mention him by name. In all likelihood, Rackham was not even a pirate until the year 1720."''. However, none of these statements have inline citations. I did find your link to Bartelme's article in ''The Post and Courier'' ↗, but this doesn't make any of these assertions about Rackham. Do you have a source which does?

Finally, in {{diff3|1299851282|an edit to ''A General History of the Pyrates''}}, you added another unsourced statement, mentioning only Nush Powell in the edit message despite his not appearing in the page's sources. Please could you add an inline citation or delete the statement? <span class="nowrap">—<code>AlphaMikeOmega</code> (talk)</span> 01:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

:Okay first off the citation you offered is a 1944 dime novel thats literally just A General History with a handful of differences like Flemish changed to Dutch, it comes with no citations. My good friend Jillian has an entry about it.
:https://jillianmolenaar.home.blog/2019/04/09/pirates-and-buccaneers-of-the-atlantic-coast-by-edward-rowe-snow/
:Now when it comes to Rackam, there is no citation. Jillian has a list of every single primary source and the earliest one is from September 1720. He is not listed on the written list of pardoned pirates. There's just no proof he was a pirate before August 1720 and secondary sources are wildly untrustworthy.
:Also Republic of Pirates has issues. A good example is concerning Rackam actually. Woodard writes that Rackam was behind the theft of the sloop Kingston. This theft did occur and he cited a calender paper. The paper says it was Joseph Thompson. This is a problem. Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the speedy reply!
::Re Snow's ↗ work, he was a historian, and more to the point, while his work lacks inline citiations, it does feature a one-page bibliography on p.343 ↗. Perhaps we should deprecate this source, but if so, we need to demonstrate its poor reliability, either by showing systematic errors (e.g. repeatedly misquoting sources), or by finding a secondary source which contradicts it (e.g. stating that all biographical information before 1720 is unreliable) and demonstrating that this other source is more reliable than Snow, or by finding a secondary source which explicitly states that Snow's work is unreliable.
::Molenaar's list may be a good start, but on its own, it's a WP:SPS ↗ (being a blog from someone who, as far as I can tell, is not ''"an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"''). Moreover, if it's this list ↗ which you're referring to, it doesn't claim to be ''"every single primary source"''.
::As for the idea that ''"[t]here's no proof [Rackham] was a pirate before August 1720"'', it depends on your standard of evidence: very lax, and you can consider ''A General History'' to be proof; very strict, and you can disregard gazettes and even state papers. Per WP:PRIMARY ↗ and WP:RS ↗, we should trust secondary sources to determine and use a correct standard of evidence, then use secondary, non-self-published sources quite freely and reliable primary sources very conservatively. (This conservative approach to primary sources is to avoid WP:OR ↗, such as inferring that Rackham was probably not a pirate before he appears in such sources: perhaps he just escaped the notice of the law till then, but the likelihood of this is for a secondary source, not a Wikipedia contributor, to determine.)
::It might be worth our compiling a case for deprecating Woodard's ''The Republic of Pirates'', which would be unfortunate because it's fairly comprehensive and is heavily used on Wikipedia. I was already aware of the issue, pointed out by Baylus C. Brooks somewhere on his blog (which I believe isn't WP:SPS ↗ because he has published work elsewhere), that Woodard alleges that Lord Archibald Hamilton ↗ led a Jacobite plot, despite the man being a Presbyterian and a Whig. (A key piece of Woodard's case came from his muddling two men of the same name: one Jacobite, and one relative of Hamilton, who I recall was his brother George Hamilton, 1st Earl of Orkney ↗.)
::Really, to work within Wikipedia's guidelines, we should find a secondary, non-self-published source stating that there is no reliable biographical information on these people before 1720. <span class="nowrap">—<code>AlphaMikeOmega</code> (talk)</span> 15:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Its a bad source because its just A General History occasionally reworded. This is a common issue with pirate history in the 20th century. Same with Philip Gosse in the same era.
:::And look i have a paper thats in the final stages of publication thats literally on this. Not self published, when thats out I'll definitely link it. Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Separate note I can see Gosse, Stockton, and Ellm quoted as sources.
:::Those books are just regurgitated A General History, Ellm in particular. So Snow is quoting A General History plus several other books that are just A General History reworded. I cannot stress enough that the game of telephone is in effect. Cordingly would quote something that quoted something that quoted A General History, so did Woodard. Its how we get madness like Mistress of the Seas becoming established fact despite being a romance novel. Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Perfect! I look forward to reading your paper. Thanks for clearing things up! <span class="nowrap">—<code>AlphaMikeOmega</code> (talk)</span> 22:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Not a problem. I have a couple papers in various stages, one with Powell, one with an American maritime history publication, one in Poland. I think the American one on the origin of Bonny and Read that also touches on Rackam will probably be finished first. Lady Helen "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Avast me hearties!

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 50px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Half Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Well shiver me timbers! Halbared (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
|}