User talk:Kittybrewster/Archive 2

Murder vs killing

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)[reply]

RepublicUK

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)[reply]

Thanks, I'll ask C-R. If it happens again, let me know, as it looks to me like RepUK is increasing his disruption as he goes. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He created his User page with "I represent the UK organisation Republic which can be found at www.republic.org.uk ". Does this mean he has come to Wikipedia with an object in mind? Seems like it. David Lauder 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He looks like a sock-puppet to me.--Major Bonkers 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think he could be??????--Vintagekits 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage, I prefer that you do not leave comments on my talk page. 'Crucified on a cross' is a tautology. - Kittybrewster 22:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bonkers that he's an established user, but I don't see anyone with a similar editing pattern, and can't block him just on that whiff of a suspicion. If any of you has a solid guess as to his identity - it's not Vintagekits, I've already examined that possibility due to their similar comments on the open AfD - let me know or, if you're not comfortable doing it openly, just email me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gillis Baronets

Resolved

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Astrotrain

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)[reply]

Thank you. I thought about it and clearly (not for the first time in my life) jumped the wrong way. I have fixed it. - Kittybrewster 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Complicated business at times. I removed "disagree" as this is meant to be your statement on Astrotrain (and the relevant situation), not a !vote as such on the opening statement. I hope this is OK. Tyrenius 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Arbuthnot (artillery officer)

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)[reply]

Yes, I accept he is entitled to place a nn tag and that this is prudent/ low level. It seems to me strange that there are folks who question notability of a general while contributing to articles for young men who achieved nothing other than (the dubious honour of) getting shot. I have no doubt this article would survive an afd, but what it really needs is not an nn tag (in my opinion) but a "could use expanding" tag. I will work on that when time allows. Meanwhile [note to self] I must stop feeling VK is stalking me. - Kittybrewster 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J R Gillis

Resolved

(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)[reply]

Hi Kittybrewster, I was hoping someone else would pursue it so I didn't have to :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 08:55Z

Done. - Kittybrewster 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Resolved

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 Hackney₃₀₃ 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crest

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)[reply]

I copied the blazon from Burke's. - Kittybrewster 10:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I wasn't doubting the accuracy of what you said just an unusual colour Alci12 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leathers Arms

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)[reply]

Is the Viscount an armiger? You cannot just attribute Arms to him because the surname is the same. David Lauder 13:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea to be honest, how do I find out? Weggie 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no armigerous family of Leathers in the General Armory of England, Scotland, and Ireland by Messrs., John & John Bernard Burke, 3rd edition, London, 1844. David Lauder 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Thanks for your help Weggie 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is armigerous. I will email you the details. - Kittybrewster 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I can't. Please email me. - Kittybrewster 14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so tonight (just getting the Wiki-email validation thing sorted as I've not switched it on before) Weggie 14:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet AfD

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)[reply]

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet

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)[reply]

I will have a go. - Kittybrewster 10:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think we need slightly more on his war service as well - nearly there though Weggie 11:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

More on Scotland

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)[reply]

USER: VINTAGEKITS

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)[reply]

He is now attacking my articles deliberately. See Broun Baronets.David Lauder 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC FOR VINTAGEKITS

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)[reply]

I have not yet made a statement. - Kittybrewster 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the problem is that nobody knows it's there; it doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere but your user page. If you want to attract outside interest to something, mentioning it on a relevant talk page is often a good idea. If there are at least two people who agree that there's a problem, and the RfC is certified (or you think it will be certified very soon), you should post it to WP:RFC, rather than leaving it in your userspace and hoping somebody notices it. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:31, 12 March 2007 (U T C)

Actually, seems that was O'Donoghue's helpme in your userspace (I misread the history), but I'll leave this here because you might find it relevant. --ais523 14:37, 12 March 2007 (U T C)

If you want the RfC for Vintagekits to proceed you must sign off/endorse under the section called Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks!O'Donoghue 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't - yet. Gathering data. - Kittybrewster 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK- when you do the section is "Requests for comment/User conduct".O'Donoghue 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, User:O'Donoghue has tried to file the RfC anyway, and I've fixed it for them per a helpme request (as best as I can without admin tools); I also removed the 'this is a draft' line because the page was linked from RfC and people were ignoring it anyway. (Your user subpage was linked - via an external link - from WP:RFC/USER for a time.) As far as I can tell, it meets the criteria for being open even though you haven't opened it, which is a pretty unusual situation; I'm a bit confused as to do now, so I'm just posting here to let you know what the status quo is so you can make up your own mind. Hope that helps! --ais523 18:11, 12 March 2007 (U T C)

Removed. Not close to being useful yet. - Kittybrewster 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the headaches

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)[reply]

I agree that the comments should have been on N Stronge's page. I pasted them there, editing out the sniping. VK has never asked me not to post on his page. I guess he has now! - Kittybrewster 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming for Baronets

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)[reply]

Earls

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)[reply]

Yes the Earldoms will be in Burke's Peerage, Burke's Extinct Peerage, etc. But I am not aware of any source other than Rayment which seeks to collate them all. He makes mistakes but they are astonishingly rare. It is a source to trust. User:Proteus is an expert on this question. - Kittybrewster 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duff Baronets

Resolved

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)[reply]

Summers Baronets

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)[reply]

I don't know of a more sophisticated way. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the numbering. Tryde 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Goodbye

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)[reply]

Thank you. I proberly won't be able to stop myself looking occasionally, I will be worried about the pages I put so much effort into being vandalised! Bye. --Berks105 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hCard microformat in Template:Infobox Biography

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)[reply]

VKits

Whatever became of the request for comment for Vintagekits?--Counter-revolutionary 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can wait. It is not ready to float. Real life takes priority. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course, I just wasn't sure whether it had been launched or not. --Counter-revolutionary 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumsden

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)[reply]

Lionel Phillips

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)[reply]

Great. I have not understood some of the reverting you have done on this article. But together we are all making progress. Do bear in mind WP:NPA. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Could Paul Venter provide us with a source for such an amazing statement? Certainly it has not been my experience. David Lauder 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage

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)[reply]

No, the logic is right. They are covered by both projects. :) - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up.

My bot has now done all the categories you requested. I trust that's all, but if not you know where to make the request for further categories :) --kingboyk 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Eckstein/Frederick Eckstein

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)[reply]

No I didn't; is that Friedrich? . And you are right. But baronetcy not knighthood. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham Baronets

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)[reply]

And here also: Sir Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame, 8th Baronet. David Lauder 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Cunningham Baronets - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Beckstrom etc

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)[reply]

Credit card

Funny! Well it amused me anyway.Happy april fools day.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Phillips

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)[reply]

I am happy to discuss here instead.

Policy

Please note there is a policy relating to image size which should be followed Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size:

In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting).

There is also a guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:

On images with extreme aspect ratios
When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

The current image markup language is:

[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]]

Your assistance

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)[reply]

Use the move tag. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks! (That was fast!). Regards, David Lauder 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Per your request.[1] Tyrenius 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French nobility

Category:French noble titles. Which WikiProject/work group, if any, covers French nobility? --kingboyk 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France and royalty-work-group=yes - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governors

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) ~~ [reply]

Yes, work on all corners and ends. :-) The most succession boxes, where this is the case, surely still date from the time before User:Necrothesp has created {{s-gov}}. Best wishes. ~~ Phoe _talk 10:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

As a member of the British Cabinet, I would say a Secretary of State for the Colonies has had clearly a political office. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Bother

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)[reply]

Fixed. ) should have been > - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting you. "I am about to inaugurate a little war. I thought they had you assassinated in Hong Kong? THis is my second life - You Only Live Twice Mr Bond " I bid you adieu ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err...what was all that about? David Lauder 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that "Sir Blofeld" should be "Sir Ernst" and got this bizarre reply. Not everybody recognizes a solecism when they fall over it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Burnett, 3rd Baronet

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)[reply]

Fascinated. Yes please. [2] - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-class Biography assessments

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:

at least 1 picture; no copyright issues; fair use should be explained for use on that specific page
an infobox
a lead section of at least two paragraphs
the article should be structured in such a way that at least a ToC appears, and no section is a stub
all statements should be referenced using in-line references
it should be well written (but the rules are not as strict as for FA)

Hope this helps, Er rab ee 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the permission confirmation procedure

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:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Henry Barnett, MP and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Henry Barnett, MP with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Henry Barnett, MP.

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.

I own the copyright and emailed wikipedia - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Baronets

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)[reply]

I have added the Miller baronets of Manderston, starting with William. Regards, David Lauder 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Barnett (MP)

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)[reply]

Absolutely, and thanks. I have left a note on the talk page indicating that you are in the process of confirming the permission, as well as on the page for possible violations. An admin or the permissions clearance people should take care of the rest. Thanks again for doing this the right way. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to avoid copyvio. Tyrenius 21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you v much. :) - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambigs on articles

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)[reply]

Re: Ralph G. Feltham

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)[reply]

Biography A-class review department

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)[reply]

Succession boxes

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)[reply]

Comment needed

Please comment on this Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

murder/killing

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)[reply]

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

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)[reply]

Ted Heath and debate on killing/murder

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)[reply]

Sir David Llewellyn, 4th Baronet Llewellyn of Bwllfa

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)[reply]

I thought it was taken. Thank you. Done it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnot

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)[reply]

That issue of Notes and Queries is available at Google Books. Unfortunately, it's simply a query by Ada Jane Arbuthnot (author of Memories of the Arbuthnots, referenced in the article), collecting information for that book, so it sheds no further light on the subject. Choess 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

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)[reply]

No.I did a hasty copy and paste. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you even commenting on the AfD on your own autobiography? WP:COI specifa/iclly warns against participating in AFD discussions when you have a conflict. -Will Beback · † · 10:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The COI is flagged in line of the nomination. I acknowledge it right underneath the VK vote. I am watching it and am fascinated that there are FOUR people voting to delete as their sole contribution. I will now re-read COI. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, here's the core of the guideline:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

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)[reply]

Baronetcies

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)[reply]

I entirely believe you. I am fascinated that the afd has attracted so many Irish votes. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partly because you and Vintage were involved in an Irish discussion; but I'm sure many Irish know a lot about British titles without being particularly reverent of them. As for me, I'm an overseas hobbyist with access to a set of the Complete Peerage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder / killing

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)[reply]

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

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)[reply]

User:Will Beback is telling me not to (above) as WP:COI. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could upload the photo, and I could add it? I have no conflict of interest, after all. --kingboyk 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a good idea! And just as I was trying to follow the spirit behind the rules. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There'd be no problem with that arrangement that I'm aware of. -Will Beback · † · 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. I'm happy to do it, if kittybrewster wants. --kingboyk 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure where the conflict of interest lies in you donating to the world a freely licenced image. How can that not be a good thing? The more free content we have, the better. Provided you vouch to me the photo is of the subject of the article, I will insert it into the article with no qualms at all. --kingboyk 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) PS I'm not sure if you really think it a good idea, or if you're being sarcastic :) I'll AGF and assume the former :) (double edit conflict!)[reply]

Our friend in New York

Baron Sockpuppetry of New York. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick things

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)[reply]

1. Well done. Joining it to WikiProject_Nova_Scotia sounds a splendid idea. I am unsure what you have in mind on the infobox but the general principle of consistency seems good.

2. At least some of them were bought from the monarch in early times; in fact there was pressur from the Crown on various people to buy one. They could never be traded. It has not been possible to buy a Baronetcy for a long time. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resilience

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)[reply]

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet

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)[reply]

Richard Gere and WP:BLP

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Michael Smith, Jr.

No sorry, I am not Michael Smith, Jr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Friuli (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Charles Maitland (MP)

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)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alexander George Arbuthnot

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 Hackney₃₀₃ 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm off on holiday.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the way constructive edits from Vintagekits are reverted, I'd say the term is more than appropriate. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK's edits are not constructive. Eg His suggestion that Alexander Arbuthnot (printer) was just a printer. He asks how many rat catchers or bakers or builders there were in Edinburgh in 1582. Presumably none in the Encyclopedia Britannica. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any mention of "Encyclopedia Britannica" when I made that comment or did you add that reference after the fact?? --Vintagekits 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to every edit, but there's no denying that some constructive edits have been reverted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to revert a constructive edit. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And to possibly alleviate some of the tension round here, perhaps it would be better if everyone focussed on the content of an edit rather than the editor who made it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- Ignoring the split infinitives. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this ratcatcher must be in EB! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And should rightly feature in this wikipedia. No mere rat catcher. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll soon see how notable he is when I stick an AfD on him.--Vintagekits 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant threat of mischief-making. David Lauder 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations

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)

...done. --Counter-revolutionary 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd John Alves Arbuthnot

Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being undecided, I decided not to comment at the AfD, but a friendly suggestion: don't push too hard on the less notable family members. It'll make it easier to defend the more notable ones. DGG 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all very well, DGG, but why isn't anyone able to address the real problem here: the all too obvious and deliberate stalking and AfDing of articles with the surname of Arbuthnot by the same people? David Lauder 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet

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)[reply]

Recent antics

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)[reply]

I disagree. (1) It is an obvious cabal and (2) that needs to be drawn to the attention of the closing admin. It is not uncivil. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does a man from Montrose, Scotland have to do with the Irish "cabal" ? -- Nick^t 10:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The Irish republican cabal (why is that uncivil?) habitually tag articles I have created with afd or nn or fact tags. This is personal. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the nomination on this particular AfD doesn't represent the article in question. I'd suggest either an RfC or some formal mediation process. I'll have a word with One Night In Hackney too. -- Nick^t 10:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you also draw to the attention of the closing admin on John Alves Arbuthnot and Alexander George Arbuthnot the fact that the following contributors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism seem to be block voting, namely

- Thank you. ;) - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block voting! we have different !votes. Additonally *User:Leopold_III was not editor or contributed to any of the AfD's that you are talking about!--Vintagekits 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware I was part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Your user page suggested you support Irish republicanism. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable v Non-notable Arbuthnots

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Regards Giano 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you "wacky" reversion, because the editor in question was only joking and editing in good humour. I have expressed my views on your pages here [4] I think you should give my comments some serious consideration. Many pages are worthy of retention others frankly are not. I am quite prepared to help you improve the more interesting ones but you must realise others are of no use to an encyclopedia at all. Giano 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let the dust (afds) settle first, I think. I have that opinion about some of the IRA members. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and that comment is less than helpful! Giano 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Let me assure you that my post to Giano was meant to be lighthearted. Your family's website is unbelievably impressive, btw. My dad and 2 cousins dabble in genealogy for my family, though it isn't notable. (Well, I just found 2 very distant cousins on wikipedia. Conversely, my unassuming spouse comes from a famous American family.) While I don't agree on the notability question, I would try to be evenhanded in how I gauge articles on any topic/person. Respectfully yours, HG 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! HG, is your wife Maria Shriver? Giano 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI on Arbuthnot articles?

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)[reply]

Proposal

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:

It suits you to be able to scrap around and name others as "partisan voters" when in fact I vote as I see fit and am not influenced by anyone. Please do not include me in any perceived cabal as I am independent. To suggest that others who simply do not agree with your activities are somehow all acting in concert may suit your purpose but it won't wash. Just how many of the articles created by or substantially add to by Vintagekits and yourself have I attacked? How many have I tagged or flagged for deletion? Lets have the true facts here.David Lauder 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of your partisan voting can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but thats quite pathetic. You suggest that I am anti-IRA and that it is wrong or, as you say POV. I suspect you would fall foul on that issue of tens of millions of people and certainly a great many other editors of Wikipedia. Singling me out on the basis of a couple of very modest edits quite some time ago is really pathetic. I mean, is that the best you can do? Suggesting that all anons must be me is also wrong, as is suggesting that all the people you cite, because they all vote similarly on some (but not all) AfD's is also rather paper thin. One of your classic lines is assume good faith, yet on the basis of that page you quite obviously don't. I state again, that I am an independent. You have no case here which would not be thrown out of any decent arbitration. You obviously have little to do with your time. David Lauder 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could find ample more examples of your attempts at POV pushing, if I so desired. Perhaps you can explain your contradictory stance that stubs of IRA members are to be deleted, while stubs of Arbuthnot family members are to be kept and expanded? Your constant need to fall back on personal attacks shows quite clearly that you are incapable of rational and intelligent discussion, despite your pseudo-intellectual posturing. If I see you make one more personal attack on any editor, I shall be happy to present your catalogue of appalling behaviour totally unbefitting the gentleman you claim to be to the appropriate place for community discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your evidential "appalling behaviour" and "personal attacks" against me (which are, as demonstrated above), are much more serious than my honest comments. When was the last time I went near an IRA stub? Must be months ago - last year even? I'm just not interested. You can catalogue whatever you like. You can dish it out but you don't like any opposition. David Lauder 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now both. ONIH has made a genuine attempt to be constructive and helpful here. This is not the place to post acrimony. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. He started it. David Lauder 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. We are all moving forward and on. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hackney₃₀₃ 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably object to the comments rather than the !vote. E.g. Dandruff.

How do you define distantly related?

Where did all those spa votes come from?

What about other articles I / we have created?

Do tell me how Robert Murray Arbuthnot is related. I will give you a barnstar for that info. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, I think this is a good start, please don;t start a battle over it. The tit-for-tat AfDs do need to stop. Some of the articles do need to go, others do not; perhaps the best way to deal with this is to start discussing the nitty-gritty of your objections to the articles, and looking at fixing them rather than nuking in the first instance. If after a while they can't be fixed, or you can't agree what the problem is, then you could call an uninvolved third party to review the thing and decide whether it should be AfDd. There are several very good people who would help with this, I'm sure. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to say here is back off please. Stop stalking me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no one is stalking you. You seem to be in a hole, and quite a lot of people have stopped editing in an attempt to throw you a ladder. If a compromise cannot be reached between you here, it will be reached by others, and you will find you have far less control over the outcome ar "RFArbitration" or "RFC" than you have here at the moment. So please stop these comments such as "stalking" and try to see the actions of others as good faith attempts to solve these problems. Giano 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong but stated in good faith. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hackney₃₀₃ 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I vote according to policy and notability. In the past, I've voted keep on the at least a couple of *IRA articles (oddly, the only one I can think of right now and which I was going to link is the Bernadette Sands McKevitt article - but its AfD record seems to have disappeared). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to you here.

Very one sided statement of partisan voting by ONIH. Actually I don't have a problem with agreeing to stay off IRA people if VK leaves my articles alone entirely and ONIH discusses rather than afd. I can't speak for anyone else. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny partisan voting has gone on from both sides, but I've no intention of gathering evidence on your behalf. Rather than engaging in bitter recriminations, perhaps we can look forwards? Is the agreement acceptable to you, and do you believe you can use your influence over the other editors concerned to agree to it as well, to save everyone a whole lot of time and trouble? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think 1NIH is talking good and frank sense here, I hope something good and sensible comes of it. Giano 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, if Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can learn to co-operate with each other, then I'm sure you all can. This is at the very least a good start. Sam Blacketer 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware, I have no influence over anybody else. I agree that I share an approach many other people have but I have not been voting in a partisan manner and had not noticed some of the names you list as "right thinking". Other people are free to make their own arrangements with anyone they like. Everybody is free to read any agreement made here.

The deal I am putting forward is three sided. 1 That I don't edit articles about IRA members, 2 that VK does not edit any articles created by me (incl all Arbuthnot articles) [i.e. that he stops stalking me]; 3 that ONIH discusses before afd. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a solution at all, as this does not involve just two or three editors, and if just those are restricted others will just carry on acting as a proxy. In response to your points.

I'm not aware of any edits you've ever made to articles about IRA members to begin with, certainly if you have it's a small number of edits to a small number of articles, therefore not in proportion to the restriction you're suggesting in your second point.
You earlier claimed that you weren't trying to create a walled garden, I don't consider this request in keeping with that claim.
That fails to address the underlying problem, that should we be unable to reach an agreement the AfD would attract the usual partisan voters, which is what my proposal is designed to avoid. My proposal actually went far further than what you're asking for here, in that neither I or any of the named editors could propose any of your articles for deletion.

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say what other people will do. It may be that the solution needs to be extended. You are right to the extent that my edits to IRA articles have been correcting spelling mistakes (quite a lot) and were all some time ago. I am totally confused why VK and you (who seem to be acting with him) are attacking "my articles" (meaning ones I started). But I think you have the brains to discuss things rationally rather than inevitably invariably responding provocatively. And if wiki is improved by deciding to delete Harriet Arbuthnot (whom VK tagged as nn) or by adding to the article, then God bless you - carry on. Why not? I am all in favour. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair here when VK made this edit [5] to Harriet Arbuthnot there was not much there to explain her notability, now was there? He may have had ulterior motives (I don't know) but no-one is going to agree with you that it was an obviously unreasonable edit at the time. Unless one already knew of her there was nothing there confirming great notablility. Giano 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(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 Hackney₃₀₃ 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! der nutting wrang wit me spelin!--Vintagekits 10:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree. VK is the person I have identified as being IMHO disruptive and taking up my time by remarks such as "fact" against a date in 1883 or thereabouts, thereby preventing me improving articles. Therefore my objective here is to negotiate with you to persuade him to stop (a) monitoring my talk page, (b) monitoring my contribs, (c) stalking me and (d) editing Arbuthnot articles. I think you are far less likely to be unconstructive although you have been unfair and shown lack of balance (e.g. Alexander George Arbuthnot was not a mere shopkeeper but was a British citizen and trader who was executed following a military tribunal which led to a diplomatic incident). If VK edits an article on, e.g. a Baronet, that is fine provided it is in good faith and helpful. I hope and think all three of us will learn something from this discussion. In other words, I find VK's contributions irritating and unconstructive. I have no problem discussing things constructively. Both of you have sought to test the waters by nominating articles for afd on the basis of "see how it pans out". I think you may help improve wikipedia, while VK is bored and is just filling his time. I was looking for something to offer on my part in order to get VK to sign up and the only thing you seemed to want is of no particular concern to me. What you are doing is attacking my articles in order to get something from people other than me. I think you should talk to them about that. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is attacking my articles in order to get something from people other than me. I don't understand this. Who are you directing this at, and who are the other people being alluded to? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are embarrassing yourself by saying that adding a fact tag to an article is being disruptive. If you add content to any article it should already be sourced and referenced, if it is not then it should and will get a fact tag put on it. Remember these are not "your" articles, they are wikis. Please read WP:OWN.--Vintagekits 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK we're trying to discuss this constructively, you aren't helping. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest ONiH, I am not going to stand by and let the Baronet talk nonsense about me. He has got a clue what he is talking and by calling me disruptive, a stalker and irritating is the last way that I going to stop monitoring to multitude of non notable stubs that he creates.

If he agrees to merge the non notable Baronets from each family into one article then I will consider laying off but if he continues to vigorous defend stub of articles and use wiki as his own personal genealogy website the I am going to be ruthless in putting a stop to his carry on. --Vintagekits 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:BEANS :-) Case in point - my edit to John Joe McGirl the other day. In an article that has precisely one source, I added some more factual information. You reverted, saying it was true but unsourced - while ignoring the fact that the only source in the whole (quite substantial) article records just his election results. Remove the unsourced material and you would end up with - well, nothing, bar a statement that he ran for election to the Dáil 4 times and was successful once. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the John Joe McGirl was unsourced was it not? I stated in the edit summary that it was probably true but it was unsourced material. I would be happy for you to add the information but not when its unsources. Hardly unreasonable.--Vintagekits 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why pointedly revert my admittedly unsourced edit but leave all of Damacs and Jdorneys? Or can we assume you'll be off to do that now? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJ has only recently been on my watchlist - hence why your unsourced edit was reverted. Please feel free to reentry the information with a source.--Vintagekits 11:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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." If you and VK (and to a lesser extent WP:IRA) did that (i.e., improving articles and/or adding well sourced "finished" articles to mainspace), and if Kittybrewster did the same with the Arbuthnots, I think we'd all be happier and have more time for improving existing articles and stubs/creating good new ones, rather than getting tied up in AfDs and worse. As Sam said above and I alluded to earlier, if Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can work together (one whole day so far without a walkout!), we can surely manage the same? I'm willing to assume good faith and roll with it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After an edit conflict - well, it appears VK isn't prepared to compromise on anything... :-( Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What compromise! The Baronet has created hundreds of stubs on non notables - I am not just going to ignore those until something is sorted out about the notablity issue.--Vintagekits 10:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONIH, can I continue talking to you without VK helping? It seems that his problem with me is that he thinks I have created hundreds of stubs of non-notables. I suggest that step 1 is that he creates a page listing those pages. And that he agrees to contribute to this discussion only by way of you. If this can be agreed we can plan Step 2. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did suggest that to be fair, and I don't see why Bastun is disrupting this discussion either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you did. Please would VK sign up to it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet, if you stop "tell lies" about me then I would happily stay off this talkpage. No lies = no comments from me!--Vintagekits 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by saying I'm willing to assume good faith and work within the proposal? *Le sigh* Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VK, by all means contribute to the discussion but please do so on ONIH's page or yours and let him copy and paste what HE thinks is constructive. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to me here I will post here - your choice. P.S. I would not agree to the current proposal until there is an agreement over the notability of Baronets and the Barons who have never had a seat in the House of Lords.--Vintagekits 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right fuck it then. You lot can carry on your dispute and end up going to arbitration and getting sanctions including bans or blocks, I'll just carry on improving the articles I want to edit. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ONIH for doing your best. I drink to your good health. Maybe we can continue by email? Meanwhile maybe VK can make a page listing non-notables (created by me or otherwise) and his reasons. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for trying to resolve this in a measured and gentlemanly way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Based on what's just happened, I know where this will end up and I'm refusing to get dragged into it sorry. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand. If an Admin or a genius should read this please recommend a way forward. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two possible ways forward

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)[reply]

Thank you. I agree. We need to move apart somehow. VK, what do you want? What would you like to agree to? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Either both Kittybrewster and Vintagekits them agree between a fairly comprehensive ceasefire" - what does this entail?--Vintagekits 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that we sketch out what we want from the other (e.g. that you don't edit Arbuthnot articles) and if we cannot agree something then BHG will either block us both from editing at all or she will impose a ban on you doing xyz and me doing abc. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This war won't be stopped by action from one side: you both need to take steps back from the conlict. I would suggest that each of you tried identify both what you need from each other, and what you can do yourself to defuse things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with "Arbuthnot articles" or with Kitty editing or even nominating articles of an Irish republican nature. My issue is two fold 1. Block voting on a "ilikeit" or "idontlikeit" basis rather than actually applying wiki policy and 2. Notability - I dont think that Baronets are notable - especially 2nd a subsequent and this is at the centre of the argument - now we can ignore this issue and pretend it doesn't exist or just not address it for fear of getting blocked then that is one route to go down but not the best route. Now if we can find a solution and iron out these to issues then I am happy to work towards that but I think I would rather leave wiki then be forced into a situation where this is left indefinitely unresolved.--Vintagekits 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say. On issue 1 I think you need to WP:AGF on the part of the closing admin and assume he/she knows to evaluate the arguments rather than count the !votes. On issue 2 I suggest you argue your case on the appropriate pages. Meanwhile I request that you ban yourself voluntarily from (a) editing Arbuthnot articles and (b) adding nn or fact or who tags. Is there something you want from me? - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that I can think of, except stop creating stubs on Arbuthnots and Baronets - if you are going to write an article on these people try and make it quality not quantity. Finally, I agree not to edit articles about the Arbuthnots until the notability issue is sorted out.--Vintagekits 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to create further Arbuthnot articles. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

VK doesnt have an issue with me editing them. And mostly there is no WP:COI. Eg Charles George James Arbuthnot edited today. I may be the best person to bring some of them up to scratch. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to the debate on using directories to assert notability?

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)[reply]

And I tend to agree with it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing on the AfD nomination of Alexander George Arbuthnot

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)[reply]

Woodford

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)[reply]

How very sloppy of me. WHOOPS. You are absolutely right. Thank you. - Kittybrewster (talk)

Yes but here Charles George James Arbuthnot you are saying Woodford is in County Galway, when I have just found a legitimate link to the man again placing him in Northants. Giano 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will correct it at once. It is wrong. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The General died 1870 and Arthur was living there when it was sold. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add it to the page along with a citation to prove it linking to a book or web cite listed in the references. I see at the moment you have only put something ambiguously [8] on the talk page which is not the correct way to reference. As someone who researches heavily it concerns me that you are relying so heavily in all your articles on this book "Memories of the Arbuthnots" especially as it seems to be written by one of them. It is quite possible that it may not be as non POV and candid as it could be! My second concern if that is this book is contradicting the Nothamptonshire Public Record Office [9] who actually own the documents which "Memories of the Arbuthnots" should have checked before publishing then I wonder what other facts it did not check. Do you see the problem here, are there any other references you could use in addition to this book? If they Arbuthnots are here to stay (I don't have a problem with most of them) then you have to expand them at reliably reference them Giano 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not contradicting them. It did not know the exact date and says c.1882. Nor do the Northamptonshire records say General Charles was stll living there. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that we do know the exact date 1880, there is no need for "Memories of the Arbuthnots"'s circa is there? Here [10] we need an inline cite so the facts can be checked if any serious student wishes to use the information elsewhere. Again here, this edit of yours [11] could you put an inline cite? - so that it is clear exactly which information came from where. If I can bring Harriet Arbuthnot up to an acceptable level someone may one day wish to GAC or FAC her in which case these pages will be closely scrutenised. I am not trying to be difficult but it is essential that all pages, and the facts therein, pertaining to the Arbuthnot's (or any other subject for that matter) are beyond reproach where the references are concerned. Thanks Giano 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, could you cast you eye over the final section here Talk:Harriet Arbuthnot, obviously some of the problems I anticipated are arriving earlier than expected. This is quite normal once a page becomes fairly large with lots of blue links, it begins to attract attention. Thanks Giano 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I will look in The Journal. Probably next week. Incidentally, Memories is online at [12]. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, not to worry - I work best in use space anyway! Giano 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnot

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)[reply]

Charles George Arbuthnot is not nn. But the lead had room for improvement. - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing - it doesn't read particularly notably. And Charles_George_James_Arbuthnot definitely doesn't! EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not being a gifted biographer. I am feeling rather under attack with William Arbuthnot (artillery officer) and others being nominated for afd simultaneously. They all seem to be rather more notable than second division footballers. It feels like a concert party and I would rather people help than afd. - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

They are in some cases very distantly related;they just share a surname. And the article would be huge. But I am thinking how to approach it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I meant a long article on each family. For example, you know of the artilleryman, I presume, because he is related to the other line of baronets; they would form one article, like Dashwood Baronets, and he could fit in as a paragraph under his father or brother, depending on format. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. He is incredibly distantly related to the Baronets. I know of him because I know of everyone with that name. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrry for the slip of memory; I meant Viscount Arbuthnot; which is an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, no, no Henry Fane, MP he does not need a page, that is all stuff I researched for his daughters page - he is not that notable - so all that information can go where I put it here [14], I have alittle more on him and his wife to add to that section later. I am working and researching the page slowly and thoroughly. creating these stubs is pointless - when you have great deal more to write then is the time to give someone a page of their own. PLease try to see this. Giano 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Neither have you referenced it Giano 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought being an MP automatically crossed the notability threshold. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it probably just does but what is the point of a few unreferenced words all of which are said with references elsewhere? I am trying to advise you here, rather than make more stubs please try and concentrate on the ones you have created already - some of those on VFD could perhaps be made notable if you just spent an hour or so on them Giano 09:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't just does. It is specifically stated in WP:N as qualifying a person for an article. I think it preferable that info on a person who qualifies goes into his article rather than cluttering up someone else's article. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well cluttering up pages is not something anyone can accuse you of - is it? I have tried to help you with your problems - you are impossible to help. You take advice from no one. You seem to only be interested in creating pages and/or hoping someone else will do the donkey work. Your pages are littered with mistakes it is totally amazing many of them have survived as long as they have. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are a liability to Wikipedia. I am voting to delete most of your pages because you have proved to me you are totally disinterested in bringing them to an acceptable standard. Giano 09:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a breach of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it. You would try the patience and good faith of a saint. I am of the opinion you should be permanently banned as you are damaging the encyclopedia, all these AFDs of worthless stubs are disruptive to people whose time is better employed elsewhere. You are now attracting too much attention to yourself and you may find others agree with me. I shall not be returning to your page, as I wish to continue editing profitably and usefully elsewhere. Nor will I be editing any of your stubs - have no fear. I sencerely hope you find a solution to your predicament that is satisfactory to both yourself and the body of the encyclopedia. Goodbye Giano 09:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Probably he is notable; but I am not convinced, as a matter of principle, that we need every backbencher ever to sit in Parliament. For some of the medieval MP's, we know nothing but the name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Alves Arbthnot self-reference

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)[reply]

Kenneth Arbuthnot and Thomas Arbuthnot of Meethill AFD

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)[reply]

Some courtesey. How disappointing that the other two have managed to bring in another confederate into what appears to me to be a highly personal campaign. David Lauder 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster has been advised countless times to improve his stubs. He chooses not to, instead he creates even more. It is very sad that the only way to have them improved is to nominate them for AFD. This is supposed to be a serious project. Giano 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless we must surely sit back and look at his overall stupendous contribution to Wikipedia instead of heading down the path which appears to be developing here. Instead of us being negative about these stubs we should rationally consider them and try to do something about them. One fellow up for an AfD was clearly a professional soldier of note. I agree the stub is not up to much but some research and re-writing may bring it up to scratch. Last but not least, Kittybrewster is unwell and doubtless this affects his overall performance etc., and I suspect this will not improve. David Lauder 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not lecture me on contributions to this encyclopedia. I see no stupendous contribution from Kittybrewster, and in the words of an old adversary of mine "Wikipedia is not therapy" - It is a serious project - this is a bloody encyclopedia, so please treat it as such, and if you imagine this unseemly debacle will help his brother - then think again, I would imagine all this vulgar talk of one's relations is a complete embarrassment. FGS enter the real world! Giano 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...this really is getting too personal. If you're trying to push away a worthwhile user I imagine you're going the right way about it. --Counter-revolutionary 20:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AfD is supporting Giano I think that's unnecessary. We deal in facts and the encyclopedia, we neither victimise or mollycoddle users. If Giano is wrong then argue against him him on AFD and show he's wrong. Otherwise please assume good faith. Frankly, accusing someone of a personal vendetta is a personal attack. Let's stick with the merits (or otherwise) of the content.--Doc^g 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder vs killing

Archive

J R Gillis

Minor edits

Crest

Leathers Arms

Baronet AfD

More on Scotland

USER: VINTAGEKITS

RFC FOR VINTAGEKITS

Back to the headaches

Article naming for Baronets

Earls

Summers Baronets

A Goodbye

hCard microformat in Template:Infobox Biography

VKits

Lumsden

Categories

Lionel Phillips

Peerage

Friedrich Eckstein/Frederick Eckstein

Rod Beckstrom etc

Credit card

Lady Phillips

Policy

Your assistance

FYI

French nobility

Governors

Bother

A-class Biography assessments

Please follow the permission confirmation procedure

Baronets

Disambigs on articles

Re: Ralph G. Feltham

Biography A-class review department

Succession boxes

Comment needed

murder/killing

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

Ted Heath and debate on killing/murder

Robert Arbuthnot

Explanation

Baronetcies

Murder / killing

Our friend in New York

Two quick things

Resilience

Richard Gere and WP:BLP

AfD nomination of Alexander George Arbuthnot

Salutations

Afd John Alves Arbuthnot

Recent antics

Notable v Non-notable Arbuthnots

COI on Arbuthnot articles?

Proposal

Two possible ways forward

An answer to the debate on using directories to assert notability?

Canvassing on the AfD nomination of Alexander George Arbuthnot

Woodford

Arbuthnot

John Alves Arbthnot self-reference

Kenneth Arbuthnot and Thomas Arbuthnot of Meethill AFD