User talk:David Lauder/Archive 1

Archived Talk Page.

Fountainhall Baronets

Your numbering source please? - Kittybrewster 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC):- not a source for the number change on list of extant baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. See Sir John Lauder, 1st Baronet. - Kittybrewster 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My source was Lauder. The early creation should not be on the extant baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 10:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I still don't know what has happened to all my work. I havn't the time to do it all again. Your remark is debateable as it is an extant baronetcy. All that happened was that the patent was replaced altering the succession. GEC is clear on this (although not on other things). David Lauder 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. I am sorry. Thank you. I disagree on the extant statement however on the basis that the earlier creation is not listed on SCB's Official Roll. Best wishes. - Kittybrewster 10:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel it would be wrong to deny them the earlier creation which is clearly continued, albeit under a new patent replacing the old one. The SCB's (a 20th century group?) Official Roll should possibly be corrected. How does one contact them? David Lauder 11:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19th century - www.baronetage.org - Kittybrewster 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, the problem is that wiki requires verifiability, the balance of the sources seem to suggest that the Kitty is correct. You need to prove by citation a reliable source(s) to couter the above. Certainly if you could get the SCB to change their entry that could be used as a source. On another note if you are related (which you may or may not be) to the subject of an article it is good form to note that on the talk page as Kitty has done on at least one of his family related entries. Alci12 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given what I thought were very considerable amounts of source material, where as all kitty has cited is some fellow called Leigh Rayment, who, to the best of my knowledge is not a well-known authority, such as G.E.C., Burkes, or otherwise. The world of academia still prefers printed source materials rather than the websites of those who 'do' the peerage as a hobby. I have asked someone else to contact the SCB and raise this issue. He is friendly with one of their vice-presidents. Just have to wait and see. I am related, as you say. David Lauder 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on The Official Roll rather than Rayment. The Roll does not say that the second creation has earlier (than 1690) precedence. And you tell us the first creation was cancelled; i.e. is no more. I see no reason for the Roll to be corrected. It would be great if you would explain why the 1st Bt sought a second baronetcy to replace the first. And if you would explain why you call Lord Fountainhall Sir John Lauder. - Kittybrewster 13:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall, was knighted circa 1680. Upon his father's death he also became the 2nd baronet. David Lauder 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Lord Fountainhall inherited the baronetcy but he would never have been called Sir John because he had a greater title. - Kittybrewster 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To the best of my knowledge he was always referred to as Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall, (see Crawford) possibly because Lord Fountainhall was a judicial title. I've never seen anything refer to him as simply John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall. Regards.David Lauder 10:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most users prefer sources we can easily check (if possible) The online free version of Burke's doesn't give a date at all so it's not much help. As Rayment uses the usual sources for his page and having frequently compared both on other matters it's usually sound but was not the basis for the article. The SCB entries are regarded as a good source, if they change then absent any other counter evidence that would be very helpful in sorting this out. Obviously it's up to you but if the closeness of your relationship could be reasonably deemed by other users as a potential conflict of interest you ought to comment on the article talk page. Alci12 14:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont perceive a conflict here. But SCB is the definitive source and we should rely on the Official Roll as is until it is amended. - Kittybrewster 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to think there was a conflict here. I am myself an academic and I have cited both G.E.C.'s The Complete Baronetage as well as Lord Fountainhall himself, someone, I would have thought, given his legal position, as unimpeachable. I don't really know how much better than that one can get! David Lauder 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict, if it exists, has nothing to do with sources and is simply a wiki policy about editing articles about yourself or your immediate family where another user who may not know about your relationship ought to, to allow a fair assessment of any changes you make. I hope Kitty won't mind me showing his article where this is clear. Talk:Sir_William_Arbuthnot,_2nd_Baronet Alci12 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am only distantly related (3rd cousin of the present Bt). They are not my immediate family. I believe I have made a factual point about a baronetcy. Being related has no bearing on this matter whatsoever. It is either true or it is not. I still feel I have presented far more sources on this matter than anyone else. Yet I am still judged as incorrect. Amazing. I really don't wish to continue this discussion. I cannot add to it. David Lauder 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, your sources are excellent and your contribution is valuable. I think as you do that the suggestion around your relationship has no bearing. I do so wish people would not take things personally. There are 2 issues here.

Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall. I entirely take your point but it is contra wiki MoS. Let us see what User:Proteus says on it.

Your comment on Talk:Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet is "The correct form of address for a baronet, either written or verbal, anywhere at all, is 'Sir'" but you will find your perspective is contra wiki-MoS which holds that using titles implies a person is somehow "better" than his peers and is therefore non neutral POV. In my opinion that wiki-thought is contra NPOV. - Kittybrewster 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm afraid this is a French Revolutionary/American concept that we are somehow all equal. It really is a crashing bore. Of course we are not. All the animals in the jungle are not equal and neither are humans. Unless they are saying that I am just as good as, say, Einstein! If they are trying to make an encyclopaedia they cannot introduce a political philosophy into it. It must reflect fact. They cannot deny people their titles and forms of address just because they disapprove of them! David Lauder 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd baronetcy was de facto dated 1690 and does not date from 1688. The 1688 one was cancelled and is no more. Baronetcies are ranked in order of creation. The Official Roll is conclusive on this narrow issue. - Kittybrewster 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we are just going over old ground here. My understanding is that the new Patent was drawn up to replace the old one which was deemed to out of order after both court and parliamentary hearings. Whilst it was a new Patent it was not a new Creation as such, as the Creation of that baronetcy already existed. For instance, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder always referred to the Creation as 1688 and this is shown in The Grange of St.Giles.

The whole problem with all these directories etc., is that they all copy from one another over the decades, even centuries, thus perpetuating errors. People then refuse to accept anything else by quoting them all! I had to obtain a Lyon Court letter for the editor of Burkes to prove that GEC was quite wrong about the funeral escutcheon he cited, and even after that when the new edition appeared he had not changed the entry. What hope. David Lauder 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused — what exactly is the issue here? Cracroft's has a 1688 Baronetcy (of Idington, co. Berwick), which was cancelled in 1692, and a 1690 Baronetcy (of Fountainhall, co. Haddington), which is extant, and currently held by Sir Piers Dick-Lauder, 13th Bt. There were ways of altering the succession of Baronetcies, but they don't seem to have been used here. Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A writ of novodamus, yes? That was how they steered the Dukedom of Queensberry around the cannibal. Choess 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would have done. But here it seems to be pretty clear that the earlier title was cancelled and a new one (with an entirely different TD, no less) was created, so I'm not entirely sure what this chap seems to be basing his "alteration" claims on (other than statements by holders of the title, which can hardly be said to be unbiased as to the issue of how senior it is). Proteus (Talk) 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would read what I have said more carefully. The entire matter was not only aired in court but in parliament! If you are saying we should disregard the statements made by one of Scotland's most eminent jurists ever, Lord Fountainhall, as "biased", then I don't know quite what to say. David Lauder 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament's about the worst possible source imaginable — they've made such monstrous errors in the past (Earldom of Mar, anyone?) on matters like this that I'd take anything said in Parliament with a pinch of salt. (Yes, including things said by a Baronet about the seniority of his own Baronetcy.) Proteus (Talk) 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was not the Earldom of Mar case heard in the UK parliament? In any case, that was far more complex. This was a very straightforward matter. And this was no mere baronet. David Lauder 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cmt for privileges hears all cases where the claim is not self-evident. The Mar case was no different but the Cfp made a more than usually stupid decision to the extent that parliament passed an act to undo the consequences. As to proteus's other comment there are more than enough peers who have little accurate knowledge of their own titles, uses them wrongly or assign them the wrong precedence, date, succession or remainder that they have never constituted an reliable source. No one is so eminent a source that they are not fallible especially where it is to personal advantage. Alci12 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You confuse the post-1707 parliament with the Scottish Parliament which did not have such a committee. I have never seen one solitary reference anywhere which describd Lord Fountainhall as either biased or corruptable. He raised the case on it merits and won. Anyway, I have now heard back fom my source who contacted the SBC's man who states:

I am puzzled by the reference to me, or the SBC, being cited as the authority for any matter relating to the Patent in question. I have been in post only 15 months, but my records (going back only to 1960) show that the Baronetcy is titled "Lauder, now Dick-Lauder of Fountainhall". Where the "Idingtoun" came from I regret I have no idea.

I am sorry that I cannot be of more assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Perry Abbott Secretary SCB

G.E.C. also states that the baronetcy (i.e: both 1688 & 1690 Patents) was only 'of Fountainhall'. So firstly I am being told the SCB are the authority whom everyone is relying upon, but they tell me they are not. So I feel that my sources are possibly superior. David Lauder 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confuse nothing, my Cfp remark related to your comments about the Mar earldom being heard in parliament, nothing more or less. The CfP doesn't hear issues relating baronets. I certainly would regard the official roll as a source. However, Proteus cited Cracrofts, you've cited GEC this is no more clearly settled than before. This isn't personal, or me(us) being difficult we just want to make sure that wiki is right! This is clearly a more than usually complex case and may just take time to tie up all the ends. Alci12 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privy Seal

Re your message, I agree that John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale is not the successor to Richard Maitland as Keeper of the Privy Seal. However the problem lies not with the succession box but with the recently created redirection page which turns what was previously a red link for "John Maitland" into a link to Lauderdale. I will convert the "John Maitland" page into a disambiguation page to overcome this.--George Burgess 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The successor was John Maitland (Prior) - Kittybrewster 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Priors were abolished when Maitland got Coldingham. He was appointed Commendator. In addition, he later became John Maitland, 1st Lord Maitland of Thirlestane. I have now done an entry for him. David Lauder 09:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Maitland, 1st Lord Thirlestane and John Maitland, 1st Lord Maitland are now redirects. Is that correct? - Kittybrewster 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. David Lauder 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St.Baldred

Heho, I would like to suggest you to merge your article to the preexisting article Saint Baldred and then redirect it. The article Saint Baldred is linked to other articles, contains the correct format (in example the saints-infobox) and is not named wrongly (you have missed a blank between St. and Baldred). By the way, before creating an article you should search and find out whether not already one article to the respective topic or person exists. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Many thanks for that. I have posted the reply on your Talk page. David Lauder 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, Saint Baldred seems a little bit faulty - in example if he has died in 606, he couldn't be born 647. It would be great if you would use your informations, for which you have references, to expand and correct the article. After doing that, you can remove the merge-tag and can redirect your article (you simply have to insert: #REDIRECT [[Saint Baldred]] - instead of the previous text). Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

There was a little misunderstanding :-). How you know the Wikipedia software can change code to text or signs. If you put something between square brackets for example, you will receive a link. But sometimes it is necessary to show the code and not the result. In these cases we can use <nowiki> and </nowiki>, then the Wikipedia software will ignore everything what is between them and will represent it exactly instead of changing it. Therefore you simply would have been supposed to leave the <nowiki> and </nowiki> out. Thanks for your work. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Alexander 1st Lord Home

All I was saying on the discussion page is that the article title seemed a little bit of a reach for someone to actually search for, and I recommended creating some redirects to your article from other pages like just "Alexander Home". StoptheDatabaseState 21:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate any assistance and advice. David Lauder 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bass and more

Yes, I certainly agree with you about that lump of "Bass"-alt! (boom, boom... sorry couldn't help it) You certainly don't have "Fidra Rock" or the "Lamb Rock". While it is admittedly a very large piece of stone, I've always known it as "the Bass" unadorned with anything geologically inspired. I'll put a note on the talk page, and if not contended I'll move it. As a Lauder, I would be most grateful if you would have a go at, or pass me some info regarding a couple of articles I'm trying to get up and running Whitecastle (a stub) and Nunraw (not started yet), as I understand that that formed part of the Lauder o' Bass' lands. Slan. Brendandh 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ps 3 months in Donegal, 9 months in Jock. I'm afraid I haven't worked out how to do it at the same time, but still endeavouring.[reply]

Sorry. Also, I'm trying to find out information on North Berwick Castle - down near what is the Glen Golf club on the east bay there is the remnants of the motte. According to Mr. Spratt, curator of Dirleton Castle and www.maybole.org fame that was the first norman fortification around this part of the coast and latterly a Lauder curtelage until it was demolished. AND proir apologies for overburdenment with questions: is the name Lauder from the place or did the place take its name from the person? Thanks Brendandh 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am frightfully sorry but I failed to respond to your North Berwick query. I'll see what I can find. David Lauder 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC). OK, I've found something now and will post on your Talk Page. David Lauder 11:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll answer here and put a note on your talk page. The Lauder of The Bass family did have, briefly, Whitecastle or Nunraw (same thing - Whitecastle is the ancient name which is really attached to a Stone Age fort there). I will see what I can find. It passed to the Hepburns who had it for a couple of hundred years. The castle at North Berwick - I have something somewhere on it - was almost certainly a modest fort rather than a castle. The Lauders were Normans, and as they are the earliest recorded proprietors of The Bass (late 11th century) its possible they had something to do with it. The Royal Burgh of Lauder takes its name from the family (not visa versa). It is on record that they had a grant of most of the lands in and around the present town before the feudal system was introduced, the hamlet (as that is all it then was) being further up the hill towards the moor. When the family built their first Pele Tower there a new village (later town) built up around its walls. The few old huts up near the moor were abandoned. David Lauder 08:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info David. Although I started the White castle article as is, I feel that it would actually be more appropriate to move it to Nunraw and include a subsection on the hillfort, and another on the modern Cistercian community, obviously noting the connection with the cistercian nunnery in Haddington in the early days. What do you think? Regards Brendandh 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message immediately above. Yes, I agree, it should be under Nunraw. David Lauder 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney

You might like to contribute to this talk page, topic MBE if you have a view. - Kittybrewster 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sightly bonkers discussion but I have commented. David Lauder 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have. But you are only partly right. One is appointed rather than awarded

MBE (like Proteus's corporal analogy). - Kittybrewster 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are correct. You are awarded the medal though; appointed to the order. Thats what I meant to say. Sorry I wasn't all that clear. Its all a bit of hair-splitting is it not? David Lauder 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one is also appointed a Knight of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (or whatever). It would be helpful if your comment were made more clear. It is interpretable wrongly. - Kittybrewster 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to church now, but my understanding is that all knights are dubbed in the traditional manner whatever order they are invested into. I have never heard of any knight being 'appointed'. He would be dubbed a knight of whichever order and enrolled forthwith. I'll look at Shaw when I get home. David Lauder 18:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. They are appointed to an Order - then dubbed. - Kittybrewster 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the other way around? I always thought the word appointed related to a position rather than an honour. David Lauder 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbing didn't always happen. It's not uncommon to find soldiers serving in the empire appointed to various orders of knighthood and use the title but never return home to be dubbed (or have it performed by another) and indeed frequently never receive their insignia. There are some rather amusing stories of honours being put aboard ships which sank or took so long to arrive that the recipient had been posted somewhere else and as fast as the award tried to follow them they managed to evade it :D Alci12 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal Titles

"feudal baronies have now been completely abolished by Act of Parliament (2004)"

Not so, the titles were seperated from the land and the almost all remaining feudal/legal and other privileges removed by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure 2004 but the title was absolutely and explicitly preserved.

The key sections are:

(1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin).

(2) When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist as a feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not attach to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity shall be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable property Alci12 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I don't disagree with that. I read through the Act very carefully because of its overall very controversial nature. But the feudal baronies, which were until then recorded in the Sasines, because they had legal territorial rights, were abolished. The titles alone exist as paper titles and nothing more. It is ridiculous and meaningless. Even a Lordship of the Manor in England still carries certain rights. David Lauder 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are certainly 'paper' but they obviously retain certain features that lotms don't, they are titles in law and some give heraldic supporters. We have yet to find out in the courts the extent to which Lyon will be able to restrict some of the privileges granted wrongly by past Lyons last century Alci12 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought supporters were personal. Is that not so? I thought all that a feudal baron could claim was a funny lttle hat somewhere on his arms. I shall look at Thomas Innes to see what he says. Which feudal baronies carry Arms pertinent to the actual barony rather than the holder? They must be pretty ancient and very rare. David Lauder 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A feudal baron can petition by right for supporters for their arms if the barony dates prior to 1587. Various others after that date and before 1618 also seem to have acquired that right but not all. I wouldn't rely on Lyon Innes of Learney. He claims 'historic' practice which fits his views of what the dignity of barons ought to have. He was in large measure responsible the c20 practice of granting the chapeaux both blue and red without any good historic basis. He also pushed a view (which the courts had refused) of a historic wide range of lyon powers relating to recognition. To save me some typing you might like to look at a quick listing of some of the problems [1] The section where his earlier and later views are compared is especially revealing ( see Such a cap {was formerly} IS ) Alci12 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but if we cannot rely upon the Lord Lyon King of Arms, who is a lawyer and a judge in his own officially recognised court, then it must leave us all without an accurate source on the subject. Nevertheless, I note all you say. David Lauder 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy. I just thought that you might not be aware how some of Innes' views are regarded today. He was but one lyon and the present holder appears to be having a go at undoing some of Learney's actions (for example the chapeaux). Lyon's decisions are subject to some judicial review so we do have some case law some of which is mentioned at [2] with more remarks about Learney's differing views Alci12 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship

Yes - Thomas Arbuthnot (ship). - Kittybrewster 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Fascinating. David Lauder 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haddingtonshire

Apologies for this, I changed to avoid misunderstanding of the article and to try to aim for more consistency. Many maps in this period (although I can not reference any from exactly 1792) refer to the area as East Lothian, East Lothian Shire as well as Haddingtonshire, although I confess to being unsure of when the name was officially changed to Haddingtonshire. For example Angus was changed in the late 19th century and was changed back around the same time as East Lothian in the 1920s. I am not sure, however, if this equates to what you say about Kant, as Königsberg was named after Kalinin and the city had never previously been referred to as Kaliningrad in the past. The Wikipedia article on Kant does actually mention that he was born in what is now Kaliningrad. Either way, feel free to revert my change if you feel it improves the article. Benson85 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have three maps here: 1707, 1815 and 1854. They all call it Haddingtonshire. As for Angus, it was still called county Forfar in the 1871 census returns. Regards. David Lauder 09:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formats

Hi, have you seen the section of the style manual on how to reference sources in wikipedia? cheers Nesbit 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I havn't. I will take a look at it. I hope its not terribly convoluted. I'm not brilliant at the IT business. David Lauder 08:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you go to my home page and email me. - Kittybrewster 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliament

The Kingdoms of Scotland and England both existed in their own right until 1707, even though they were united in personal union since 1603. Please look at the Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Great Britain articles, the cited references and the British Isles (terminology) article. Please also bear in mind WP:CIVIL in relation to your edit summaries, before accusing other editors of bias. The best forum to discuss problems that you have with the article is on its talk page. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that I have been uncivil to anyone at all. I made a comment about content, not about any particular individual. Never mind. I see you and someone else have reverted my edits. I have no intention of entering edit wars or acrimonious disputes. My understanding, and I would regard myself as having a pretty good education, is that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland continue until this day to be kingdoms in their own right but which Kingdoms were united under one Crown, the supreme authority. That is when the United Kingdom(s) came into being (but with separate parliaments as, to a lesser extent, today) and that is when the Union flag (without St Patrick's Cross) came into being to show that. I will see what Dalrymple, Thomson, Tytler and Burton have to say before I also consult Anderson. Thank you for your comment. David Lauder 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder Water

You might want to amend this. - Kittybrewster 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have , a little. David Lauder 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Gibson?

Re: St. Baldred, I'm slightly perplexed as to who "Bishop Gibson of Saint Andrews" is. In 1542 the "bishop" of Saint Andrews was Cardinal Archbishop David Beaton, and looking through all the main east coast and Glasgow lists of bishops, I can't find a Gibson anywhere. In fact the only Gibson I've come across is a late seventeenth century Anglican Bishop of London. Brendandh 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

J Stewart-Smith gives the following citation on page 190 of The Grange of St Giles (1898): "1542. The v day of January, M. Wilhelm Gybsone, Byschop of Libariensis and Suffraganeus to David Beton, Cardynall and Archbysschop of Sant Andros, consecrat and dedicat the paris kirk in the craig of The Bass, in honor os Sant Baldred, bysschop and confessor, in presence of Maister Jhon Lauder, Arsdene [Archdeacon] in Teuisdaill [Tweeddale]], noer publict." The author adds a footnote that this comes from Excracta e variis Cronicis Scocie, printed for the Abbotsford Club, 1842,p.255. David Lauder 10:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaton would not have been so "Pastoral" I would imagine. I had a moment there, modern Bishops (including Suffragans) always have there own see, eg Bishop of Dunkeld within the Archdiocese of Edinburgh and Saint Andrews, but that was not always the way obviously. Libariensis is a term that I'm not familiar with and have been trying to decipher, can you shed any light? On another subject, Sir Hew/Hugh/Hugo (de) Giffa(o)rd needs an article, considering that he is probably the most famous of the high Mediæval superiors of Yester etc. Would you care for a collaboration on the "Wizard"? Brendandh 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibson preceeded John Sinclair as Dean of Restalrig, and is recorded as suffragan bishop of Saint Andrews with the title of Libaria 16 July 1540 (Dowden, Bishops, 32, n2) and appears in the St Andrews Rental Books on 28 August 1541 and in the Yester Writs in June 1542. He died on 7 July 1542. Refer: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Medii Aevi Ad Annum 1638 revised edition, edited by D.E.R.Watt and A.L.Murray, Scottish Record Society, Edinburgh, 2003, p.482.

I'll have a go at helping with de Giffard. I may have some detail on him. Let me know what you would like me to do or whether you want me to commence a page. What's the "Wizard"? Regards. David Lauder 08:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soutra

Hi, just a note about Soutra. Technically Soutra aisle is in the Borders, the boundary with Midlothian runs along the B6368 which gives access to both the Aisle, all that remains of the Hospital and Religious House, and the Car park prtaining. The Car park only is in Midlothian, but the Aisle and archaeological digs are in Berwickshire. Although F.H.Groome states that originally it was part of Haddingtonshire, but was annexed by the parish of Fala which lies in Edinburghshire. The boundaries must have changed since 1902 when Groome was writing. Brendandh 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was unaware of that. Was it originally in Berwickshire though? Regards. David Lauder 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Dates of Birth

You are welcome to make that point on the policy page. I'd recommend that you raise your objection at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Before you do, though, please read all the discussion that led to the ruling and that has reaffirmed it several times so far. You are not the first to raise this question.

Here are a few of the more relevant discussion threads but some of the others about legal liability and our general presumptions on privacy also apply. I know it's a long read but the archives of this particular talk page are worth reviewing. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1#Policy
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1#Privacy of birthdays clarification needed
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1#Privacy of birthdays
(note: there are two sections on the page with this same header. In this case, make sure you read the second one)
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 2#Privacy of birthdays
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 3#Privacy of birthdays?!
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 5#Proposed change/clarification to privacy of birthdays

former burgh?

Well here's a reference to the "former burgh of Lauder" in legislation: [3], this is less official: [4] On page 19 of this it refers to former burghs [5]

As far as the Royal Burgh of Lauder's *arms* are concerned, they did indeed revert to the Crown, just like those of county councils, on May 16, 1975. Lauderdale community council was allowed to rematriculate the arms of the burgh, with a community council coronet added, in 2000 (Lyon Register, lxxxi, 23). As Lord Lyon would not allow two entities to have the same coat of arms, the burgh can be taken as no longer existing.

Many other community councils have gone through the process of reclaiming the burgh arms, the most recent being Portknockie, I think.[6]

Have a look at this conversation [[7]] from a couple of months ago. Also the Select Committee mentioned in passing in 1999 that article XXI of the Act of Union protecting royal burghs had been abrogated by the LG(S)A 1973.

Area councils administer "Common Good Funds" for the benefit of inhabitants of burghs: I assume these are vestiges of burgh charities and possibly relate back to charters. They almost always refer to "former burghs".[8] [9] [10] [11]

Of course, there is nothing to stop a place using the title. Community councils in particular can call themselves anything they want, Brechin calls itself a "city", but it isn't.

Lozleader 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

Please vote. - Kittybrewster 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have. David Lauder 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- you may also wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde- another non notable IRA member. Astrotrain 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Lauder, nice to meet you. Any friend of Kittybrewster is a friend of mine! I'd get yourself a suitably anonymous tag like mine rather than risk a punishment beating from some of the more excitable Wikipedia contributors!--Major Bonkers 09:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Douglas, X, Yth Earl of Douglas" to "Douglas, X, Yth Earl of"

Hi there. You don't have to change all the category names as it will always appear as the title of the page in category section but under the first letter to appear. Cheers Brendandh 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By chance I noticed that in the various categories instead of being listed under their surnames, they were being listed under Christian names and even titles. When I looked I found the categories all over the place. I thought I would try and rectify it. No offence intended. David Lauder 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None taken, I just mentioned it to save you the bother of altering every single one! if the name Douglas comes first after the category name, it will appear under D regardless of what comes after. Cheers Brendandh 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hume of Berwick

I'm not surprised it should be spelled 'Home' on his tomb. The name, of course, was spelled several ways, in different documents throughout this period... but Lord Hume of Berwick has become accepted the norm. My authority for this is Debrett's. Flozu 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David

With regard the spelling of Home/Hume, the name was being spelled variously at this time, by various members of the family - and even by the same person. There are countless examples of this in the muniment room at The Hirsel, where I have spent many hours. Let us not forget that spellings did not become fixed until much later on. There is the famous example of Shakespeare signing his name in two different ways in the same document.... But I'm sure you know all this.

With regard to the letters patent, this is a complex issue. I correspondeded with the the Lord Lyon King of Arms about this some years ago. We cannot be sure whether the lordship was created in the English or Scottish peerage, because it belongs to a group of four or five peerages created right at the beginning of James VI/I's reign in England, for which the legal situation is confused. It certainly had a remainder allowing it to pass through the female line, and it came to the Earls of Home through the marriage of Lady Anne Home to Sir James Home of Whitrigg, parents of the 3rd Earl of Home. I believe that Dugdale maintained that it had the very unusual remainder allowing the succession to be governed by nomination, although on this point again the surviving historical sources conflict. Hope this helps. Flozu 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I'd be surprised if the Privileges Committee could not tell us whether it is an English or Scottish peerage. Berwick was in England. I think it would have been very controversial if it had been in the Scottish Peerage as it would have been seen by English zealots as a de facto Scottish claim to Berwick and there would have been uproar. Wood clearly thinks it is English as does Revd Kirk. I knew of his daughters but how is it they never used the title after their father died? David Lauder 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was gazetted "Baron Home of Berwick". That would indicate an English peerage as we don't have patented barons in Scotland, only Lords of Parliament. Over to you. David Lauder 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Burkes and Francis Leeson spell the title as Baron Hume of Berwick but both state it is extinct. David Lauder 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination would not be a lawful remainder to an English title Alci12 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunately I do not possess a copy of Dugdale. That said, the best authorities usually cite him as a competent English authority and it therefore seems odd they don't mention this. Unless someone comes up with clear accessible sources which cite that an early 17th century English barony could pass through the female line I remain unconvinced. I have seen several documents in the archives referring to his daughters after his death, and none of them are referred to as 'Baroness' Home/Hume. David Lauder 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the barony of Lucas (called 'of Crudwell') is uniquely to 'heirs general without division' but that's got a nice shiny patent to say so. There are the odd barony by writ and one earldom to heirs general but they would have fallen into abeyance between the daughters and needed termination by the sovereign which would again be recorded in the LG. Other than that there are a few examples of the heirs male of specific daughters but again this is an exception and mentioned in the patent. Nothing changes my opinion that nomination would not be lawful nor without the patent and a clear special remainder can we assume anything but a default in the English peerage. Scottish rules are certainly different but heirs general is not the default there either. I would certainly want good sources to assume anything but standard remainders in either peerage. Alci12 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The onus would seem to be on you — you're the one who changed it, I merely reverted you. You don't seem to have provided any evidence at all (and your statement of Apparently he was gazetted "Baron Home of Berwick". now seems to have become a rather categorical He was gazetted an English Baron. without any intervening change in the evidence you've provided). And Berwick-upon-Tweed may be in England, but the County of Berwick (which, according to his article, is where his family were from) is in Scotland. Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I changed it to represent what is properly known. "Apparently" is a manner of speech, not a doubt. I'll have to dig out my original sources for you again. The general understanding is that the title referred to Berwick, not Berwickshire. He built a small palace in Berwick, currently something of a cause celebré amongst the local historians there. David Lauder 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the source can't be considered credible as regards peerage matters, as it also posits what has already been pointed out to be an impossibility: an English peerage with a nomination clause. Either the peerage was English or it had that remainder — it can't be both. (I obviously agree, however, that in any event it's extinct.) There's another problem with him being an English peer, as well: the Lords Journal for that period is online and I can find no instance of him sitting in the English House of Lords, which would be unusual to say the least had he been created an English peer. Proteus (Talk) 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps I ought to make my position clear. I don't believe that any English peerage could lawfully have a nomination remainder, in that there being no precedence for such I think the CfP would have thrown that out as they did wrt to creations with specific precedence and Wensleydale over the 'remainder' and certain others over shifting remainders. I don't think I'd quite go as far as to say it couldn't have been included in the LP, just that if it had I don't think based on the above precedents it would have not been ruled unlawful. Alci12 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source I have provided is all we have at the moment. Also, a great many peers never went to parliament. But I will try and find out more. David Lauder 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand me. I have no particular interest in Lord Hume/Home. I merely wrote up info I had found and gave the sources. I felt that unsourced assertions and opinion should not be up on the article page. This afternoon I found another reference, by William Anderson (The Scottish Nation, Edinburgh, 1867, volume IV, p.75), where he states in a large section on page 75: "Dunbar, Earl of, a title in the Scottish peerage, revived in the person of George Home, third son of Alexander Home of Manderston.......In 1603 he attended King James to London on his accession to the English throne, and on 7th July 1604 was sworn a Privy Councillor of England, and created a Peer of that kingdom by the title of Baron Home of Berwick. David Lauder 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I’ll check the edition of Debrett’s next time I’m in the reading room. I’m happy with the consensus as it stands in the article though. And while the question of the remainder is fascinating (to some of us), Wikipedia probably shouldn’t be the place to try and resolve it, as original research would be needed. If anyone wants me to email them the letter I received from Lyon about this, please leave a message on my talk page. The only thing that might need some attention for disambiguation purposes is the Polwarth version of the peerage, as mentioned by Phoe above. I have no sources on this. Proteus? Flozu 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bothered about the spelling. His surname was at the time officially spelt Home (pronounced Hume) so it is beyond me why it would have been gazetted as Hume unless it was a spelling error. The arguments here, as I see them, are (1) English or Scottish creation. I have seen no proper citeable evidence anywhere that it is a Scottish Lordship of Parliament, but I have seen several references of note which say it was an English barony. (2) whether the original barony is extinct or not. I myself cannot locate any references which state it is anything other than extinct. (3) You stated the peerage progressed through his daughters. I have seen numerous references relating to them and all refer to them merely as the daughters of the deceased George Home, Earl of Dunbar. Neither of their husbands ever used the title Lord Hume of Berwick. As I said, all the authorities I have consulted say it is extinct. The only viable source you are able to cite is a discussion/opinion of one of Debrett's editors (probably Williamson) in the 1970s. Yet Edmund Lodge, Norroy King of Arms, does not credit the Earls of Home with any right to this Barony, nor do Burke's Peerage. So I am opposed to "consensus" because it is not at all encyclopaedic, and serously flawed in such a case as this. David Lauder 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I've checked the various editions of Debrett's as promised. Essentially all the recent editions, including the current edition, state that "The Lordship of Home (or Hume) of Berwick, cr by patent 1604 upon George Home, High Treasurer of Scotland (who in 1605 was cr Earl of Dunbar), with remainder to his heirs for ever, is held to have descended to the Earls of Home through lady Anna Home. Whether this was an English Barony, as thought by Dugdale, or a Scottish Lordship, which is thought more likely in view of the remainder is uncertain." (Charles Kidd & David Williamson, ed. 2003. Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage. Macmillan, London). I'm afraid I have no idea what their source for this was, but as I say I have some old correspondence from Lyon confirming the Debrett's statement. On another matter entirely, I would be very grateful if you could bring your considerable experience to bear on a discussion at talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly. Your contribution would be welcome as ever. Flozu 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRA terrorist suspects

Yes it is surprising that there is continued support for having these articles. There does seem to be vocal minority of anglophobes on Wikipedia however who do their best to present an anti-British bias in these types of articles. Hopefully they will be deleted, and then more of the non notable IRA members can be nominated for deletion. I believe Wikipedia's credibility is under threat by having these memorial pages- many of them have unreliable sources or contain potential libelous statements. If they do decide to be kept, it will be a big job to de-POV them. Regards Astrotrain 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about the various articles on the so called hunger strikers (eg Paddy Quinn (Irish republican))- what do you think about them being merged into the 1981 Irish hunger strike article, rather than having glorified articles about each participant? Astrotrain 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP I have removed a remark you made on this page. BLP applies to editors also. Please refrain from such comments, and also AGF in other editors, unless you can prove otherwise, in which case first address it with the editor and then follow the recourses available in WP:DR. What is not acceptable is an ongoing campaign of innuendos and unsubstantiated slurs, which is also called trolling and can lead to loss of editing privileges. Prove your allegations or don't make them. Tyrenius 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the glorification of these monstrous people who were variously involved in an organisation which was proscribed and illegal throughout all of Ireland, and which was dedicated to the murder and mutilation of innocents should not be part of Wikipedia, whether or not they received numerous mentions in a newspaper. It is too easy to forget the hideous scenes of blood all over the streets, children lying dead in the gutter etc. I could understand the IRA having a page (hopefully telling the truth about them) but thats all. Those who engage in prolonged forms of suicide (hunger strikers) deserve no mention whatsoever. David Lauder 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating two arguments. It hardly needs saying that "glorification" of any personage in a wiki article is unacceptable and violates policy. However, you identify this with merely having an article on wikipedia. You then go on to say that certain people should not have an article because they have committed atrocious acts, regardless of how well known those inviduals are. This stance completely violates non-negotiable policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, as well as the guideline of WP:N. If you feel your views should become the yardstick, it is up to you to first achieve consensus over them, and, in the case of the first 3 policies, to negotiate with Jimbo Wales. You have effectively stated an intent to deliberately ignore policy in order to promote your own values. To pursue this will be disruptive behaviour and is likely to result in loss of editing privileges.

To make the sequence of talk clear: please note the following was inserted in the middle of my post.Tyrenius 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find your message above very confrontational, to say the least. I don't know how on earth you make such a mountain out of fundamental and, in the circumstances, reasonable remarks. The sort of remarks most people in Great Britain would, I feel sure, concur with. At no time whatsoever did I state an intent to deliberately ignore any policy, knowingly or unknowingly, and you read into my comments something which is not there. AfDs are supposed to be places where we can put our comments on these articles and if you are now saying that you want the comments sanitised to such an extent that they become meaningless I will refrain from doing so in future. I understood that the person who makes the final decision to delete or not to delete is the person who takes everything that has been said into account to reach a consensus opinion. I do not believe for one moment that I have somehow taken on some new primary role in disruptive behaviour and your threat to block me for merely expressing a view on terrorists is quite outrageous. David Lauder 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this post, I would point out that talk pages belong to wikipedia, not the individual (myspace provides that) and are not the place to conduct private conversations. As we are engaged in a collegiate project, it is usual for editors to "chip in" if there is something they wish to say. Talk pages are communication pages and quite often fulfil the function of "debating" pages. In this case, the talk named another editor and, furthermore, made a derogatory remark about him. He was more than entitled to respond. If you study WP:TPG you will see an important mandate is not to distort another user's message. By moving it out of context onto another page, this is what you did. It only makes sense in its original context.

I realise you may not have encountered some of these issues before, so I hope that things will proceed more smoothly and amicably from here on. We are writing an encyclopedia together. Tyrenius 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely expressed my view. Thank you for yours. If I have misunderstood anything, I apologise. David Lauder 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to second Tyrenius's statements. Mr. Lauder, you appear to either completely misunderstand or simply wish to ignore several of our core policies. If you can not work with a neutral point of view, then I suggest you refrain from editing any articles related to the IRA. Your stance above is not compatible with continued work on those articles on Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very pompous remarks. It is possible to use and misuse core policies. However, I wish to point out that I have never ever edited any articles related to the IRA not do I have any wish to. I merely commented upon them after being directed to them. I can see that democratic comment is unwelcome. David Lauder 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please study WP:CIVIL. This is not an option: it is a requirement of communication, which your previous post does not meet. Mr Darcy is very straightforward and accurate in his observations. It is disingenous to say you have not edited IRA articles as you have participated in AfDs on them, which amounts to the same thing and Mr Darcy's comments still apply. Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of personal comment on topics. See What can I not have on my user page. It is a place to build an encylopedia by applying the various policies that govern that. The only purpose of my and Mr Darcy's messages is to point that out. You continue to misrepresent the aim of those messages. Tyrenius 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I can only apologise. My understanding of an AfD page was that it was a place for discussion where people indicated their reasons for voting whichever way they did and that a consensus would then be drawn from that discussion. David Lauder 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation on AfD is correct. If you look back, you'll see that this exchange started because of the remarks on this page. Tyrenius 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

...for the vandalism reversion. School days are the worst, especially when it's a Friday afternoon in the U.S.; any anonymous edit to a historical subject is suspect. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve Arbuthnot Road. - Kittybrewster 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soutra

Please see the following:

Although the historic buildings were in Midlothian, the remaining structure is within the district of Ettrick and Lauderdale now subsumed in the Scottish Borders following boundary changes. See Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 which pulled the local authority area of Heriot and Stow, which covers Soutra from Midlothian into the Borders. regards. Brendandh 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see from where you are coming. In a sense we are both correct, especially as I am one of those who refuses to accept the Heath local government 'reforms'. The Royal Burgh of Lauder is a case in point: in Berwickshire and seat of its Commissariot, with its own council, for 900 years, now in the no-mans land of the Borders region. Its too awful. At least Rutland has recently won its fight and had its original ancient county restored. I live in hope.........David Lauder 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army

I wonder whether you have seen this.--Major Bonkers 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, but I'll have a look now. David Lauder 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Had a look now. If such a 'project' is not POV then I don't know what is. I see one of the activists is someone called User:Kathryn NicDhàna who has made an entry on Women in the Easter Rising. Give me strength. David Lauder 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour‎- another non notable IRA member up for deletion Astrotrain 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts?

I'm in the process of a spat with a Canadian regarding the origins of Hamilton. As I am one, I feel suitably guerdoned to pass information on the subject, as I am sure you do with Lauder. Could you have a look at Talk:Hamilton and see what you think. Thanks. Brendandh 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it would not be in your best interests to respond to this particular question on your Talk Page! I have, however, left a comment for the person who is clearly suggesting you have no right to comment. It is absolutely amazing how all these different people use and manipulate Wikipedia rules to suit their purpose once they've lost the arguments.

I shall have to consult on the surname of Hamilton. Do ALL Hamiltons throughout the world originate from the one original family? This would be unusual. The Edict of Elgin proclaimed that all those vassals who did not have a proper surname should acquire one and the first suggestion was that they take the name of the village or town they lived in. (In the Highlands movement on this issue was contested and, as we know today, they eventually took the surnames of their tribal leader). This is a complex subject and the Lauder family historian whom I regularly email for further information insists that ALL those with the surname Lauder come from the ancient Norman family and not from the hamlet, because, he says, the original hamlet was not where it is today (nor was it called Lauder), the present one taking shape some time after the edict. What is the situation with the burgh of Hamilton? What do the earliest references say about it? David Lauder 13:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same really. Only the Burgh of Hamilton was renamed in the late 15thc., being called Cadzow previously. This renaming as a result of James, 1st Lord Hamilton becoming a Lord of Parliament and the burgh renamed in his favour. The original "Hamilton" is thought to be either Humbledon (as in Battle of Humbledon Hill) or Hambledon in Hampshire. Sure, vassals took their patronymic from their feudal superiors, as your point on the edict of Elgin, but in the smaller society of the day those vassals were often tied by bonds of kinship illegitimate, improper, irregular &c. and as there was only one man to mutate the name to Hamilton it would suggest that William of Hamilton, grandfather of Walter fitz Gilbert and is the man. This William is also considered son to the Beaumont Earl of Leicester, and this claim is strengthened by use of cinquefoils in the arms of Hamilton. Much the same can be said about ther relationship between the Douglas and the de Moravia families, with their common forenames and armorial stars.

Another example of renaming is that of the Barony of Borthwick, originally Locherwart/Locherwerth. Thinking cap on firmly on how to deal with this one. Thanks for your help Brendandh 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Borthwicks are said to have come from Hungary, but one early book said they could not speak Hungarian and had just accompanied Margaret etc (like the Drummonds). It is suggested that the Borthwicks came from Livonia. Locherworth (anciently a Hay possession) is in Peebleshire and has no connection, to the best of my knowledge, with Borthwick. I'll do some more reading on the Hamiltons. Did Frazer do one of his mammoth books on the Hamiltons? He certainly did on the Earls of Haddington (who were Hamiltons). David Lauder 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

Let me know if you need any help. It is very important to tag them with the right copyright permission or they will get deleted. "Non commercial use" or "wikipedia only" is not acceptable. PD or GFDL is acceptable, or fair use (in limited circumstances). Tyrenius 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would not submit anything with copyright attached to it. David Lauder 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you still have to state on the image page exactly the nature of the copyright situation. Even if it is out of copyright, that still has to be asserted and in fact justified. You may know this already, I realise. Tyrenius 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Wedderburn Castle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wedderburn Castle.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Try GFDL. - Kittybrewster 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you didn't realise after all. If you have taken the photo, click on edit for the image page and put on it:

This will clear its use for Wikipedia. It also means anyone else can use it for whatever purpose they choose, including altering it, but they have to credit you as the original author, plus including the GFDL licence which is quite hefty, so effectively this prevents the use of the image on a postcard, for example. The licence is irrevocable once given. Restrictive licence such as "wikipedia only" or "non commercial use" is not acceptable. Tyrenius 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I think I have done it now. David Lauder 08:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Blackadder_House.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackadder_House.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have dealt with it. David Lauder 08:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm looking through them. I have uploaded Scan with new name of Image:School-Mordington-1891.jpg. This can now be put in the article.

Could you please confirm that where you have used GFDL, that you have actually taken these photos yourself, in which case you should use {{GFDL-self}}. Also in that case, don't say "no copyright" as it is still your copyright — you have granted a licence, namely GFDL, which has certain restrictions you can still impose.

If you have not taken the photo, please let me know where it came from. If it was a book or postcard, then it is likely to be still in copyright and probably something we can't use, unless copyright has expired. If the photographer has been dead 100 years, then it is definitely out of copyright. Terms of 50 or 70 years may apply to UK law. See Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Extension_of_copyright_term.

Tyrenius 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blackadder House.jpg

You can't release this under GFDL as that can only be done by the copyright holder. You have to assert that it is out of copyright. Please see the image page for the rationale. You can copy and paste this to use it for any similar images. Tyrenius 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the tag to {{PD-old-70}}, i.e. over 70 years since author has died, to be on the safe side. Tyrenius 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wedderburn Castle.jpg

Provided you took this photo yourself, then this is the correct licence. If you didn't take it yourself, please let me know the circumstances of its origin. Tyrenius 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edrington castle & mill.jpg

Tagged {{PD-old}}, i.e. author dead over 100 years. Tyrenius 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used this tag also for three portrait engravings. However, this section relating to art tags might be applicable to these, though the difference is academic. Tyrenius 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The artist(s) in these instances died about three hundred years ago! David Lauder 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags

Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and in particular Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain. Tyrenius 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Watt

I suspect that this article gets vandalism from students from James Watt College in Greenock. There's unattented PCs in every classroom and in the library and the whole place is full of neds. I say this as someone who used to go there... Wibbble 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request re Vintagekits

I will have a look and see if I can be of help. Tyrenius 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. David Lauder 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started with User talk:Vintagekits and was somewhat taken aback to see this edit. It's personal and derogatory, and doesn't do much to help your cause that Vintagekits needs censuring. Quite honestly, if you persist in that tone, it will be a definite case of harassment and personal attack. I say this, as you may not realise how it reads to both Vintagekits and a third party. It is important to comment on edits, not editors. Tyrenius 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought his approach towards Kittybrewster was unacceptable and threatening. I did not feel I made a personal "attack" as such, merely made fair comment. If I said something which was entirely untrue I of course apologise. David Lauder 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What approach was "unacceptable and threatening"? This again is a breach of WP:NPA to state that my simple good faith edits are "unacceptable and threatening". Kitty does not "own" these articles. I did not put the articles up for AfD, I added a prod tag to the article (one of which already had a prod tag that was added to it by another editor with the article being improved).--Vintagekits 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I am unable to have a civilised discussion without being threatened with a breach of policy at every turn. Do your really think that is the answer to rational discussion? I was not referring specifically to edits, rather your general approach, particularly on his Talk page. I am not myself seeking confrontation, so maybe I will cease responding to you. David Lauder 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to throw around allegations - what you should be doing is providing evidence, showing edits, highlighting diffs - otherwises it just comes across as being without foundation, being disruptive and like a personal attack. regards--Vintagekits 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to back up complaints

Whether posting to me or elsewhere, it is essential to provide diffs of alleged problems. It is up to you as the complainant to provide proof, not just make allegations. Just in case you're not conversant with this, it means clicking on the history button at the top of the article, talk page or whatever and finding the edit that proves your point. You copy the URL at the top of the page, then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]
Then somebody else can go straight to it and see what you're talking about. You should provide all the relevant diffs concerning the problem. Tyrenius 21:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJB

Nice work on the Tony Bailey article! Even though it is likely to get binned anyway in the AfD, its current sight as a sea of "citation needed"s is a humorous view! SFC9394 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnot, 2nd Viscount Arbuthnot

Heja, the article you have created already exists as Robert Arbuthnott, 2nd Viscount of Arbuthnott, so it would make sense, if you could merge your creation into the older article and redirect it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. Robert Douglas (1798), Peter Brown (1834) and Crawfurd all spell it as Arbuthnot (i.e, one 't'). I have no idea how to do merges but I'll have a look at the articles. David Lauder 16:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge means that you insert material from your article into the other article (if it is not already available there) - you complete the one with the other one. PS: If you like reading, you can take a look on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

However, to preserve integrity of GFDL, the talk pages and edit summaries should state clearly that you are transferring material. The unwanted page can then be turned into a redirect. Blank the page of the "one t" article and put this on it, then save:

#REDIRECT [[Robert Arbuthnot, 2nd Viscount Arbuthnott]]

Tyrenius 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portioner

What is a "portioner"? - Kittybrewster 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A portioner is an owner of land. It could be a massive estate or it could be just a modest acre. Portioners are usually feuars, in other words they hold the land by hereditary and assignable feu from a superior landowner rather than directly from the King. Feus were only abolished in November 2005. Many people thought they were freeholders before that and often got a shock if asked for the annual payment of the feu duty (a bit similar to a ground rent). I used to pay the equivalent of half a crown every Boxing Day. Technically speaking if you did not pay the feu the property could be repossessed by the superior landlord. One more thing, often in old records you will see reference to 'a tenement'. This refers to a piece of land, not a terrace! David Lauder 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coldingham etc.

I have now spread before me the fantastic OS "Monastic Britain" North sheet 2nd edition from 1955. Is the establishment at Foulden what is represented here as an hospice at 'Hutton' (not too far away!)?. It shows various hospitii at Duns,also at Horndean and Capelford that were extant prior to 1500 and the one at Hutton apparently still going then. Brendandh 00:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These maps are interesting, arn't they! There was a convent just north (half a mile) from Foulden village which belonged to Coldingham Priory. The locality to this day is known as Nunlands (there is a Nunlands House also, which may have been built upon parts of the convent). Horndean, I think, is in England, Duns some 10 miles west of Foulden. As the crow flies Hutton is not too far from Foulden but south. It is a revelation that there was a Hospice there. I wonder where it was? Was it under Coldingham Priory also? I will see if Carr mentions it. David Lauder 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail sizes

Hi,

Regarding your recent edit summary for The Grange, Edinburgh, where you say and ask, "Image reduced to ludicrous size. What was the point of that?" — I'm sorry you don't like the size of the thumbnail, but you can see from my own edit summary on the previous edit that I took the trouble to explain that this is in line with guidelines. The manual of style consensus guideline is that it's generally undesirable to specify the size of a thumbnail "unless there is a compelling reason to do so". This is for several reasons, including accessibility ones for users with impaired vision, and technical ones relating to the size of user screens.

It is mitigated by two things: first, thumbnails may be clicked to provide a larger image, and second, there is a user preference which may be set by you and any other user which will over-ride the default "ludicrous" size and allow you to see all unspecified-size thumbnails at a size which suits your screen, eyesight, and personal preference. Setting a specific size prevents all users from seeing the thumbnail at their preferred size. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took the original size guideline from at least half a dozen other images that I had previously looked at. The picture was still small and I felt you made it tiny. Whilst you and I know that by clicking on a thumbnail we can see a larger fuller image, I suspect that most who pass by Wiki, especially those who are not all that familiar with such things, will not realise that, and wonder why there is such a tiny picture there that they cannot make out. I appreciate Wiki guidelines (only) but I think one has to sometimes use a degree of commonsense. David Lauder 16:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for articles

Please would you create William Lauder (poet) (1520?-1573) - Kittybrewster 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I need a bit of time. Was he not a cleric & monarchist? David Lauder 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born Lothian. MA 1544. Probably took priests orders. Deviser of pageants. Paid 11/5 for making a play to celebrate marriage of son of 4th earl of huntly. in 1558 he was paid 10/- for composing a play. joined the reformers for the establishment of protestantism 1660. appointed by presbytery of perth Minister of the united parishes of forgandenny, forteviot and muckarsie. his name appears in the earliest list of ministers dated 1567. he died feb 1572/3. married. wife survived him. Source DNB. - Kittybrewster 22:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The writers in the DNB generally copy the work of others so I will see what I can find. David Lauder 08:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now written the article, taking the information almost completely from a small book published in 1869 by the Early English Text Society, so not treading on the toes of the DNB! David Lauder 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DSP

Just following back the Land Magnate article, I realise you've only just created it and may fully intend to edit this anyway but I think dsp and the like should be avoided as they are insufficiently understood abbreviations to assume users will understand them. Alci12 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say. I will do a trawl at some stage and make changes. Not tonight though! David Lauder 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet

If you wish to make remarks on the style or motives of other editors I'll ask you politely to base your comments on the facts and present the full picture. I'll thank you to revert you remarks and add a retraction statement by the end of today (March 8th, UK) or I will take this further. Nuttah68 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have come to Wikipedia with some sort of agenda whereas I am here to contribute to an academic encyclopaedic project. I may be wrong but that is how it appears. I do not believe I have said anything wrong, nor have I made any remark which was any worse than those made by others. If I have made a statement which is incorrect, point me to it. David Lauder 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ask an admin to see my 15000+ edits over more than two years if you want to comfirm the errors you have made. However, as I have said, if you persist in continue making remarks on the style or motives of my edits (as you have done again here) and do not retract them I will raise the issue further. Nuttah68 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come here to threaten me. Your AfD's appear to me to be frivolous and deliberate. That is my view and I am sticking to it. The number of edits you have made has no bearing on the particular issue here or anything I have said. David Lauder 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this AfD, would you care to expand on what other articles I have placed for AfD for reasons that are frivolous? I am not here to threaten you, I am here to ask you as a decent person to refrain from making ill-supported statements about another's character. Your reaction though, makes it appear that that hope you would be able to deal with this issue was rather unfounded. Nuttah68 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I made fair comment on the AfD page in question. Far from being "ill-supported" I referred readers to the remarks of other Users about your AfDs on your Talk page. I felt the tone of your remarks on the AfD page, not least your nomination, was provocative and just a little pompous. The crucial thing is to keep personal political and religious beliefs and opinions out of Wikipedia and concentrate on facts. You may feel baronets are not notable but that is your personal opinion rather than a fact. This is where we disagree. David Lauder 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can see that expecting you to sort the issue out reasonably was a false hope. Nuttah68 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything to sort out. We just disagree with each other and our mutual approaches. David Lauder 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are incapable of seeing your errors appears to be the main issue. I'll take the next step as I see fit. Don't worry though, it will not be a childish retort of pointing out on the AfD that Kittybrewster has been accused of canvassing before, usually of yourself and a number of other editors expressing keep. Where we disagree is on checking facts (which seems a flaw in an encyclopaedia editor) before making statements on other users. You appear to have taken one statement as fact because it supports what you want, whereas I will check the full story rather than take one users, say from someone like Vintagekits, biased statement to support a viewpoint I want to succeed. Nuttah68 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any errors nor have I been canvassed to this Afd by anyone at all. If you can prove that I have then please do so. David Lauder 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, where have I accused you of being canvassed for this AfD? Maybe now you see the danger of assuming what you see is fact without checking. As to your errors, maybe you would like to check the articles Nssdfdsfds was commenting on and the discussion I had. Nuttah68 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you state that you have not canvassed on this AfD - what you call this then?--Vintagekits 00:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read that carefully it does not represent a "canvass" at all. Do you understand what canvassing actually means? Is it your contention that Users on Wikipedia may not draw to each others attention something which they feel requires further consideration, comment, or help? What then would you say to the post further up this page headed "Any thoughts"? A look at your user contributions shows you have some sort of campaign going. Maybe your overall activities need consideration by administrators. David Lauder 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't seem to realise you can't canvass somebody who is already aware. - Kittybrewster 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Happy Days (1929 film)

Maybe one should consider creating a separate category for Fox films prior to the formation of ”20th Century Fox”, or it should be explicitly stated on the category page that this category also includes films from companies that later would form “20th Century Fox”. I think this particular solution is used on one of the other studio category pages, though I cannot at the moment remember which one it is.RicJac 16:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fox was going in the 1920s and his corporation did not merge with 20th century Films until much later. David Lauder 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Vintagekits

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrownHairedGirl - bottom of the page.

RfC for User:Vintagekits

If you wish to make your feelings known regarding the above-referenced individual, please contribute to his RfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc O'Donoghue 18:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really busy I guess tomorrow is OK. Cheers.216.194.3.132 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I forgot to sign in, sorry -- O'Donoghue 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address have given away your identity.--Vintagekits 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What identity is that? Dracula? Why is it that you cannot be civil and concentrate upon the issues here - your bad behaviour. David Lauder 10:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil moi!?! You'll find out who he is a sock of tonight - so be sure to tune in, same Batime, same Batchannel!--Vintagekits 10:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madness. David Lauder 12:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]