In reference to the recent edit war(s) you have been involved in over use of "murder" over "killing" (or words to that effect), please comment on the issue here so that we might come to a conclusion. Thank you. Logoistic 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Final warning issued; if he does it again, to you or anyone else, please let me know and I'll block him to make it stop. If I knew for sure he was a sock - certainly looks like one - I'd block him straight-out, but I can't figure out who he might be. Do you have any idea? He seems to have some particular complaint with you, so I thought you might have a solid guess, at which point we can do a checkuser and look for a long-term solution. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Im flattered, I truly am, I've been here a couple of weeks and you consider me to be an established user. Please don't talk about me behind my back like little school children. RepublicUK 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it. The creator, User:Duiek, seems to have edited and created lots of pages concerning this family (including saying that one of them was Vice-Admiral of Scotland, and that one of them is an entrepreneur (Googling suggests the company concerned, W. M. Gulliksen, does actually exist, but doesn't suggest it's notable in any way)). The 2nd Baronet is supposed to have married Anne, daughter of the 4th Earl of Findlater, but my sources say that that nobleman had no daughter of that name, and I can't see any relative of any of the Earls marrying anyone called Gillis. My gut reaction would be that it's a couple of vanity articles concerning a non-notable American family (one of whom is presumably the editor concerned) together with a completely invented illustrious family history. Proteus (Talk) 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you posted in the talk page. The normal procedure is to state your view in the outside view section. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jance and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay. The idea is to gain consensus, so individual sections do not have a "disagree" option as with AfD for example. The alternative view is stated separately. Users can then choose to endorse whichever view(s) they choose. Tyrenius 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As your talk page is getting rather long, I thought you might benefit from an archive. See the box at the top of the page. Click the red link to open the page itself. Just cut and paste unwanted talk into it. (If you don't want the box, then just delete it.) Tyrenius 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Lots to learn - there's never and end to it, because as soon as you've mastered something, it gets changed anyway! I might mention it is the norm not to delete or archive active threads, i.e. when users are still commenting or likely to in the immediate future. It can give the — I'm sure in this case mistaken — impression that the user has something to hide. Tyrenius 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits isn't disrupting this. He's quite entitled to place a nn tag if he wishes, or a prod or take it to AfD, if he thinks any of these things are merited. He is proceeding very prudently with merely the lowest level to start with. This is the normal business of editing, and as long as it is done for sincere reasons, rather than overt and deliberate disruption, there is no problem, even if the person is mistaken. In the lack of evidence to the contrary, we AGF. There has to be a "cut off" point where military and aristocracy don't make the threshold. I am inclined to think this subject does, per commanding a large body of men (in this case a whole branch of the army), so might well be a resounding keep if it went to AfD, but I could be wrong. There are probably more dubious examples, however. Tyrenius 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(from User talk:Quarl) Thank you. Would you like to tell him? (If he doesn't know already). Dieuk seems remarkably dilligent if he is not J R Gillis. - Kittybrewster 09:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't label additions to talk pages as minor edits, as some users turn off minor edits on their watchlist. Details of what constitutes a minor edit are at WP:MINOR. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have the details per your post on the French wiki wrt the colours for the crest so I don't quite follow the question. Bit surprised about the colours given as I'm used to seeing sea dogs in vert and or. Alci12 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any ideas where I might find the Leathers family arms to add to Frederick Leathers, 1st Viscount Leathers? Weggie 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just come across a deletion nomination for Sir Keith Arbuthnot, Bt. You may wish to comment (here, my Talk Page, or elsewhere) on my remarks on that. I think the AfD is wrong. David Lauder 13:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's shaped up nicely, so please do initiate a WP:Peer review. It could probably do with more in the family section and some more personal information. Tyrenius 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:Medal
At first I thought it might have been his baronet's badge but obviously not if he didn't inherit the title until 1939 and the photo was taken in the '20s. It looks a bit like the Belgian Croix de Guerre which he was awarded, but I'm not sure if that's only worn on the chest (?) It is a bit hard to make out too. Maybe you could direct the question to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals. Thanks,
Craigy (
talk) 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I wondered if you might care to update the style and content of these, or pass onto someone else who might be interested. A lot of text is from the 100 year old Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. What was then obviously considered the finest writing needs considerable revision to conform to wikipedia policies...
Tyrenius 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I filed a complaint against User:Vintagekits for his mass spamming and bad faith PRODing. Thanks for rv his abuses but you shouldn't have had to do all that work, and not all those pages need expanding anyway.
I think he deserves to be blocked indefinitely or for a lengthy period for what he did/does/will do. Don't you agree? We both know his history of pro- PIRA slants, etc. We both know he is going to continue doing this sort of thing or perpetrate other sorts of abuses.
Why don't you lodge a serious complaint as well to the Administrators or ArbCom committee??
Pls. respond on my talk page if you care to. Yours, O'Donoghue 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your statement on the RfC for Vintagekits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc O'Donoghue 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK- when you do the section is "Requests for comment/User conduct". O'Donoghue 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments in User_talk:Tyrenius#I_was_writing_this_the_other_night_as_I_got_blocked. You can't have it both ways. Either Vintagekits stays off your page, except where unavoidable, and vice versa. Or not. But there's not one rule for him and one for you. The copyright issue can be discussed on an article talk page, if necessary, where other interested editors can also be made aware. Tyrenius 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please folks, centralise this discussion rather than splatting it over a dozen article talk pages. I suggest Category_talk:Baronets. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I know you are a prolific contributor to articles about Baronets etc, so I ask you for guidance. While doing checking of random articles for referencing, I found a category of Earls: Category:Earldoms which sounded like they were taken from some print or online source, but the first several I looked at had no sources listed, so I tagged thm as "unreferenced" and moved on. Then I found Earl of Holland which cited a web page: Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages self-published source better source needed . I find it appears to be just someone's webpage. Would you consider it to be a reliable source satisfying WP:ATT ? Wouldn't these titles/persons be in the more standard peerage books? I do not see where he cites to a printed source. Thanks. Edison 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, I wasn't very happy with it although in all honesty I thought it was difficult to read also before my changes. Please feel free to make the changes you feel are necessary to make the page easier to read. Regards, Tryde 07:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Summers Baronets needs to be removed from List of extant Baronetcies. Do we have to manually change all the order of precedence numbers in the list or is there a more sophisticated way of doing this. Regards, Tryde 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick message to say goodbye as I am leaving my Wikipedia account (reasons at my user page). I would also like to say well done for all your wonderful work on Wikipedia. Despite the many hassels you get, notably from User:Vintagekits about the baronets, you always remain calm and continue. I have not got your patience and have had enough of hassels from many people; Im also starting a new 9-5 job this month so won't have the hours I have now. Anway, goodbye and keep up the excellant work. -- Berks105 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you;re an editor of Template:Infobox Biography. Would you be interested in helping to add the hCard microformat (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats) to that? I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Andy Mabbett 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever became of the request for comment for Vintagekits?-- Counter-revolutionary 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know enough to comment on it. It seems sourced, though, and there's nothing in it that instantly jumps out as absurd. I don't think being a former feudal baron is worth mentioning, however. Proteus (Talk) 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason why Lords of Parliament shouldn't be included. And Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom seems only to be hereditary peers, so life peerage categories (both LPA and AJA) would appear to be necessary. Proteus (Talk) 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the message! Peremptory, terse, discourteous AND arrogant AND a hypocrite. I've had a long life in the world of science and have a holy respect for good logic and reasoned thinking, but I also know that the truly knowledgeable people, in all walks of life, without exception, are patient and sensitive when it comes to sharing their expertise. I have no patience with bullies. Having said that, I would like to have a good working relationship with fellow editors who are truly interested in improving articles and not just putting their stamp of authority on everything. Do let me know if I can help in any way. Paul venter 11:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the worklists ( Index · Statistics · Log) I seem to have got some English monarchs tagged, because they were also dukes or what have you. An easy way to get around this (rather than reverting those edits) would be to have the project template make the peerage WikiProject mutually exclusive to Royalty/British Royalty, i.e. if royalty is yes or british royalty is yes the peerage-work-group=yes parameter gets ignored.
Would this be acceptable, or are there articles which are genuinely in the scope of both WikiProject British Royalty and WikiProject Peerage? -- kingboyk 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, here's another baronet for you - the younger brother of Hermann Eckstein - do you already know about him? . Incidentally, I thought it strange that you labelled Phillips and Wernher as 'Sirs' before their knighthoods had been conferred. Is that normal? If I'm wrong just revert. Cheers Paul venter 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a couple of reasonably notable Cunningham baronets. Let me know what you think. I may try and put some flesh on them when I have more time. Is there anything you have asked me to do anywhere which I have forgotten about? David Lauder 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are reading this please consider yourself volunteered to clean up and re-write and improve Rod Beckstrom. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny! Well it amused me anyway.Happy april fools day. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not clutter my talk page with comments when I have specifically requested you not to do so - see below Paul venter 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note there is a policy relating to image size which should be followed Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size:
There is also a guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]]
I wonder if you could help me at Lamberton, Borders, Scotland a truly clumsy heading. I don't understand how to go about changing it. Ideally it should be Lamberton, Berwickshire, or Lamberton, Scottish Borders. Scotland is unnecessary as it is in the preamble. David Lauder 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Per your request. [1] Tyrenius 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:French noble titles. Which WikiProject/work group, if any, covers French nobility? -- kingboyk 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Heho, I think, if they were elected like the governors of the United States of America, then we should use {{s-off}}, if they were intended for their office like the governors of the British Colonies then we should use {{s-gov}}. Greetings and Happy Easter ~~ Phoe talk 08:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ~~
Sorry to bother you yet again but I seem to have done soemthing wrong at Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale. Only half the article now comes up and regardless of my efforts I cannot seem to change that. I would appreciate you assistance and for you to tell me what is wrong. David Lauder 13:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
See the section on acrimony. Would you like me to see what I can find out about this? Regards, David Lauder 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have downgraded a number of biographies which you rated as A-class. For an article to get an A-class rating, it should have at least the following items:
Hope this helps, Er rab ee 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Henry Barnett, MP, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.kittybrewster.com/ancestry/barnett.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at
Talk:Henry Barnett, MP/Temp. Leave a note at
Talk:Henry Barnett, MP saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Butseriouslyfolks 08:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that the actor Nigel Bruce's father was a baronet? Sir William Waller Bruce, 10th Baronet. David Lauder 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please follow the procedures for confirming copyright permissions described above. Also, do not remove the administrative copyvio tag from your own work. This is considered vandalism, as Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously. Thank you. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've edited Tony Jordan to remove the disambig link with this edit summary: "Disambigs should go to finished articles, not lists containing a redlink to a future article." There is discussion ongoing on the List of members of the Irish Republican Army talk page about the article and the way its being created. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. About to edit the other article now. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. If this is Ralph George Feltham (the diplomat), all I've found for him is an MBE awarded in 1961, nothing about a knighthood. Thanks, Craigy ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, A-class ratings for the WikiProject Biography are now preserved for those articles that pass an A-class review. If you encounter biographies that you feel deserve an A-class rating, please follow the instructions on that page and ask for an A-class review. Er rab ee 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, As I'm currently unable to accept bot requests due to technical issues, I moved your request to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Succession_boxes. I've noticed that Betacommand ( talk · contribs) has responded with a question. May I suggest you provide the info he asks for and communicate with him directly? He's a well known bot operator, and if you have him do the job you can be sure it will be done quickly. Cheers, and sorry I couldn't help directly this time. -- kingboyk 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on this Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's about to flare up again; apparently Pat Finucane (solicitor) was murdered, but Sir James Stronge was not. -- Counter-revolutionary 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! My apologies if we clashed this morning on the Ted Heath article, but it seems the debate on his sexuality is almost as highly charged as that at the waterpump on killing/murder. I think you have started a great and rightful debate, and have added my comments which I hope you find useful in your case for good precedent and policy. With Best Regards, - Trident13 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, saw your note on the talk page. I'm not an admin, btw! You seem to know more about correct names of baronetcy articles, and the name you want for the article doesn't seem to exist (as it's a red link) so I would have thought that you could just click on "move" and do it yourself... unless I'm missing something? Best wishes, Bencherlite 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a pdf article at this address but it is pay per view so I don't know what's in it. http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/s12-IV/83/219-g Hope it helps. Regards, -- Bill Reid | Talk 08:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there an explanation for this edit? [3] It makes it appear you are using a sockpuppet. - Will Beback · † · 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, here's the core of the guideline:
As you can see, it says that you should "avoid or exercise great caution" when adding links to your own website or when getting involved in articles related to you. I understand you may not have been aware of this before, but now that you know of it I think it's reasonable to expect you will abide by it by avoiding ediiting your the articles about yourself and your immediate family, and to avoid adding links to your website. - Will Beback · † · 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I should assure you that my position is not personal; I came across the discussion after editing another AfD, and had no idea that the article is WP:AUTO until I had been involved a while. I am uneasy about our assumption that all peers are notable; and I am reluctant to expand it to baronets.
For what it's worth, an accurate article on me probably could be written off the web; but I would speedy it for making no claim of notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not getting involved in this now. Articles are not necessarily consistent, however. Each must be seen on its own merits. Tyrenius 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, Assuming the article is kept at AfD, would you consider uploading a freely licenced image please? It seems strange that we have an article on a (possibly) notable Wikipedian but without a photo! -- kingboyk 18:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Baron Sockpuppetry of New York. One Night In Hackney 303 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Two questions, business and pleasure. 1 - I would like to pull {{ LieutenantGovernorsNovaScotia}} into the tender loving arms of wikipedia:WikiProject_Nova_Scotia. I have been working on adding to the List_of_General_Assemblies_of_Nova_Scotia, having added 1755-1816 today, and I have been noticing that the links to and infoboxes on the LG pages for Nova Scotia are inconsistent to say the least. I would like to edit and add to you infobox, if I may. 2 - out of idle curiosity, can one purchase the title of baronetcy of Nova Scotia? Are they purely hereditary? I know very little about this type of thing. I know that the 1 square foot of Nova Scotia is still in Windsor castle (having had my picture taken on it) and am curious. WayeMason 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar! It felt like a birthday present because my birthday was just the day before! :) Once I sort out a place, I'll put it on my userpage. -- Mal 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to tell you that Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet was not approved for A-class. General consensus was that it is a nice article, well on its way to eventually become A-class, but not just there yet. Comments can be read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet. The comments made by User:Vintagekits were not taken into account. Again sorry. Er rab ee 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thankyou for your support on the BLP noticeboard in relation to Richard Gere. I thought you may be interested to know that the main editor in favour of including false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations is now arguing on the WP:BLP talk page that the policy should be relaxed to remove the requirement to edit BLP entries sensitively, responsibly, and conservatively (see here). Sparkzilla calls these requirements "subjective." To me this demonstrates the stakes for Wikipedia of deciding that unsubstantiated malicious allegations that no credible source argues are true can nevertheless be included on its pages. However, as most editors seem to prefer relaxing these requirements rather than enforcing policy, I am increasingly concluding that Wikpedia is not, or soon may not, be the encyclopaedia I thought it was going to be. I have extensively and patiently argued the case for the exclusion of these allegations, but am less and less inclined to continue with this attempt to explain and enforce policy. But thanks again for your support. FNMF 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The situation has improved a little since I posted the above comment, with the intervention of a couple of very experienced editors. FNMF 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No sorry, I am not Michael Smith, Jr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Friuli ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Someone created a stub on him. I suspect this is Charles Maitland of Pitrichie, son of Alexander Arbuthnot (Baron of Exchequer), but the death dates from Rayment (16 February) vs. the article on Alexander (10 February) conflict slightly. Could you confirm that the two individuals are identical? Yours, Choess 01:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Alexander George Arbuthnot, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot. Thank you. One Night In Hackney 303 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kitty. Sorry to bother you but I wondered if you could change John Cunningham, 14th Earl of Glencairn to 15th Earl. His brother James was the 14th! I am unsure how to do it. Regards, 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As there were previously Sir James Matthew Stronges, the article name should include his full title, can you help out with this. Best wishes, -- Counter-revolutionary 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Your recent creation of {{ Irc}} and the redirect associated with it, and its' addition to a number of AfD's in an attempt to segregate people using a blatantly incivil message, is totally inappropriate. The redirect has been deleted, the template as well, and your additions to the AfD's reverted. Do not do this again, or I will block you. Regardless of whatever you believe, there is no need to sink so low and make such inappropriate edits. Consider this your warning that any further disruption with similar intent will result in a block of one week. Daniel Bryant 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. ;) - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Regards Giano 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the issues which underlies a lot of the tension over these articles is concerns over WP:COI. I do think that WP:COI#Close_relationships is pertinent here; Kittybrewster, would you like to consider refraining from editing articles on Arbuthnots? That may seem to be an extreme step, but it is one of issues which has arisen at repeated AfDs and other discussions, and it sems to me that restraint would probably be an important factor in reaching a truce here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite what you may think, to the best of my knowledge no canvassing of AfD debates regarding Arbuthnot related articles goes on. If it does happen among the Irish (I'm English born and bred, for the record) editors, I am unaware of it. Now for the matter at hand:
Too many AfD debates (both Arbuthnot and Irish republican) have been muddied by block voting from partisan editors. While your proposal that "Irish republican" editors should not nominate any Arbuthnot articles for deletion, it lacked any reciprocal gesture in return.
Therefore I propose that the editors named below (which also includes any use of sockpuppets or IPs) refrain from nominating any articles for deletion, or participating in any Arbuthnot and Irish republican related AfD debates, apart from making comments with regard to their notability, they can not vote. That way a community consensus can be gained by uninvolved editors, and it's all fair and above board.
The editors who have been involved in partisan voting apart from yourself are:
Naturally you would be welcome to pick a similar number of editors in return. I would suggest that this is a quick and simple solution, and prevents a large amount of time being wasted going through dispute resolution which could be spent far more constructively improving the encyclopedia. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 303 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
For clarity, "comment" refers to commenting in AfDs. Rather than voting, an editor concerned about an article can make a comment in an AfD as to why they believe someone is notable, in order to assist uninvolved parties commenting in an AfD. For example, if an Irish republican was up for deletion, I would be permitted to make a comment regarding exactly why I believed the article to be worth keeping, as editors without a specific knowledge of the subject may not realise exactly what makes him notable.
Distantly related - a member of the Arbuthnot family, obviously someone from the 18th or 19th century is distantly related, assuming they are related at all of course.
What other articles are you suggesting it applies to? Rather than cast the net too wide initally, it would be best to keep the scope narrow in order to make it easier to get everyone to agree. Naturally should VK or another editor immediately start nominating similar articles that aren't part of the agreement it would not be looked on in a positive light, and further articles could be added to the agreement.
I assumed Robert Murray Arbuthnot was related, given you created the article and share the same surname. I apologise for the assumption.
Now, is the agreement broadly acceptable to you, possibly with some tweaking? One Night In Hackney 303 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very pleased to see this discussion starting. I think it's long overdue, and I hope you can all agree some sort of a ceasefire. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) Actually it was only recently when I discovered the existence of the plethora of articles you have created. How many of them have I edited? As you're well aware I've pointed out slight wording problems with them, yet I have not acted on any of those problems, hoping you would take appropriate action yourself. I have nominated what I believe to be two minor members of the family for deletion, but that is the extent of my involvement. To claim I am "attacking" your articles is assuming bad faith, and I urge you to take a more pragmatic view. As Giano has stated, it would be better to concentrate on creating good articles on your family members, quality over quantity. If this cannot be resolved quickly and simply it will be more difficult for you to improve the articles, as your time will be spent otherwise engaged. Going back to the quality over quantity, I could create 50 stubs on possibly notable IRA members right now, but I would rather concentrate on improving the existing articles, ie ones that have a chance of being classed as "good articles" or above.
I'm well aware that other editors may need some persuading to agree to this, and certainly some more than others. However I think it is best if an agreement is worked out between a small number of editors who are most involved first, and go from there. I don't think blanket bans on editing articles are appropriate, knowing how badly VK is at spelling at times I would welcome constructive editing on any Irish republican related articles, however (and this isn't directed at you) too often the editing is disruptive. One Night In Hackney 303 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have another idea. Nobody please comment unless they are an admin and can say whether it is reasonable, constructive and fair. Namely that I be blocked for a week if I post on VKs talk page and that he be blocked for a week if he posts on mine. Then we can co9ntinue here maybe. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm responding as an admin, as KB requested. This reply is directed to both Kittybrewster and to Vintagekits.
I'm afraid that at this point, it seems to me that you are both drinking heavily in the last-chance saloon :( I'm very disappointed to see that ONIH's timely efforts to broker a truce appear to have been rejected.
At this point, I see only two possible solutions. Either both Kittybrewster and Vintagekits them agree between a fairly comprehensive ceasefire which brings an end to the disruption, or action will be taken to enforce one, by bans and/or blocks. Both editors have goaded each other for months, both have received numerous warnings, and countless requests for restraint have been either ignored or evaded (by causing trouble in some way other than that specified).
That's it; no third way, as far as I can see. I don't think that the community will accept a continuation of these edit wars, move wars, AfD wars, and barrages of accusation and counter-accusation accompanied by strong political POVs. The situation has been unacceptable for far too long.
You are both talented editors, with a fine commitment to wikipedia and you have both added a lot of good material. But I am now at the point where, with great regret, I will argue for a permanent block on both of you, or at least a series of wideranging bans to keep you far apart.
If either of you wants to avoid that, I think that you will both have to make a serious effort to negotiate your own truce. That's going to require a lot of diplomacy on both sides, but I'm afraid that however difficult either of you finds it, making that big effort to find a breakthrough may now be your only way to avoid something being imposed. Are either of you big enough to make the first move? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work :) This sounds like progress, and I have a suggestion: howsabout you both agree not to edit articles on Arbuthnots? There are major WP:COI issues involved in Kittybrewster editing them, and it's clear that underlies some of the tension at AfDs etc so far. Is that suggestion helpful? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the question has already been answered: see WP:COI#Notability_and_saliency and [6]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."
1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific
guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to
game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Per the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#AfD nomination of Alexander George Arbuthnot, there seems to be no plausible case that this article is of particular relevance to members of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies. Note that while it may be inaccurate to describe this as cross-posting,
WP:CANVASS clearly applies. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you quite sure you have linked to the correct Woodford on this page Charles Arbuthnot as it appears the Arbuthnot's home was in fact here Woodford, Northamptonshire - please note the refs I have researched, which appear to confirm this. This appaears to be the ancestral home [7] Giano 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have just moved the page into User space. One does not edit when am Inuse template is displayed. I have just lost an hours work. Yes, I know I should have saved elsewhere, I did not. I assumed you knew what "in use" meant! It means for a brief period someone does indeed own the page Giano 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably best, to be honest. Stumbled into this via another user, and I've already cocked one nomination up (withdrawn). Looked through a lot of the category though, and there do seem to be a lot of articles on, shall we say, the brink of notability. I'm not going to AfD any more now though (especially as it's 4am)... but at some point this category probably does need to be looked at a bit - as you'll have noticed I acknowledged that a lot of these articles are obviously notable ... but ... EliminatorJR Talk 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What about a long article on the families concerned? The family may be notable, even if the individual members aren't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, most of the Dashwood information is in more detail and better context at West Wycombe Park - However, that does not solve Kittybrewsters current problems. I strongly suggest you read my edit here [13] and act on it, while you still have the choice - half thes pages can be amalgamated for instance: Take Harriet's husband - improve his page considerably, then you could put a section there saying his son Fred or (whatever his name is) made miltary history by becoming a Genral aaged 103 or whatever and Fred's page can be deleted - Harriet will soon be an "A Class" wikipedia biography as such her husbands notability is easier to prove so mention of his son on the fathers page is more easily justified and so on as the son becomes part of the history of his father. I've been writing biographies here quite a while to a very high standard (said modestly!) I do know what I'm talking about. I see no other option open to you. Giano 08:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I am concerned about Kittybrewster's COI in editing Arbuthnot articles, but I am afraid that you are wrong on Henry Fane, MP. As a Member of Parliament, he clearly meets WP:BIO's criterion: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kitybrewster, I was alarmed to see the problem discussed in this edit, and on that basis I have changed my !vote to strong delete. I am assuming good faith, but at this point I have to start questioning the independence of all the sources you cite. I have expressed concerns before about conflicts of interest, and this sutuation seems to me to be a very good reason to take a very strict reading of WP:COI. I'm very disappointed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As a courtesy I inform you I have nominated these pages for deletion. If you have furthter information as to why these people are notable I suggest you add it to the pages concerned. Giano 09:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In reference to the recent edit war(s) you have been involved in over use of "murder" over "killing" (or words to that effect), please comment on the issue here so that we might come to a conclusion. Thank you. Logoistic 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Final warning issued; if he does it again, to you or anyone else, please let me know and I'll block him to make it stop. If I knew for sure he was a sock - certainly looks like one - I'd block him straight-out, but I can't figure out who he might be. Do you have any idea? He seems to have some particular complaint with you, so I thought you might have a solid guess, at which point we can do a checkuser and look for a long-term solution. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Im flattered, I truly am, I've been here a couple of weeks and you consider me to be an established user. Please don't talk about me behind my back like little school children. RepublicUK 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it. The creator, User:Duiek, seems to have edited and created lots of pages concerning this family (including saying that one of them was Vice-Admiral of Scotland, and that one of them is an entrepreneur (Googling suggests the company concerned, W. M. Gulliksen, does actually exist, but doesn't suggest it's notable in any way)). The 2nd Baronet is supposed to have married Anne, daughter of the 4th Earl of Findlater, but my sources say that that nobleman had no daughter of that name, and I can't see any relative of any of the Earls marrying anyone called Gillis. My gut reaction would be that it's a couple of vanity articles concerning a non-notable American family (one of whom is presumably the editor concerned) together with a completely invented illustrious family history. Proteus (Talk) 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you posted in the talk page. The normal procedure is to state your view in the outside view section. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jance and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay. The idea is to gain consensus, so individual sections do not have a "disagree" option as with AfD for example. The alternative view is stated separately. Users can then choose to endorse whichever view(s) they choose. Tyrenius 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As your talk page is getting rather long, I thought you might benefit from an archive. See the box at the top of the page. Click the red link to open the page itself. Just cut and paste unwanted talk into it. (If you don't want the box, then just delete it.) Tyrenius 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Lots to learn - there's never and end to it, because as soon as you've mastered something, it gets changed anyway! I might mention it is the norm not to delete or archive active threads, i.e. when users are still commenting or likely to in the immediate future. It can give the — I'm sure in this case mistaken — impression that the user has something to hide. Tyrenius 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits isn't disrupting this. He's quite entitled to place a nn tag if he wishes, or a prod or take it to AfD, if he thinks any of these things are merited. He is proceeding very prudently with merely the lowest level to start with. This is the normal business of editing, and as long as it is done for sincere reasons, rather than overt and deliberate disruption, there is no problem, even if the person is mistaken. In the lack of evidence to the contrary, we AGF. There has to be a "cut off" point where military and aristocracy don't make the threshold. I am inclined to think this subject does, per commanding a large body of men (in this case a whole branch of the army), so might well be a resounding keep if it went to AfD, but I could be wrong. There are probably more dubious examples, however. Tyrenius 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(from User talk:Quarl) Thank you. Would you like to tell him? (If he doesn't know already). Dieuk seems remarkably dilligent if he is not J R Gillis. - Kittybrewster 09:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't label additions to talk pages as minor edits, as some users turn off minor edits on their watchlist. Details of what constitutes a minor edit are at WP:MINOR. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have the details per your post on the French wiki wrt the colours for the crest so I don't quite follow the question. Bit surprised about the colours given as I'm used to seeing sea dogs in vert and or. Alci12 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any ideas where I might find the Leathers family arms to add to Frederick Leathers, 1st Viscount Leathers? Weggie 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just come across a deletion nomination for Sir Keith Arbuthnot, Bt. You may wish to comment (here, my Talk Page, or elsewhere) on my remarks on that. I think the AfD is wrong. David Lauder 13:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's shaped up nicely, so please do initiate a WP:Peer review. It could probably do with more in the family section and some more personal information. Tyrenius 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:Medal
At first I thought it might have been his baronet's badge but obviously not if he didn't inherit the title until 1939 and the photo was taken in the '20s. It looks a bit like the Belgian Croix de Guerre which he was awarded, but I'm not sure if that's only worn on the chest (?) It is a bit hard to make out too. Maybe you could direct the question to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals. Thanks,
Craigy (
talk) 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I wondered if you might care to update the style and content of these, or pass onto someone else who might be interested. A lot of text is from the 100 year old Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. What was then obviously considered the finest writing needs considerable revision to conform to wikipedia policies...
Tyrenius 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I filed a complaint against User:Vintagekits for his mass spamming and bad faith PRODing. Thanks for rv his abuses but you shouldn't have had to do all that work, and not all those pages need expanding anyway.
I think he deserves to be blocked indefinitely or for a lengthy period for what he did/does/will do. Don't you agree? We both know his history of pro- PIRA slants, etc. We both know he is going to continue doing this sort of thing or perpetrate other sorts of abuses.
Why don't you lodge a serious complaint as well to the Administrators or ArbCom committee??
Pls. respond on my talk page if you care to. Yours, O'Donoghue 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your statement on the RfC for Vintagekits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc O'Donoghue 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK- when you do the section is "Requests for comment/User conduct". O'Donoghue 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments in User_talk:Tyrenius#I_was_writing_this_the_other_night_as_I_got_blocked. You can't have it both ways. Either Vintagekits stays off your page, except where unavoidable, and vice versa. Or not. But there's not one rule for him and one for you. The copyright issue can be discussed on an article talk page, if necessary, where other interested editors can also be made aware. Tyrenius 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please folks, centralise this discussion rather than splatting it over a dozen article talk pages. I suggest Category_talk:Baronets. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I know you are a prolific contributor to articles about Baronets etc, so I ask you for guidance. While doing checking of random articles for referencing, I found a category of Earls: Category:Earldoms which sounded like they were taken from some print or online source, but the first several I looked at had no sources listed, so I tagged thm as "unreferenced" and moved on. Then I found Earl of Holland which cited a web page: Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages self-published source better source needed . I find it appears to be just someone's webpage. Would you consider it to be a reliable source satisfying WP:ATT ? Wouldn't these titles/persons be in the more standard peerage books? I do not see where he cites to a printed source. Thanks. Edison 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, I wasn't very happy with it although in all honesty I thought it was difficult to read also before my changes. Please feel free to make the changes you feel are necessary to make the page easier to read. Regards, Tryde 07:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Summers Baronets needs to be removed from List of extant Baronetcies. Do we have to manually change all the order of precedence numbers in the list or is there a more sophisticated way of doing this. Regards, Tryde 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick message to say goodbye as I am leaving my Wikipedia account (reasons at my user page). I would also like to say well done for all your wonderful work on Wikipedia. Despite the many hassels you get, notably from User:Vintagekits about the baronets, you always remain calm and continue. I have not got your patience and have had enough of hassels from many people; Im also starting a new 9-5 job this month so won't have the hours I have now. Anway, goodbye and keep up the excellant work. -- Berks105 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you;re an editor of Template:Infobox Biography. Would you be interested in helping to add the hCard microformat (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats) to that? I can advise on the required mark-up, but I'm not familiar with template code editing. Andy Mabbett 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever became of the request for comment for Vintagekits?-- Counter-revolutionary 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know enough to comment on it. It seems sourced, though, and there's nothing in it that instantly jumps out as absurd. I don't think being a former feudal baron is worth mentioning, however. Proteus (Talk) 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason why Lords of Parliament shouldn't be included. And Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom seems only to be hereditary peers, so life peerage categories (both LPA and AJA) would appear to be necessary. Proteus (Talk) 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the message! Peremptory, terse, discourteous AND arrogant AND a hypocrite. I've had a long life in the world of science and have a holy respect for good logic and reasoned thinking, but I also know that the truly knowledgeable people, in all walks of life, without exception, are patient and sensitive when it comes to sharing their expertise. I have no patience with bullies. Having said that, I would like to have a good working relationship with fellow editors who are truly interested in improving articles and not just putting their stamp of authority on everything. Do let me know if I can help in any way. Paul venter 11:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the worklists ( Index · Statistics · Log) I seem to have got some English monarchs tagged, because they were also dukes or what have you. An easy way to get around this (rather than reverting those edits) would be to have the project template make the peerage WikiProject mutually exclusive to Royalty/British Royalty, i.e. if royalty is yes or british royalty is yes the peerage-work-group=yes parameter gets ignored.
Would this be acceptable, or are there articles which are genuinely in the scope of both WikiProject British Royalty and WikiProject Peerage? -- kingboyk 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, here's another baronet for you - the younger brother of Hermann Eckstein - do you already know about him? . Incidentally, I thought it strange that you labelled Phillips and Wernher as 'Sirs' before their knighthoods had been conferred. Is that normal? If I'm wrong just revert. Cheers Paul venter 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a couple of reasonably notable Cunningham baronets. Let me know what you think. I may try and put some flesh on them when I have more time. Is there anything you have asked me to do anywhere which I have forgotten about? David Lauder 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are reading this please consider yourself volunteered to clean up and re-write and improve Rod Beckstrom. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny! Well it amused me anyway.Happy april fools day. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not clutter my talk page with comments when I have specifically requested you not to do so - see below Paul venter 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note there is a policy relating to image size which should be followed Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size:
There is also a guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]]
I wonder if you could help me at Lamberton, Borders, Scotland a truly clumsy heading. I don't understand how to go about changing it. Ideally it should be Lamberton, Berwickshire, or Lamberton, Scottish Borders. Scotland is unnecessary as it is in the preamble. David Lauder 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Per your request. [1] Tyrenius 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:French noble titles. Which WikiProject/work group, if any, covers French nobility? -- kingboyk 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Heho, I think, if they were elected like the governors of the United States of America, then we should use {{s-off}}, if they were intended for their office like the governors of the British Colonies then we should use {{s-gov}}. Greetings and Happy Easter ~~ Phoe talk 08:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ~~
Sorry to bother you yet again but I seem to have done soemthing wrong at Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale. Only half the article now comes up and regardless of my efforts I cannot seem to change that. I would appreciate you assistance and for you to tell me what is wrong. David Lauder 13:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
See the section on acrimony. Would you like me to see what I can find out about this? Regards, David Lauder 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have downgraded a number of biographies which you rated as A-class. For an article to get an A-class rating, it should have at least the following items:
Hope this helps, Er rab ee 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Henry Barnett, MP, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.kittybrewster.com/ancestry/barnett.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at
Talk:Henry Barnett, MP/Temp. Leave a note at
Talk:Henry Barnett, MP saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Butseriouslyfolks 08:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that the actor Nigel Bruce's father was a baronet? Sir William Waller Bruce, 10th Baronet. David Lauder 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please follow the procedures for confirming copyright permissions described above. Also, do not remove the administrative copyvio tag from your own work. This is considered vandalism, as Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously. Thank you. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've edited Tony Jordan to remove the disambig link with this edit summary: "Disambigs should go to finished articles, not lists containing a redlink to a future article." There is discussion ongoing on the List of members of the Irish Republican Army talk page about the article and the way its being created. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. About to edit the other article now. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. If this is Ralph George Feltham (the diplomat), all I've found for him is an MBE awarded in 1961, nothing about a knighthood. Thanks, Craigy ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, A-class ratings for the WikiProject Biography are now preserved for those articles that pass an A-class review. If you encounter biographies that you feel deserve an A-class rating, please follow the instructions on that page and ask for an A-class review. Er rab ee 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, As I'm currently unable to accept bot requests due to technical issues, I moved your request to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Succession_boxes. I've noticed that Betacommand ( talk · contribs) has responded with a question. May I suggest you provide the info he asks for and communicate with him directly? He's a well known bot operator, and if you have him do the job you can be sure it will be done quickly. Cheers, and sorry I couldn't help directly this time. -- kingboyk 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on this Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's about to flare up again; apparently Pat Finucane (solicitor) was murdered, but Sir James Stronge was not. -- Counter-revolutionary 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! My apologies if we clashed this morning on the Ted Heath article, but it seems the debate on his sexuality is almost as highly charged as that at the waterpump on killing/murder. I think you have started a great and rightful debate, and have added my comments which I hope you find useful in your case for good precedent and policy. With Best Regards, - Trident13 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, saw your note on the talk page. I'm not an admin, btw! You seem to know more about correct names of baronetcy articles, and the name you want for the article doesn't seem to exist (as it's a red link) so I would have thought that you could just click on "move" and do it yourself... unless I'm missing something? Best wishes, Bencherlite 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a pdf article at this address but it is pay per view so I don't know what's in it. http://nq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/s12-IV/83/219-g Hope it helps. Regards, -- Bill Reid | Talk 08:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there an explanation for this edit? [3] It makes it appear you are using a sockpuppet. - Will Beback · † · 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, here's the core of the guideline:
As you can see, it says that you should "avoid or exercise great caution" when adding links to your own website or when getting involved in articles related to you. I understand you may not have been aware of this before, but now that you know of it I think it's reasonable to expect you will abide by it by avoiding ediiting your the articles about yourself and your immediate family, and to avoid adding links to your website. - Will Beback · † · 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I should assure you that my position is not personal; I came across the discussion after editing another AfD, and had no idea that the article is WP:AUTO until I had been involved a while. I am uneasy about our assumption that all peers are notable; and I am reluctant to expand it to baronets.
For what it's worth, an accurate article on me probably could be written off the web; but I would speedy it for making no claim of notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not getting involved in this now. Articles are not necessarily consistent, however. Each must be seen on its own merits. Tyrenius 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, Assuming the article is kept at AfD, would you consider uploading a freely licenced image please? It seems strange that we have an article on a (possibly) notable Wikipedian but without a photo! -- kingboyk 18:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Baron Sockpuppetry of New York. One Night In Hackney 303 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Two questions, business and pleasure. 1 - I would like to pull {{ LieutenantGovernorsNovaScotia}} into the tender loving arms of wikipedia:WikiProject_Nova_Scotia. I have been working on adding to the List_of_General_Assemblies_of_Nova_Scotia, having added 1755-1816 today, and I have been noticing that the links to and infoboxes on the LG pages for Nova Scotia are inconsistent to say the least. I would like to edit and add to you infobox, if I may. 2 - out of idle curiosity, can one purchase the title of baronetcy of Nova Scotia? Are they purely hereditary? I know very little about this type of thing. I know that the 1 square foot of Nova Scotia is still in Windsor castle (having had my picture taken on it) and am curious. WayeMason 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar! It felt like a birthday present because my birthday was just the day before! :) Once I sort out a place, I'll put it on my userpage. -- Mal 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to tell you that Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet was not approved for A-class. General consensus was that it is a nice article, well on its way to eventually become A-class, but not just there yet. Comments can be read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet. The comments made by User:Vintagekits were not taken into account. Again sorry. Er rab ee 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thankyou for your support on the BLP noticeboard in relation to Richard Gere. I thought you may be interested to know that the main editor in favour of including false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations is now arguing on the WP:BLP talk page that the policy should be relaxed to remove the requirement to edit BLP entries sensitively, responsibly, and conservatively (see here). Sparkzilla calls these requirements "subjective." To me this demonstrates the stakes for Wikipedia of deciding that unsubstantiated malicious allegations that no credible source argues are true can nevertheless be included on its pages. However, as most editors seem to prefer relaxing these requirements rather than enforcing policy, I am increasingly concluding that Wikpedia is not, or soon may not, be the encyclopaedia I thought it was going to be. I have extensively and patiently argued the case for the exclusion of these allegations, but am less and less inclined to continue with this attempt to explain and enforce policy. But thanks again for your support. FNMF 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The situation has improved a little since I posted the above comment, with the intervention of a couple of very experienced editors. FNMF 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No sorry, I am not Michael Smith, Jr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Friuli ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Someone created a stub on him. I suspect this is Charles Maitland of Pitrichie, son of Alexander Arbuthnot (Baron of Exchequer), but the death dates from Rayment (16 February) vs. the article on Alexander (10 February) conflict slightly. Could you confirm that the two individuals are identical? Yours, Choess 01:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Alexander George Arbuthnot, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot. Thank you. One Night In Hackney 303 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kitty. Sorry to bother you but I wondered if you could change John Cunningham, 14th Earl of Glencairn to 15th Earl. His brother James was the 14th! I am unsure how to do it. Regards, 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As there were previously Sir James Matthew Stronges, the article name should include his full title, can you help out with this. Best wishes, -- Counter-revolutionary 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Your recent creation of {{ Irc}} and the redirect associated with it, and its' addition to a number of AfD's in an attempt to segregate people using a blatantly incivil message, is totally inappropriate. The redirect has been deleted, the template as well, and your additions to the AfD's reverted. Do not do this again, or I will block you. Regardless of whatever you believe, there is no need to sink so low and make such inappropriate edits. Consider this your warning that any further disruption with similar intent will result in a block of one week. Daniel Bryant 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. ;) - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Regards Giano 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the issues which underlies a lot of the tension over these articles is concerns over WP:COI. I do think that WP:COI#Close_relationships is pertinent here; Kittybrewster, would you like to consider refraining from editing articles on Arbuthnots? That may seem to be an extreme step, but it is one of issues which has arisen at repeated AfDs and other discussions, and it sems to me that restraint would probably be an important factor in reaching a truce here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite what you may think, to the best of my knowledge no canvassing of AfD debates regarding Arbuthnot related articles goes on. If it does happen among the Irish (I'm English born and bred, for the record) editors, I am unaware of it. Now for the matter at hand:
Too many AfD debates (both Arbuthnot and Irish republican) have been muddied by block voting from partisan editors. While your proposal that "Irish republican" editors should not nominate any Arbuthnot articles for deletion, it lacked any reciprocal gesture in return.
Therefore I propose that the editors named below (which also includes any use of sockpuppets or IPs) refrain from nominating any articles for deletion, or participating in any Arbuthnot and Irish republican related AfD debates, apart from making comments with regard to their notability, they can not vote. That way a community consensus can be gained by uninvolved editors, and it's all fair and above board.
The editors who have been involved in partisan voting apart from yourself are:
Naturally you would be welcome to pick a similar number of editors in return. I would suggest that this is a quick and simple solution, and prevents a large amount of time being wasted going through dispute resolution which could be spent far more constructively improving the encyclopedia. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 303 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
For clarity, "comment" refers to commenting in AfDs. Rather than voting, an editor concerned about an article can make a comment in an AfD as to why they believe someone is notable, in order to assist uninvolved parties commenting in an AfD. For example, if an Irish republican was up for deletion, I would be permitted to make a comment regarding exactly why I believed the article to be worth keeping, as editors without a specific knowledge of the subject may not realise exactly what makes him notable.
Distantly related - a member of the Arbuthnot family, obviously someone from the 18th or 19th century is distantly related, assuming they are related at all of course.
What other articles are you suggesting it applies to? Rather than cast the net too wide initally, it would be best to keep the scope narrow in order to make it easier to get everyone to agree. Naturally should VK or another editor immediately start nominating similar articles that aren't part of the agreement it would not be looked on in a positive light, and further articles could be added to the agreement.
I assumed Robert Murray Arbuthnot was related, given you created the article and share the same surname. I apologise for the assumption.
Now, is the agreement broadly acceptable to you, possibly with some tweaking? One Night In Hackney 303 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very pleased to see this discussion starting. I think it's long overdue, and I hope you can all agree some sort of a ceasefire. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) Actually it was only recently when I discovered the existence of the plethora of articles you have created. How many of them have I edited? As you're well aware I've pointed out slight wording problems with them, yet I have not acted on any of those problems, hoping you would take appropriate action yourself. I have nominated what I believe to be two minor members of the family for deletion, but that is the extent of my involvement. To claim I am "attacking" your articles is assuming bad faith, and I urge you to take a more pragmatic view. As Giano has stated, it would be better to concentrate on creating good articles on your family members, quality over quantity. If this cannot be resolved quickly and simply it will be more difficult for you to improve the articles, as your time will be spent otherwise engaged. Going back to the quality over quantity, I could create 50 stubs on possibly notable IRA members right now, but I would rather concentrate on improving the existing articles, ie ones that have a chance of being classed as "good articles" or above.
I'm well aware that other editors may need some persuading to agree to this, and certainly some more than others. However I think it is best if an agreement is worked out between a small number of editors who are most involved first, and go from there. I don't think blanket bans on editing articles are appropriate, knowing how badly VK is at spelling at times I would welcome constructive editing on any Irish republican related articles, however (and this isn't directed at you) too often the editing is disruptive. One Night In Hackney 303 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have another idea. Nobody please comment unless they are an admin and can say whether it is reasonable, constructive and fair. Namely that I be blocked for a week if I post on VKs talk page and that he be blocked for a week if he posts on mine. Then we can co9ntinue here maybe. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm responding as an admin, as KB requested. This reply is directed to both Kittybrewster and to Vintagekits.
I'm afraid that at this point, it seems to me that you are both drinking heavily in the last-chance saloon :( I'm very disappointed to see that ONIH's timely efforts to broker a truce appear to have been rejected.
At this point, I see only two possible solutions. Either both Kittybrewster and Vintagekits them agree between a fairly comprehensive ceasefire which brings an end to the disruption, or action will be taken to enforce one, by bans and/or blocks. Both editors have goaded each other for months, both have received numerous warnings, and countless requests for restraint have been either ignored or evaded (by causing trouble in some way other than that specified).
That's it; no third way, as far as I can see. I don't think that the community will accept a continuation of these edit wars, move wars, AfD wars, and barrages of accusation and counter-accusation accompanied by strong political POVs. The situation has been unacceptable for far too long.
You are both talented editors, with a fine commitment to wikipedia and you have both added a lot of good material. But I am now at the point where, with great regret, I will argue for a permanent block on both of you, or at least a series of wideranging bans to keep you far apart.
If either of you wants to avoid that, I think that you will both have to make a serious effort to negotiate your own truce. That's going to require a lot of diplomacy on both sides, but I'm afraid that however difficult either of you finds it, making that big effort to find a breakthrough may now be your only way to avoid something being imposed. Are either of you big enough to make the first move? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work :) This sounds like progress, and I have a suggestion: howsabout you both agree not to edit articles on Arbuthnots? There are major WP:COI issues involved in Kittybrewster editing them, and it's clear that underlies some of the tension at AfDs etc so far. Is that suggestion helpful? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the question has already been answered: see WP:COI#Notability_and_saliency and [6]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."
1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific
guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to
game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Per the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#AfD nomination of Alexander George Arbuthnot, there seems to be no plausible case that this article is of particular relevance to members of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies. Note that while it may be inaccurate to describe this as cross-posting,
WP:CANVASS clearly applies. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you quite sure you have linked to the correct Woodford on this page Charles Arbuthnot as it appears the Arbuthnot's home was in fact here Woodford, Northamptonshire - please note the refs I have researched, which appear to confirm this. This appaears to be the ancestral home [7] Giano 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have just moved the page into User space. One does not edit when am Inuse template is displayed. I have just lost an hours work. Yes, I know I should have saved elsewhere, I did not. I assumed you knew what "in use" meant! It means for a brief period someone does indeed own the page Giano 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably best, to be honest. Stumbled into this via another user, and I've already cocked one nomination up (withdrawn). Looked through a lot of the category though, and there do seem to be a lot of articles on, shall we say, the brink of notability. I'm not going to AfD any more now though (especially as it's 4am)... but at some point this category probably does need to be looked at a bit - as you'll have noticed I acknowledged that a lot of these articles are obviously notable ... but ... EliminatorJR Talk 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What about a long article on the families concerned? The family may be notable, even if the individual members aren't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, most of the Dashwood information is in more detail and better context at West Wycombe Park - However, that does not solve Kittybrewsters current problems. I strongly suggest you read my edit here [13] and act on it, while you still have the choice - half thes pages can be amalgamated for instance: Take Harriet's husband - improve his page considerably, then you could put a section there saying his son Fred or (whatever his name is) made miltary history by becoming a Genral aaged 103 or whatever and Fred's page can be deleted - Harriet will soon be an "A Class" wikipedia biography as such her husbands notability is easier to prove so mention of his son on the fathers page is more easily justified and so on as the son becomes part of the history of his father. I've been writing biographies here quite a while to a very high standard (said modestly!) I do know what I'm talking about. I see no other option open to you. Giano 08:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I am concerned about Kittybrewster's COI in editing Arbuthnot articles, but I am afraid that you are wrong on Henry Fane, MP. As a Member of Parliament, he clearly meets WP:BIO's criterion: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kitybrewster, I was alarmed to see the problem discussed in this edit, and on that basis I have changed my !vote to strong delete. I am assuming good faith, but at this point I have to start questioning the independence of all the sources you cite. I have expressed concerns before about conflicts of interest, and this sutuation seems to me to be a very good reason to take a very strict reading of WP:COI. I'm very disappointed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As a courtesy I inform you I have nominated these pages for deletion. If you have furthter information as to why these people are notable I suggest you add it to the pages concerned. Giano 09:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)