User talk:Kittybrewster/Archive 1

Re: Dalrymple Arbuthnot

Oh, and let me congratulate you on the Arbuthnot family series! Didn't mean to just jump in with questions. But I do have some on Dalrymple Arbuthnot such that I felt I had to put a verify tag on the article. The questions are on the article's talk (discussion) page, looking forward to working with you on clearing up these questions. Herostratus 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Proper designation for Baronets?

I'm given to understand that the usual designation in the UK (and the Commonwealth, I suppose) for Baronets is:

• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, Bt

However, for the edification of our American readers (of which I am one), I would like to spell out the title, as shown below. I assume that this is OK since it is just enlarging an abbreviation, right? Like this:

• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, Baronet

But, I would prefer to be even more specific. I guess that Baronets don't have a geographic designation as part of their name? Which seems very confusing to me. So, are any of these designations proper?:

• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, Baronet of Edinburgh
• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, nth Baronet of Edinburgh
• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, Baronet Arbuthnot of Edinburgh
• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, nth Baronet Arbuthnot of Edinburgh

Or is there another convention that can be used to differentiate (say) a Baronet of Edinburgh from a Baronet of Kittybrewster? Get back to me when you can! Thanks! Herostratus 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All Baronetcies have a territorial designation (as do most peerages except, I think, Royal ones). Largely to distinguish one nth Baronet from another of the same forename/surname. So the correct description would be

• Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet of Edinburgh

and/or * Sir [Forename] Arbuthnot of Edinburgh, 2nd Baronet

User:Kittybrewster 23:32, 20 January 2006

May need to refer to the manual of style/seek agreement to sort this. At the moment this article jumps about in the designation from Sir William Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet to Sir Dalrymple Arbuthnot, CMG, DSO, JP...the 5th Baronet Arbuthnot of Edinburgh.

Personally when I add them I use [Baronet|Bt] but either way the second option is confusing. If we are going to include post nominals (which I'm perfectly happy with) then it should read Sir Dalrymple Arbuthnot Bt, CMG, DSO, JP irrespective of whether you want to add the Baronet Arbuthnot of Edinburgh bit. That of course then makes the use of the full baronet in the firt example look odd Alci12 12:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The order is clear - Bt precedes CMG, etc. Bt preferable to Bart. Bt or Baronet both correct. No mention of Bt is an error. The territorial designation is official and is the one part of the name that cannot be changed. - Kittybrewster 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

dsp

LOL whew. I was worried about all those Arbuthnots disappearing into the highland fog of a dark night... good material for a novel maybe. OK thanks. Since you're back, I see that user Perfecto put needs-verification tags on John Arbuthnott, 8th Viscount of Arbuthnott and John Arbuthnott, 16th Viscount of Arbuthnott , the questions are on the talk page. Some may be hard to answer but if anyone can it would be you, I guess. There is also a verification tag on Alexander Arbuthnot (printer), good luck finding new information on that one. Carry on! Herostratus 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. I wouldn't worry about Perfecto's message, above, I think he was being a bit overzealous in this case. The rule is designed to prevent people linking to their blogs and advertising sites and suchnot, doesn't apply to the Arbuthnot family database. Herostratus

The heraldry series

How do I amend the box so Mon (crest) reads Mon (badge) ? Kittybrewster 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The "box" is Template:heraldry. Just go there and amend the link, or ask for further assistance.Commander Keane 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How do I amend the title of file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deke_Crest.JPG which is not a crest ? Kittybrewster 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't move images, so the only way to rename it is to:

• Save the image to your computer
• Upload it under a new file name in Wikipedia
• Transfer the information from the old version (eg who uploaded it in the first place)
• Change all occurences in articles of the old file name to the new name
• Ask an admin to delete the old file.

But then again, the image filename is just a description, not a defintion, so a rename may not be necessary.--Commander Keane 00:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbuthnot(t)s

Thanks and Bravo! for what i know was a lot of grueling, dull work at List of people by name: Arb. I almost didn't need to look at your last 10 edits, but i wanted to be sure you hadn't been timid enuf to leave the C-U notices in place. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

John Brooke-Little

Greetings...with your interest in heraldry, I thought you might like to join in the peer review of John Brooke-Little's article. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work.--Evadb 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Land Law Act

The reason I'd been a little reluctant to just edit was I couldn't find the land law act mentioned to see why this confusion existed. It would make it much easier to see how to edit it had I been clear here.

The 100 yr rule is basically this. During the late C19 early C20 a number of peerages that had been in abeyance for hundreds of years and that often the claimant represented a tiny fraction of the co-share of the title were terminated. Those seeking the terminations were often simply those who had the money to research hundreds of years of decent. The CFP recommended to the King - who agreed and instructed the Attorney General - not to present claims for terminations to him that:

• Had been abeyant for >100 years
• The claimant hadn't a 1/3 share or greater
• If there was any suggestion that claimants had agreed to split titles between them - which had certainly happened.

These 'rules' are still in place although they have been slightly relaxed. In 1999 one of four sisters (1/4 share) of the 9th Baron Howard de Walden succeeded with her petition. I suspect that this was only because they were sisters.

As an example of a simple 1/2 share that can't be terminated under the above 'rules' look at Baron_Clifford As I said on topic if one heir could just renounce it would make life a lot easier but I just can't find any evidence that any act so infringes on the royal perogative.Alci12 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff

User: Wsgweg has vandalised the David Hasselhoff page again. User:Jokestress has reverted it. How do I Vandalism template 5 User:Wsgweg or encourage a moderator to intervene? - Kittybrewster 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you have to use a fourth level warning like {{test4}} or {{test4im}}. If he/she still continues, report them at WP:AIV. Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing! I just happened upon the page, but if it's on AIV, they will watch it. Jokestress 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was browsing and saw the vandalism. When you find a vandalized page:

1. go to the history
2. find the last unvandalized copy
3. open it for editing
4. select all the text
5. copy it
6. go to the current version of the article
7. open it for editing
8. select all the text
9. paste the text from the unvandalized version
10. note you were reverting vandalism in the edit summary
11. save page
12. put a comment on the vandal's talk page

Sounds like a lot, but it takes about 20 seconds once you have done it. Happy editing! Jokestress 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Or you can just save the old unvandalized version. It's a lot faster. Also, you should try Popups.—G.He_(Talk!) 04:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

GHe is right, but i'd state it as "skip steos 4-9", leaving

1. go to the history
2. find the last unvandalized copy
3. open it for editing
4. note you were reverting vandalism in the edit summary
5. save page
6. put a comment on the vandal's talk page (provided that final step doesn't deter you from carrying out the previous ones)

--Jerzy•t 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

re:Dalrymple Arbuthnot

Excellent. I don't have a single thing to complain about. It's turned into a fine article, thanks and congratulations.

I wonder if you could find a portrait. In the U.S., pictures made by the government (including military portraits) are public domain, I think. I don't know if that's true in the UK. Herostratus 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Useful template

You may be interested in Template:Notable Wikipedian, since I see you've dropped in a stub for your own bio. Best, Choess 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Hivemind

Do you hate me, or do you hate copyright law? --Daniel Brandt 68.91.255.70 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I do not know you; I don't hate anyone, let alone those I do not know. Nor do I hate copyright law. What is Hivemind? Kittybrewster 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It rings a vague bell in my mind re Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead.
--Jerzy•t 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

I just wanted to let you know that you have been awarded a barnstar. It is in your barstar page now. Best, Kukini 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Kittybrewster 00:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, you derserve it. Barnstar Brigader, Kukini 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

Gosh, it's somehow refreshingly embarrassing to begin trying to break the habit of thinking of you as "the lovely Ms. Brewster"! I'm trying to decide whether that means i should have looked at your user pages earlier....
Thanks again for all those entries!
--Jerzy•t 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bluebell Madonna

I moved the comment you left on this article (presumably related to its proposed deletion) into a {{prod2a}} tag. It's better to leave such comments in a prod2a tag in case someone deprods later, so the comment gets removed then too. Just letting you know... not a lot of people have seen the prod2a tag yet. :) Cheers! Mangojuice^talk 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Baronet succession style

Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage#Succession 2. Thanks, Choess 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was so long in getting back to you. User:Proteus has some deep-seated objection to the use of territorial designations in article titles, I suppose because they're unofficial; you'll have to take it up with him, although I believe he's on wikibreak at present. And aren't the Carnegie Baronets of Pitarrow? That appears to be the placename; Pitcarrow looks like a typo by Rayment or his sources. Choess 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pitarrow - you are right. SCB was wrong. Territorial designations are not unofficial. They are chosen by the first incumbent in consultation with the King at Arms, and allocated by the King at Arms on behalf of the Monarch. My father's hangs on my wall. Prior to his baronetcy and matriculation he had no t.d.. It is the one part of the Baronetcy that cannot be changed. E.G. Baronets Barrow of Highgrove became Crawley-Boevey of Highgrove. - Kittybrewster 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain what's going on with Talk:Anstruther_Baronets where the designation seems to change in 1698 for or by what I'm still not clear. Scottish peerages have strange rules what with regrants whereas English titles have always been fixed in stone - does the same apply to scottish bts prior to union?

I will peruse "Anstruthers of that Ilk" which is in my library in London (I am in Scotland).

As a two for one offer - do you know of anything about stripping bts of their titles. It can be done by the monarch for all knighthoods and honours afaik - the exception being peerages that the HoL ruled needs an act of parliament. I know of no similar ruling for Bts

I am not aware that any Bt has been stripped. Ask chairman at baronetage.org

Proteus will no doubt jump in but I don't think tds are that good for disamb at all. Giving people a choice of John Smith of Bognor or John Smith of Clapham will mean next to nothing to 99.99% of users while most people given John Smith (tinker tailor soldier spy) probably know which they are after. Obviously I'm oversimplifying but disamb needs to helpful to the user. Alci12 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Proteus would agree with you. But on different grounds. I don't. All that is needed is a line at the top as in [[1]], saying e.g. "For Sir John Smith (tinker) see Sir John Smith of Clapham". - Kittybrewster 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Spouses

Hi Kittybrewster. Er, I didn't delete any spouses, unless I misremember. I keep a spouse list at User:Herostratus/List of non-notable spouses with my own personal rating of spouses, but it's not a Wikipedia standard or anything, just a sort of hobby thing, for anyone to use or not as they wish. Maybe you are referring to that? Herostratus 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

If you're feeling adventurous, you could help by keeping an eye on this page. I've tried to tone down the more obvious POV elements, but I can see that it is going to be a long process. --Major Bonkers 11:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Major Bonkers 08:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your addition to my talk page comment, but perhaps in future you could drop me a line personally instead of putting words in my mouth for me? Wally 06:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about: looking at Wally's discussion page history, there seems to have been some vandalism, now reverted, but I didn't do it, and I'm fairly sure that Kittybrewster didn't either. Am I missing something? Given that Wally seems rather upset, perhaps he could set out exactly what the problem is. --Major Bonkers 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant on the Bobby sands talk page itself. And I'm not upset, as it was a minor thing and a perfectly legitimate correction of a statement I made; I just wish the correction had been made to me, not for me, is all. Wally 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! --Major Bonkers 13:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scams

I hope you can see where I'm coming from, in terms of sorting out the fake from the misrepresented to the misunderstood. I mentioned the afd to Proteus but he seemed to think it would only be re-added so perhaps it should be edited to explain it as a scam. It was sent to afd before and was kept! I'm just not sure the best way to sort things like this. Alci12 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Many people contend that without proper authentication and recognition from an internationally accepted source, this is widely regarded as a fake title. Those who have bought one will doubtless disagree." Sounds good to me, I was trying to think of the least libelous way of saying what we think it is :) Alci12 08:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your Portal Proposal

I noticed you proposed Portal:Family law and it was summarily blocked by those who opposed it. This appears to have been in violation of Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore I've nominated the portal approval process page for deletion. The discussion and voting page can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. --Transhumanist 16:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: MC, DSO, DSC and DFC Recipients

Well, Sir, there is WP:AWB which isn't a robot but is much easier than manually going through all recipients (and I've no idea how to use a bot). I've got some spare summer weeks at the moment so could have a shot at it in the next two weeks. :-) Craigy (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Military Cross recipients should probably be moved (as should others, mutatis mutandis) to Category:Recipients of the Military Cross and made a subcat of Category:British honours system for consistency with other categories there, such as Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration. Choess 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to agree with you, except that some of them, e.g. DSO are Companions of rather than recipients of ... - Kittybrewster 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right. We already have Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order, which I think is the only case in which that applies (i.e., award of the decoration entails entry into an order). Maybe categories for the obsolete decorations, such as the Military Medal and brethren? And Template:Catmore should be used in all the categories. Choess 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Jejeebhoy Baronets

Hi Kittybrewster... my message page is messed up, but anyway, I was going to say you could move Jejeebhoy Baronets yourself, but it looks like you figured that out anyway. Cheers! Herostratus 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Gough, 3rd Viscount Gough

The information for this article seems to have been picked from www.kittybrewster.com/members/j.htm, which does not inform if that information is public domain or copyrighted (the terms of use are really vague). Could you rewrite the article to prevent giving a positive again? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - my site. All that info is public domain (Burke's Peerage, "Who's Who" The Peerage etc - Kittybrewster 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bordeline case, as you have been researching that information, and since you are adding it to Wikipedia, it may be original research. However, right now I am interested in the copyright of the site. Is there any section in the site where it is clearly stated that the information is Public Domain? -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Because most of the info on my sites is not public domain. But the info re HG,3VG certainly is. I am inclined to ask do we need to worry about it? - Kittybrewster 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because all text that is inserted in Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. If it is an exact copy of information, it is assumed the site released that information with the GFDL license (or Public Domain). In the future, this may trigger new false positive hits for copyright bots like Wherebot. I suggest adding a note in the talk page of the article stating that the information was public domain. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Baronets

See my belated reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#s-reg_s-hon_s-nob. --BrownHairedGirl 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this can help Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage (at the bottom of the article). The s-reg-templates for baronetcies are listed on Template:S-reg Phoe 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kitty, I have just created an article on a Baronet, and created the relevant baronetcy page too (see John Mellor (politician) and Mellor Baronets). That's my first effort, so doubt I have done it right, but I hope it's some use as a guide! (though you've probabbly figured it out already) --BrownHairedGirl 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dyke Acland_Baronets

I note on this entry you mention he obtained a fresh creation. How exactly? What was altered? While Scottish titles have always had regrants I've never seen anything the same for British titles. Alci12 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

He obtained new letters patent with precedence the previous patent - Kittybrewster 10:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying the old title was extinguished? If so it would point to our previous discussion about how you revoke a baronetcy.Alci12 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No; I am merely reporting what I found in Rayment and in Burke's Peerage. The latter says he was both 5th Bt and 1st Bt, and goes on to list everybody after him as 6th, 7th etc (as does Rayment); therefore it was not extinguished or revoked by the later grant. - Kittybrewster 14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then I read that as a new creation with the existing title still extant rather than what seemed to be implied ie a regrant/new LP to the existing title. Alci12 15:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to share your view in the absence of other knowledge. - Kittybrewster 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi Kitty, are you are of WP:MOSDAB? I have just tidied up John Mellor to unpipe names, add dates, etc, and thought it might help to point you towards that very useful guide. --BrownHairedGirl 13:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hndis

Hi Kitty, I just tweaked John Arbuthnot (disambiguation) to add the {{hndis}} template, and when I looked at the history, I saw that you had created the page, so I wondered if you knew about hndis. It's preferable to {{disambig}} for dab pages relating to human names, because with hndis the name then gets added to the Category:Lists of ambiguous human names, where I think it gets picked up by various bots who do clever things with it.

The syntax is {{hndis|name=Lastname, firstname}}.

BTW, there's a reply to you on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl 10:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some peerages etc

Hi Kitty, I recently created a few pages for people with peerages correctly, and wasn't sure if I had done the categories etc correctly, so I was wondering if you could be kind enough to take a look at them and see if things are OK:

• Leifchild Stratten Jones, 1st Baron Rhayader
• Ralph Assheton, 1st Baron Clitheroe

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted Leif-Jones (making him Jones instead) because that isn't in his surname according to one of the two pages. Maybe I did wrongly.

Assheton/Clitheroe could use a Baronetcy and a Peerage succession box. Is it right that Assheton Baronets has been hijacked towards Baron Clitheroe? Maybe it is.

Well done. I think PC should be recognised in top line using Rt Hon - and the Baronetcy also. But see User_talk:Alci12#Rt._Hon. They look pretty good to me. :) - Kittybrewster 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To shortcut this see User_talk:Choess#Rt_Hon. for why we can't include it in the first line. 'Sir' is fine for a Baronet but wiki uses 'ordinal Baronet' not 'Bt' in the opening line and never uses Bt where it's a peer. Alci12 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kitty -- that looks great!--BrownHairedGirl 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Category move

I'd agree with that. Proteus (Talk) 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady and The Hon.

I'm not really sure, to be quite honest. "Lady" seems to go back a long way, certainly to the 15th century and probably much earlier than that, but I really have no idea about "The Honourable". I'd imagine it dates back to a similar time to when Privy Counsellors and Peers started being "The Right Honourable", but when that was I don't know. Sorry about that. Proteus (Talk) 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The memorial to various relatives of Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland (erected 1591) refers to "the right honourable lord Thomas Earl of Rutland" and his sons "sir Thomas Manners, knight, and Oliver Manners, esq", suggesting it was not then uniformly in use. More or less immediately after Restoration, we find "the Honourable Edward Howard". Chandler's "The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons" first uses that style in the list of MPs in the first parliament of James II. Apparently the Earl of Sandwich's journal of 1660 refers to "Hon. Edward Montagu Esq." (son & heir of Lord Montagu of Boughton). Choess 23:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly say that it only solidifies post restoration. C16 it's not uncommon to see sons of peers called 'lord' in speech at least and the styles of all peers vary wildly with the whole Thrice Honourable bit for earls and Most High Potent and Noble Prince (or variations) for Dukes. Lady goes back to Anglo Saxon times and in a recognisible form to the c12. Though it is quite hard to seperate the use as a title from a general form of respect at this time. Alci12 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Baronets

Hi Kittybrewster, I see that your request on AfD was handled in a somewhat silly fashion by others. Let me know if you want Lewis of Portland Place to remain as a redirect to Lewis Baronets or whether it should be deleted. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just having a quick scan and a number of things comes to mind. He (Lewis of Senghenydd) presumably can't use his baronetcy because he hasn't (by choice) had himself entered on the roll of baronets according to the rules. I wonder if there might be an error. Quickly checking the list of unproven titles returns

"Lewis of Nantgwyne UK 3rd Baronet died 1977 Dormant"

Now it seems unlikely to me that two baronetcies of the same surname held by the third holder would have both become dormant in the same year. Is it possible that this is the same title and that one or other site has just made an error in the territorial designation? Alci12 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - and Rayment frequently uses territorial designations which are different from those stated by the Standing Council of the Baronetage. - Kittybrewster 14:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how accurate the SCB is with such matters as presumably the whole thing is part time and more of a club than anything. As peers are not unknown for getting their own titles wrong it would hardly shock me if the same weren't true here.

I wonder if Lewis is akin to Beaverbrooke. He renounced the title but accepted both a CBE and DL so it can't be republican feelings but could perhaps be a 'only one peer x in my lifetime and that's my father' Alci12 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think SCB would be stunningly acurate. The Council is like a club but the Secretary is broadly Home Office and very official. Lewis of Senghenydd appears to have been given a different TD when he got the Barony. Maybe he feels he only wants to use that which he has earned - as opposed to the counter-view that one uses the title as a living memorial to he who earned it. - Kittybrewster 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please visit my user page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance as a baronet

"Now that the House of Lords has been down-graded it is no longer possible for a hereditary peer to take his seat there. So how does he now prove he has become Lord Bloggs? And if he has proven this, would the SCB accept that proof? - Kittybrewster 09:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)"

Well, 92 do still take their seats (plus more who are also life peers) and the remainder can vote for those 92. So they all make their claims in the normal way and then sign the peerage roll [Home Sec/CFP depending on the complexity of the case]. I assume that if a baronetcy and a peerage have the same remainder then the official roll of baronet will be updated without seperate proofs for that being needed but I don't know that as fact however the same department handles matters. I don't see the SCB could object as it's the official roll for the peerage or baronetage that matters the SCB would look pretty foolish if they decided to ignore either? Alci12 10:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some Peers may not see the point in proving their baronetcy which is a pity. I was thinking of someone such as Baron Muskerry which is dormant and not under review. - Kittybrewster 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering how some peers seem to have a pretty weak knowledge of their own titles and correct use thereof I wonder if some even know they have a baronetcy or if they do that they need or prove it. However if there are examples of peers who have proved their claim to the peerage but are not on the baronets roll that would settle the matter of them using cross proof for claims. I thought you had to provide birth/marriage/death + two affis - though I appreciate your case is as simple as they get in terms of proving a claim. Alci12 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re abeyance. In theory I suppose but in reality no. No baronetcy has been created other than scottish titles that could pass (as peerages by writ) normally though the female line, so there can be no co-heirs for the title to be split between. Alci12 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

The House of Lords Privileges Committee is extant and continues to decide upon matters relating to the Peerage &c. Blair's government only expelled the hereditaries from the House of Lords (minus a few left in for the moment). They did not abolish the Peerage, and claims must still be presented in proper legal form to the Committee who make the final decision. It remains illegal to call yourself a Peer or a baronet if it is in dispute. Chelsea Tory 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Robert Gunning, 1st Baronet

I think it may be correct. I believe, but can't cite, that KBs were upgraded to KCBs and looking at the dates he survived just long enough to see the order split. Looking quickly I can't find something to validate this. Perhaps someone on bath talk can find the statues of 1815 Alci12 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No. They were upgraded to GCBs. - Kittybrewster 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the Burba, SW! Laura1822 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

List of baronetcies

Hey, would like to inform you that text on talkpages shall not be removed. If a page becomes too large or something is no longer being discussed, it shall be archived. For doing that see here Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#When_pages_get_too_long. Greetings Phoe 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's only acceptable to remove clear vandalism, nonsense or spam from a article's talkpage. Historic and out of date isn't a criteria. It can be that a text is valueless now, once it wasn't (so it belongs to the article's history). Furthermore some users can have the same question in future, can find an answer in this or want to add own thoughts. Archive it, if you think it shall not stand on the talkpage, but deleting such a text is nothing more than vandalism. Phoe 08:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS... As a compromis: Why do you not put short notices to that texts explaining what is done meanwhile? Phoe 08:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, value is always a matter of opinion. I'm sure on earth there are'nt two persons that have the exact same definition of what is valuable and what is not (so you can't know if this will help someone someday). By the way if you see through Wikipedia, you will find, especially on talkpages, many texts which are useless, old and unnecessary on a first and second look too, but this plays no role. The thing is: it has been written once, and we have to keep it. Greetings Phoe 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent solution from my view Phoe 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Icairns and baronetcies

I suggest you start by discussing the problem directly with the user involved, (see longer reply on my talk), but please get back to me if you get stuck! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

References as requested on my talk, I suggest that you might want to leave a rather more detailed note, explaining which artucle moves you are referring to, and including named links to the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the notice. I have copied your statement from User talk:ICairns to User talk:Icairns (the right place). Greetings Phoe 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear God. I can't cope with all of these now, as I'm just about to go out, but I'll fix the rest later. Thanks for the heads up. Proteus (Talk) 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kitty, moving house and only just back in and read the messages. You seem to have solved things well enough. Now if I can only get broadband installed I might be able to get back to some editing. Alci12 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Knighthoods

Burns was a KCMG, Still was a KCVO, the rest were Knights Bachelor (& Pearce also held the OBE). Thanks. Craigy (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I search through Burke's or the Gazettes (a great website if you have the patience for it). Craigy (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Felicity Arbuthnot

Sorry, I didn't get your message re this article in time. I've been on a bit less lately. You can see who has deleted a file by going to the logs page Special:logs, pulling down Deletion Log in the leftmost box, pasting the name of the article in the Title box, and clicking Go. The article was deleted by User:Eagle 101. It certainly should not have been speedy deleted, in my opinion. What happens, I think, is that when the backlog of articles nominated for speedy deletion gets large enough, an admin cleans it out with perhaps less attention to each article than might be ideal. So I don't see a problem with your re-creating it. Others, however, may delete it out of hand as a re-creation of deleted material. In that case, you should go to deletion review at WP:DRV.

If an article is nominated for speedy deletion, you can put {{hangon}} on the page, and, either on the article's talk page or the talk page of the editor who put on the speedy tag (or both), describe why you think it shouldn't be speedied. The article should not be speedied as long as there is a fruitful discussion ongoing. Usually articles with the hangon tag are sent to WP:AFD to resolve the matter.

Now, as far as surviving a WP:AFD... I can't much help you with that. The comments I made on the category page re keeping all (or at least as many as possible) of the family articles for reasons of possible future detailed research by someone may not hold a lot of water with the AFD commentors. Your best bet, as always, is to try to get as many external citations showing genuine notability. You will probably find in the course of events that not every article can be retained. Herostratus 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Baronetcies

"[C]ategorising baronets" refers to the fact that a good few of my edits have been used to add Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Somewhere into biographies, conforming the page title and opening line to MoS standards and adding other pertinent information that I find on things like the ODNB and Rayment. Whilst I'll keep doing this regardless of whether I'm a Project member or not, I figure its best that you people know what I'm doing, and also so that I can have a known and respected voice in discussions over policy that are had. --New Progressive 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing talk pages

It's usually not a good idea to "correct" somebody else's grammar in what they posted on talk pages. An obvious typo, or a link to a page that has subsequently been moved, some of those things are okay, but the ones such as those you made here[2] [3] are best avoided. Just a hint, I'm not going to be following you around and reverting them and no response is necessary; it's discussed somewhere on the help pages if you need more info. Gene Nygaard 13:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

re How do I...

1. As far as I know, you can't put a user contributions page on your watchlist, unfortunately. I would be very handy if you could.
2. On user page User:Kittybrewster/monobook.js (create it if it doesn't exist), place this line:

document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>');

then save and refresh. Copy in the line from the source of this message (i.e., in edit mode). I don't know if or how well it works, but it's supposed to give you a rollback button such as admins have. Herostratus 02:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it looks like there is a javascript solution which does allow you to watch a user's contributions. Have a look at User:Tra#User_watchlist. --Dr pda 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Heather Mills allegations of domestic violence

While "denied allegations" should not be placed within wikipedia articles, it probably merits to judge articles on a case by case basis. I am referring to Mill's allegations of domestic violence by Paul McCartney, which you had deleted, because the allegations have been denied.

These allegations are contained within her divorce papers, and merely reporting what she has stated in her divorce papers, doesnot amount to have taken a partisan view. Since these allegations, whether actually true or not, because they are contained within legal papers and because they are being subject to intense discussion, it is necessary to atleast mention about them (along with Paul McCartney or his sources' denials). Here is the news article (Daily Mail had published these leaked charges) [4]. I request you to reconsider your opinion in this regard. rahul regula 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course her allegtions are not NPOV. If they are in legal papers before the family court they should not be discussed outside those proceedings. If they are subject of discussion, they should not be. The only relevant point is that it is acknowledged by both that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. "to at least mention" is a split infinitive. - Kittybrewster 15:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesnot matter as to why (or who put)these papers are in the public domain. The fact remains that these papers are in the public domain, and are subject to much intense discussion. Wikipedia maynot be a place for gossip, but it certainly is not a place for investigative facts either. What it is known for, is its' unbiased "reporting" of events. Certainly, when more and more people look to Wikipedia as a source of reliable information, it is "atleast necessary" to report it. There is a subtle difference between "reporting" and opinionating, and i am afraid, you are not able to see it. Anyway, since u are one of the supposed "gods" of wikipedia, i leave the final decision to your consciousness. Btw, thanks for the service award(s). rahul regula 10:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rahul: see #6 here. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennaway Baronets

Hi, thanks for your correction. Good day, month, year Phoe 10:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KB, I was suprised that it seemed to be Escot as it went against all the usual conventions but the error seems widespread in many sources Alci12 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Routledge

Thanks for your help on the Patricia Routledge page. Unfortuntley User:SFTVLGUY2 still believes himself to be right, despite the guidelies shown to him. He is also claiming that you, Proteus and myself are the same person. Your help would be appreciated if he continues. Thanks. --Berks105 19:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See my suggestions at Talk:Patricia_Routledge#Content_dispute. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

George Byron, 6th Baron Byron

Good Morning :-) The request of move of the artice above can you find on Talk:George Byron, 6th Baron Byron#Requested move. Perhaps you would like to add your comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage there. Greetings Phoe 00:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetry?

Hi Kittybrewster, following up on the comments by User:SFTVLGUY2, I have made some suggestions at Talk:Patricia Routledge#sockpuppetry, which I hope may be helpful to all involved. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sebelia

Heho, I'm not an admin, but I have reverted the talkpage and added a short notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Maybe it will take some effect. Greetings Phoe 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you that you have taken my request in the right form. Why I had chosen that form you can read on User_talk:Gh87 (if you want). Greetings Phoe 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Earl Nelson

Hi, I have changed the style of what you had added to the article, to stay consistent with other articles, and because the barony and viscountcy was only for life technically (since he did not have legitimate heirs). By the way perhaps this website [5] may intersting for you. Best wishes Phoe 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a copy of the usenet peerage group to me, with the poster being michael rhodes. Prob best never to assume 'life' as though I can certainly think of examples where unmarried octagenerains have been given 'life' hereditary peerages I can think of a few peers who have produced their heir at almost the same age. Alci12 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is and it seems it is his own page. I like it more than the usenet group, because it is better readable. :-) ~~ Phoe _talk 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

Why do you think it will particularly interest me? - Kittybrewster 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because he reports the births/marriages/deaths of baronets as well as peers and obviously that catches people before the dead tree publishers do their annual updates Alci12 09:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No special reason, but you work on articles of peers and baronets, you are a baronet, you understand English :-), so I thought it could be interesting to read for you. ~~ Phoe _talk 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

Jonathan Porritt's entry defaced?

Seemingly wrong changes are being made in Jonathan Porritt's page, Pot-Porritt is appearing there. I had never heard of the name before, and I've known about the Porritt family for several decades. Google led me to something by Jeremy Clarkson where he used Pot-Porritt, seemingly in derision. Perhaps there's a public feud between them which someone has leaked into the Wikipedia entry.

As I live in California, this feud was all a surprise to me. I'm not 100% sure of the situation so don't want to change the Wikipedia entry, but thought I should bring it to the attention of someone who has made other changes to Jonathan Porritt's entry.

Kiwicrs 06:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A Bloody Message For You O.o

A Bloody Message For You O.o

I have been told to ask you to stop "bleeding cut and paste pages moves" and I must say I agree. Bleeding profusely on wikipages will cause wikipedia to become unsanitary. So I must ask you to please stop bleeding on the pages. If necessary, use gloves before you cut and paste. (Actually the original intent of this message is to apologize on this person's behalf and providing humor after his immature attacks on you. Peace. :) -WarthogDemon 09:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut-paste

Firstly, please stop performing cut-paste moves as you have been doing for some time now.

Secondly, the articles you are doing this at are at the right names. On Wikipedia, we do not use titles, such as Sir, Doctor, etc. in article titles. So please stop, before you are blocked for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes - Kittybrewster 09:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is the correct page to go by. The Manual of Style concerns the article verbiage, not the article name.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names. No 4. - Kittybrewster 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage#Location 2 that's relevant here. Proteus (Talk) 10:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Trevelyans

Hi, I had been meaning to create an article for Sir George Trevelyan, 4th Baronet for a while, and when I saw you'd renamed the other Trevelyans I thought I'd better get on with it. Have also disambig'd lots of George and Charles Trevelyan wikilinks. I really ought to create an article for the place Trevelyan, whence the family take their name. It's a tiny place in Cornwall, but I think notable at the very least for having given the world such an influential family. DuncanHill 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff

Heho, it is explained on High Sheriff. I quote: "In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the High Sheriff is theoretically the Sovereign's judicial representative in the county, while the Lord Lieutenant is the Sovereign's personal representative." Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

Speedy deletions

The tags are being removed pretty much as soon as he adds them (see Special:Contributions/Lairor for the articles he's been tagging), but it doesn't seem to be stopping him. Proteus (Talk) 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Offices

Why the "Other Offices" title to the succession box? I am not sure what it means. It seems to imply that there should be more than one "office". I like the color it adds to the box, but I just havent a clue what the title is implying. Maybe it should be titled "succession of office", or something like that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Burkem

I see that you have an interest in genealogy. I have very limited knowledge on the topic, so I am not in a position to discern hoaxes that are not immediately obvious. Are you able to provide evidence that one or more of Burkem's recent articles are hoaxes/unreliable. If so, that would be a great help. If you can do this, I would appreciate it if you would post it on the administrators' notice board (and let me know as well). I am too am concerned about the potential introduction of articles that are based on original research/false. — ERcheck (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Burkem#Please,_please_stop. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome your thoughts on User_talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where he is based, though I'm guessing the US, as the IPs beginning with 24.104 are completely consistent with his edits. It will take a Checkuser request to identify. However, unless he starts to edit anonymously, I don't think that is necessary. — ERcheck (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arms/Supporters

No, or at least no in terms of my understanding. I'm talking about using the father's coat of arms *and* his supporters. That's certainly not possible in English or British law, except as I understand it when they themselves are summoned to parliament; sons can only use the coa with differencing. However I believe that the heir apparent to Scottish peerages have such extra rights with regard to supporters. Scottish rules generally are very generous in this area, you can get extra additions for being the nominated baron-baillie to a feudal scottish baron!!!

I'll buy that. - Kittybrewster 13:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As to sloppy, Scottish matriculation is a modern (late c17) invention that would be (is?) a sham with regard to the original purpose - clear identification on the battlefield. It could only ever exist as it has in an age where they became matters of social display and amusement not function. Much as I love the idea of a scottish commander telling his troops: now listen here lads in the thick of battle you must kill the men with Argent, on a chevron between three haddock erect Gules, three haggis erect of the first or men with Argent, on a chevron between three herring erect Gules, three haggis erect of the first but for god's sake don't kill the man with Argent, on a chevron between three mackeral erect Gules, three haggis erect of the first he's on our side :-) Alci12 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That made me laugh a lot. Thank you. - Kittybrewster 13:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a relief humour can go wrong online :) Alci12 13:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PMJI, but that is a true classic that deserves permanent archiving somewhere! Great job. Laura1822 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As i'm passing I don't understand your use of 'Much Honoured the Viscount of Arbuthnott' on your website. While it's true that clan chiefs have used such forms the Rt Hon supersedes all lower forms. Alci12 13:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is archaic and amuses the present incumbent. - Kittybrewster 13:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose he uses the 'of' so he's being consistent Alci12 13:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Stronges

Thanks very much, would be delighted too! --Couter-revolutionary 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added an e-mail address. Please do feel free to contact me. --Couter-revolutionary 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to work correctly when sent through Wikipedia.--Couter-revolutionary 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, for me means "tentanda via est" "the way must be tried" (see [6] and "dulce quod utile" "pleasant, because useful" (see [7]. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

I'm not sure I think 'pleasant' is meant there - 'sweet which useful' I assume it's supposed to be read as meaning something like (that which is) useful is sweet but I'm not certain Alci12

Could I, by any chance, join the 'Team Baronetcy' group? Thanks. --Couter-revolutionary 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome. - Kittybrewster 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Hi, have seen your comment on BrownHairedGirl's userpage. Renaming isn't possible here (or for admins here), since the coats of arms are inserted from Wikipedia Commons (any changes must done there). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 09:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Thank you. Of course it is merely a shield rather than a coat of arms. - Kittybrewster 09:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, you know thus better. Best wishes. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

How do I amend it on Wikipedia Commons? - Kittybrewster 09:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you can do this at [8], but is renaming really necessary? It is only the link, that was written wrongly - the text to the picture is added anyway in the article. By the way I would have let the shield at the articles of the individual viscounts, and the full (and big) coat of arms only at the article of the viscountcy. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Article

Territorial designation (which I wrote a while back) sort of covers that area. Not sure if that's what you're looking for. The "Lord X" vs "Lord X of Y" business could probably do with a mention on a more prominent peerage page, though. Proteus (Talk) 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Baronetcies are different because there's no question of whether something is or isn't part of the territorial designation, since a Baronetcy's TD is ostensibly simply a statement of where the new Baronet comes from rather than an indication of what his style will be. Proteus (Talk) 11:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stronge_Baronets

I notice you've been adding the blazons (which I'm think is a really good thing) to various articles. However, I think we ought to put them in a form that can be read or googled for the answer. Using arg/gu makes it very difficult for people who don't know they are argent/silver and gules/red. I'll happily add that info back in.

However I'm a touch puzzled by the blazon in this example anyway. It's given as:

"1st and 4th arg., a chevron, undée sa., between three lozenges, arg., in the centre chief point, an estoile, gu. (for Stronge);"

So quarters 1 and 4 are tinctured silver/white with a wavy black chevron between 3 silver/white diamonds and in the chief point (top) a red star. Now I'm very tired but that seems like a metal on a metal? As the picture is b&w I can't tell if I'm just reading it wrong or the blazon isn't clear.

There are two crests/mottoes on that article presumably Stronge dexter and either Echlin or Manson sinister. Alci12 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My wish is that every armiger should have a shield or arms or blazon. I prefer argent to silver in this context. I copied the blazon from (in this case) Burke's Peerage. I am sure I have come across metal on metal in English blazons before; but never in Scottish ones of course. - Kittybrewster 12:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you're not supposed to do it in English either - though I assume in this case it's probably white field and the diamonds are silver. As I say I'll try to fill the detail out where I'm sure what they mean - some abbreviations can sadly have two possibilities Alci12 12:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the copy of Burke's I checked at lunchtime the lozenges are azure, not argent, which therefore doesn't violate the rule of tincture (the abbrevations are easy enough to confuse). You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology#Blazon_Standard... about a preferred style of blazon. Dr pda 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I miscopied it. The eagle is also in breach, is it not? - Kittybrewster 14:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well good to hear that's settled. I've seen a few genuine examples that break the rules so I wasn't going to dig my heals in over this without access to the source to prove I was right. Alci12 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the eagle in the second quarter does break the rule of tincture. Dr pda 19:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Knights Bachelor

My artistic skills are far too meagre to change this into a color represenation and make it look halfway decent. Perhaps you can post a request on WP:HV for the colorization by some computer wiz.--Eva ^bd 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Compass

In your "about me" page, your external link to political compass is broken. There is now in internal link Political compass . Interesting concept. Thank you. === Vernon White (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mary Frederica Elizabeth Mackenzie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mary Frederica Elizabeth Mackenzie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Heward

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Anthony Heward, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Anthony Heward. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ BigrTex 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Duff

That's a very good question. Reading the blazon before looking at the picture I was expecting to see a 2/1 split either side of the two lines. This would seem to be backed up by [9]

Where you have other shapes ie a Saltire between four martlets Gules 1 martlet in is in each division. I will see what I can find to confirm that Alci12 11:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

re rename

Yes. Just click the "move" tab. "Move" is really "rename".

• Oh. Right. OK, I made the move. As for doing it yourself, I did find this: Help:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect which only works if the page was originally under Name A, was moved to Name B, and you want to move it back to Name A. Otherwise I guess only and admin can do it, yes. Herostratus 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Herald Boxes

Kitty. Thanks for adding the Heraldic Offices succession template. It just seems as though the "honorary titles" was not sufficient. Well done.--Eva ^bd 13:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maitre d'Armes

In response to your question, no I didn't ask M. Bunel about the programme as I no longer needed it. If you would like a copy then I'd encourage you to ask him by all means, though! Regards, Abc1818 14:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

re Aussie vandal

I can't block him. It's coming from a shared IP address. Those can only be blocked for short periods to stop a vandalism in active progress. Sorry. Herostratus 21:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Baronet's Mother

I based that on a posting elsewhere that quoted from the Complete Baronetage (Cockaynes)

"The rank of the widow of a Baronet has been occasionally conferred, as was the case in the Baronetcy of Speelman, 9 Sep 1686, where the mother of the grantee was so honoured."

Now it's possible that this is wrong as the peerage sources don't always agree Alci12 12:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes a difference in so far as she would be Lady Smith not Dame Betty Smith.Alci12 15:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

John Arbuthnot (disambiguation)

Hi, is there a reason, why do you want pipe these links? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping piping shall be avoided generally, however there exist also three exceptions. I quote:

1. Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page.

2. Use piping if the article title differs from what it should be due to technical limitations per {{Wrongtitle}}; for instance The Singles 81>85 or Softimage|XSI.

3. Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), or "School" (song).

In your case, I think none of these three is given, so please would you revert your changes. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Heya, I divide between guidelines and rules, and I would assign this to the latter. But I do not want argue with you, finally style is not important at all.

I have removed the TOC on my userpage, since it has made the page a little bit too messy. Tomorrow I will move the entries of the last month to the archive, so you will have a lot of space to write :-) ~~ Phoe _talk 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Aye, so much to do ... ~~ Phoe _talk 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Thanks for the creating. If I'm right, you don't know which Archibald Campbell is meant. In this case, perhaps I can give you an answer. In my opinion it is Sir Archibald Campbell, 1st Baronet, for three reasons:

• The commandment of the regiment changed in 1843, the year he died.
• From 1830 to 1847 the regiment was based in India, while he was made Commander-in-chief in Bombay in 1939 and returned to Edinburgh only shortly before his death.
• Ava is used as name by his grandson and further descendants, so it could be a reference to the 1st Baronet (perhaps the place of his house in Scotland?).

Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

stub pictures

Hi, I made 3 pictures of Ireland stub. Image:Ireland stub.svg, Image:Ireland stub2.svg and Image:Ireland stub3.svg. Hope it's what you expected. Next thumbs will be soon.--PaD cs:✉ 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Klippdass

Hi! I saw that you'd asked on another user's page about the Swedish word "klippdass" -- since I didn't see any response, I took the liberty of responding here.

"Klippdass" (plural "klippdassar") is the Swedish word for the Hyrax -- the word derives from Afrikaans I think. In any case it is a rather silly-looking (and silly-sounding) word to a Swede; I don't know if that is why Tove Jansson chose to call the little critters who chew on everything including people's noses "klippdassar" (In the English translations they are called "niblings", as you saw.)

So there are two distinct meanings of the word in Swedish. Bonadea 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lauder Baronets

Thank you for leaving me a message. Could I direct you to the entry I have made for Sir John Lauder of Newington and Fountainhall, 1st baronet, where I have given sources. I cannot tell you what number it is but everything else is well recorded. Regards, David Lauder 10:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just done a major amount of work on the first baronet and given copious references. It has vanished and been replaced, apparently by you, with a minor entry. Can you explain this please. Am I wasting my time here? David Lauder 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I just spent one and a half hours adding to the Lauder baronets article and it has vanished altogether without trace. Naturally I am very upset. I do not accept that Sir John Lauder was ever created a baronet of Idington. What is your reference here? David Lauder 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The 8th Viscount's grave

Heho, I have downloaded a list of famous graves in Berlin, but he was'nt on it. Also I have searched for him in a database [[10]], but haven't found something. So there are four possibilities. Either the location of his grave was forgotten in the course of the years, the grave was destroyed during the Second World War, the grave was removed because his "owner" wasn't important or he has died in Berlin, however, was not buried there. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Hi, i answered you over there on my german talk page. --Magadan ?! 10:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No Idington (or Idlington?) baronetcy

There was never ever a Lauder of Idingtoun baronetcy. Sir John acquired the Idington estate, it is true. But both baronetcy patents were in the name 'of Fountainhall'. Where the confusion may arise with those less familiar with this family &c., is that the original patent had a special remainder to the eldest son of his third marriage, who was George Lauder, later designated 'of Idingtoun' (he had the Idingtoun estate settled upon him as it had originally belonged to his maternal grandfather). Indeed, the huge carry on over this baronetcy is well recorded, as George insisted that he was the rightful baronet and called himself Sir George Lauder of Idingtoun (which landed designation he had a right to), Baronet (which was cancelled), until he committed suicide in 1700. Indeed, the Retour of 1705 actually refers to him as Sir George Lauder. Regards. David Lauder 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I intend to delete these comments in a moment (and it is my talk page, so that is fine).

1. You obviously know the Lauder baronets which I do not
2. I know chirnside, edrington, longformachus, duns, whiteadder water, wedderburn, etc
3. your remark about who created sir john lauder is true but it makes you look less well than you might; I recommend you delete it in its entirety. It is the computer program which states who started what and whatt I should have done is move lauder baronets to sir john lauder and thenn replace the resulting redirect with new stuff. My fault. Dinna fash yersel' over it.
4. my typos are the result of shakes, tremor and parkinson's
5. your remark above is very constructive and should be under Lauder baronets
6. my source for any disagreement will be rayment or SCB's Official Roll

Kittybrewster 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be assured that I mean no disrespect whatsoever. I apologise if my manner appears otherwise. I will try and watch that in future. If you can lay your hands on a copy of The Grange of St.Giles the full story of the baronetcy dispute is there. David Lauder 10:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"A question of credit where credit is due". Interesting. Not where I am coming from at all. I am not fussed about whether I get credit for things. I am happy to send you a few new articles and you can upload them under your "flag". I remain of the view that your existing protestation makes you look less well than you might. - Kittybrewster 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy & paste

Hi Kittybrewster, a little information for you. Copy and paste moves, how you have done here [11], are generally a bad idea. I know your reason, you have tried to restore the wrong move of User:Icairns - but this led to the result, that Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet and Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet are identical articles with different histories. Please use in such cases in future Wikipedia:Moves#Uncontroversial moves. Thanks for your effort. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Baronet picture

Hi,

I wanted to thank you for uploaded the photo Image:BaronetUK.jpg. I suggest that instead you upload it to the wikipedia commons at commons.wikimedia.org. It is just like uploading to wikipedia, and this way it can be used in all the wikipedia projects easily. When you upload it just put it in a category like Category:British honours system. Great job, thanks Dowew 11:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody else has uploaded it. - Kittybrewster 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I have added it to Category:British honours system Dowew 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stronges.

Thank you for adding the coat of arms, it looks very well. --Couter-revolutionary 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Baronets

Am I not right in saying that the correct term is knight-baronet? On the Baronets page I think they are confusing the early period, when they say baronets were made during the reigns of the Edwards, with Knight-Bannerets. What is your view here?

I have looked in "The Baronetage" by Sir Martin Lindsay of Dowhill Bt and find that he uses the term baronet rather than knight-baronet. Quote <<...1321, mentioned that baronets took part, along with barons and knights. Edward III is known to have created eight Baronets in 1328>>.

Also, I see you have described the Fountainhall Arms. But are they not the quartered Arms of the Dick Lauder family in general? I seem to recall many of the 19th century directories always carried the Arms of Lauder of Fountainhall only against the baronetcy entry. But I cannot remember whether they were those of the 1st or 2nd Bt (presumably they should be the 1st?). What is the correct position here? (I could check as I know Sir Malcolm Innes but I thought you might know). David Lauder 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My source was Burke's Peerage 105th edition. Armorial achievements (coats of arms) belong to one individual rather than to a family in general. - Kittybrewster 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bruges burial

Hmm, I'm not altogether sure. Do you know where he exactly was buried? If not, the local tourist services(toerisme@brugge.be) or the Catholic church (topa.westvl@kerknet.be is probably your best bet) might know. I'm not from around there, but that's who I'd contact first. :)

Additionally, the local branch of the National Archive might be able to help out too: Rijksarchief.Brugge@arch.be They're usually quite willing to help, and should be able to tell you if they have anything in their archives which involves this person you're looking for...

All the best, Random Nonsense 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lords Maitland/Thirlestane

You've made a light error in changing Lord Maitland to Lord Thirlestane. He was created Lord Maitland of Thirlestane. It is easy to get that confused with the 1624 subsidiary creation of Lord Thirlestane. John Maitland, 1st Lord Maitland of Thirlestane, was dead then. David Lauder 10:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Whoops. Correction time again. - Kittybrewster 13:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The clan site gets the title wrong as well - even though it's clearly approved by the chief. Alci12 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

419eater.com

This looks right up your street! Happy Christmas from Major Bonkers.

List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Italy

Heho, sorry, but I found nothing confirming that Sir Augustus Berkeley Paget was ambassador already in 1867, against this all my sources state only the time from 1876 to 1883. Perhaps User:Craigy144 can give you an answer about this. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 09:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

I am confident he was; my source is fco.gov.uk Kittybrewster 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my interrupting, this page came up on my watch list. A bit of digging reveals the notice of his appointment in The London Gazette, 9 July 1867. In 1876 the Legation was raised to the status of an Embassy (The Times, Wednesday, Mar 22, 1876; pg. 7), and Paget was promoted from Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the King of Italy to Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the King of Italy (The London Gazette, 21 April 1876). I note that for the initial appointment he was based in Florence (the capital until 1870), but at some point in the early 1870's (possibly with the change to Embassy status) the mission officially moved to Rome. Dr pda 14:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome, well done and thank you. I have added it on List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Italy talk page. - Kittybrewster 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baron Rennell (of Rodd)

Not according to burkes no. Alci12 13:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "of Rodd in the County of Hereford" is the territorial designation. Proteus (Talk) 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was meant Baron Rennell, of Rodd in the County of Hereford - what the National Portrait Gallery, the Peerage, The National Archives Rayment and various other sources confirm. ~~ Phoe _talk 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Yes; to clarify, I was saying "indeed" to Alci's comment (which I assumed was "no" to the question "is his title Baron Rennell of Rodd?"). I need to be more clear, it would seem. The title's definitely only "Baron Rennell". Proteus (Talk) 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. FCO told me he was Lord Rennell of Rodd; Rennnell was his given name, Rodd his surname. Seems odd. - Kittybrewster 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Heirs male

While there are variables that could invalidate this I would read heir male (without 'of the body') as any (legitimate) male heir of the grantee. ie also of any male ancestor of the grantee. It would not decend through a female heir to a male heir. Alci12 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the term for that (the inclusion of heirs male of male ancestors of the grantee) "heirs male whatsoever"? Choess 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In Scottish peerage law yes, though this question was a matter of property transmission and as I wasn't specifically asked about Scotland I gave a UK answer. Your male heir could be a brother, uncle or cousin in property. The law assumed baring an entail to such heirs male that it would go (absent sons) to the daughters jointly.

As for peerages outside scotland heirs male whatsoever essentially doesn't exist. There are a handful of patents (Proteus is it seven?) where it should read sibi et heredibus suis masculis de suo corpore in perpetuum but omits the key section. This is just heirs male but has the same meaning as the Scottish male heir whatsoever ie that it goes back via patrilinial male heirs. [The only difference obviously is that Scots law used to go to younger brothers ahead of elder brothers but the CfP has been waging a pretty steady war to impose a British style reading of the remainder.] Alci12 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Kittybrewster. To make sure I understand your request. Currently the main page article has name "A", while name "B" redirects to the "A" page. Please let me know if this is what you want:

1. You would like to have the article exist at "B", rather than have "B" as the redirect. (In otherwords, delete B, move A to B.)
2. Would you like A to then redirect to B?

Is this a controversial move? — ERcheck (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Today you moved B to A; you are just asking it to be undone? I'm happy to do it, just need to make sure I don't mess it up. — ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI. I'll be offline for about 1-1/2 hours. I'll check back and make the move then. — ERcheck (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Proteus already took care of it. Sorry for the delay on my part. Do feel free to ask again if something comes up that I can help with. — ERcheck (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rockin Thru the Rye

Hi. I notice that you had wikilinked the Bill Haley song Rockin' Thru the Rye. It's a redlink at the moment. Does this mean you'll be creating an article for it? (Just keeping track of Haley-related articles that might be appearing). Cheers! 23skidoo 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Doddington Park, Nantwich

I'll se what I can do, I may take a few days as I'm not home from Uni yet and am then going up to Scotland for a week.

But if it's still to be done after that, I'll do it quite happily.

Mothball 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kittybrewster, I'd like to and when I'm next in the area I will, if it's still necessary. The problem is it's nearly thirty miles away from me and I'm not lucky enough to own a car (as you can see the location's fairly isolated) so it might be a long time before I have the opportunity. Sorry I can't be more helpful - do feel free to ask again if there are any more locations (Cheshire, Manchester, Liverpool, Cambridgeshire but I'd rather not give away my location) although obviously I can't make promises. Best wishes. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Baron of Fulwood, Baron of Dirleton

I note your AFD you may be intered in the other article held by the same person and likewise lacking any obvious notability or citations. Alci12 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime the missing parts were inserted. You have forgotten to use the right format (step III at Wikipedia:AFD, so the nominations did not appear automatically at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 18. There are logs for every day helping admins to control which nominations have to be closed, finished or stopped. It could therefore have been that the nominations would have obtained a result, but no consequence. ~~ Phoe _talk 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Thanks for the invitation to vote, but since I hate deleting and the articles may contain at least a little correct information (in addition, they are labelled as not being hereditary), it is better, I think, to be neutral. Best wishes and Merry Christmas to you. ~~ Phoe _talk 11:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Robert Murray Arbuthnot

A tag has been placed on Robert Murray Arbuthnot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PaulM

Well I have to laugh I was just posting on that thread when I had an edit conflict with your last post and quit out of to find your pm about the thread:) Alci12 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

Please do have a very Holy and Happy Christmas. David Lauder 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tolbooths

Could I draw your attention to the description of a Scottish Tolbooth. Someone has listed them as prisons! But in fact tolbooths in most burghs were where the ancient councils met and where the baillies heard their cases. Under many, usually at basement level, were cells, yes, but that was not the absolute purpose of a Scottish Tolbooth. I wonder if some sort of clarification or redirection could be made under the Tolbooth heading? David Lauder 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Doddington Park

There is a page on the details at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and some more specfic information at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_on_line. Note that it is not enough for the the copyright holder to simply give permission for Wikipedia to use their work, they must license it under the GFDL or a compatible free licence.

For such a short article though it may be a lot easier to just rewrite it. Reusing the same facts but just using completely different prose.

I notice you added a note on the talk page claiming that the article was created by webmasterATdoddingtonpark.com, as the article was created by you am I right in assuming you are the webmaster of doddingtonpark.com. In which case if you adding a note somewhere on doddingtonpark.com stating that it's content is licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license is one way of granting Wikipedia permission.  YDAM TALK 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir_Currimbhoy_Ebrahim,_1st_Baronet

Happy Xmas & etc. I read your edits (Currimbhoy Ebrahim was an Indian Muslim, created a baronet in 1911 by the Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Act) but I'm dubious about the implication of the wording. He was created a baronet in the normal way [12] (1910), but the act in council (of 1911) seems to have been to create a trust to support the dignity vide [13] The same is presumably true of the Cowasji Jehangir Baronetcy Act though I have not checked.Alci12 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, my only contribution was to add the words ", 1st Baronet" to the name of the article. Or to put it another way, I moved it to conform with MoS. - Kittybrewster 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah sorry then I must have looked too quickly :/ Alci12 21:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney & MBE

Alright then, its as posh as most folks will ever get - the others are a bit exclusive, kno'worra'mean?. If you want to put Dr pda's suggestions into the text please do (although I might want Andreasedge to do it - since he has already done so much). Thanks for the help.LessHeard vanU 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne is now creating categories using a different method. Check his 3 January 2007 edits to Beverly Waugh. He has recreated Category:Christian editors using a method described in WP:CAT, which describes adding a category as a red link to an article before creating the category itself. Moreover, since this category was renamed on 2006 December 8, the recreation of this category is disruptive editing. Dr. Submillimeter 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt removed the red linked category, but it does look like Pastorwayne was attempting to recreate the category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to ProveIt, Pastorwayne has been doing this in multiple articles on 3 January 2007. I have added comments to WP:ANI. Dr. Submillimeter 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first baronet

I see I have made a connection with your family on the Basil Hall page. David Lauder 15:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done - and thank you. I have learned someething new. - Kittybrewster 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious editor categories

I am going to propose a rename for Category:Editors of Christian works to Category:Editors of Christian publications. Presumably, Category:Editors of religious publications could contain the editors of the publications of other religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.). Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose. Why should Christian editors be singled out? - Kittybrewster 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

John Pringle

Is he the 1st baronet? He was the ONLY baronet of that creation. Surely numbering only commences when there is more than one? David Lauder 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles George Arbuthnot

Hi, maybe you can help me. I'm wondering whether Charles George Arbuthnot, the son of John Alves Arbuthnot (not the General Charles George Arbuthnot), is notable enough to create an article on him. I know he was director of the Bank of England and Lieutenant of the City of London, but this is a bit too little. I have searched in the net, however but everything what I have found was over the general. So perhaps do you have some facts on him - or isn't he notable anyway? Thanks and by the way have a happy and healthy new year. ~~ Phoe _talk 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

My knowledge of him is as yours. And he was educated Eton College and a director of Arbuthnot Latham & Co. - Kittybrewster 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, then I fear he isn't notable enough. I will look after the professors. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

I am thinking we need an aticle on Charles Arbuthnot, Abbot of Ratisbon. - Kittybrewster 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the article a little bit, basing on a German webpage. He cannot be born in 1757, since he was then too young to have been appointed abbot in 1776 - so 1737 seems to be correct (except for month and day). Furthermore I would suggest you to move the article to Benedict Arbuthnot, it was his name in the order and as such for the largest portion of his life. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Edits to Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States

While your edits to Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States (effectively turning it into a redirect) were well-intentioned, they broke the category. Articles placed in Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States did not appear in Category:Canadian immigrants to America when the redirect was in place. I had to undo the redirect. Also, you may want to be careful doing such things while discussions on the categories are continuing at WP:CFD. Some people may take offense.

I will be re-proposing to merge Category:Canadian immigrants to America into Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States once the old discussion is closed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher

It's not important but I do remember looking briefly a long while back to see if I could find where the above gained his Arbuthnot name as I couln't find a quick family link. Alci12 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

middle name No 12. - Kittybrewster 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at the famous arbuthnot's secion of your site but didn't notice the middle name section. Alci12 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot Road article

Hi there, I noticed that you created the Arbuthnot Road article by way of the WikiProject Hong Kong Talk Page. I don't mind helping other editors in building better articles. However, I have doubts as to whether this page meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and thus may be an AfD candidate. Note, that a quick Google search yields little notability. Let me know what you think. Luke! 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your page. - Kittybrewster 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Arbuthnott, 16th Viscount of Arbuthnott

No, the post-nominals are only used within the Order (correspondence etc.) and not alongside others. Regards, Craigy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's GCStJ (Burke's lists Arbuthnott incorrectly). Craigy (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

Thanks for the split and by the way if you have not seen it yet [14]. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Andrew H. A. Murray

That's a stumper. I've made a cull of London Gazettes, with the following results, reproducing the style just as written:

• 1 January 1946: O.B.E. conferred upon Andrew Hunter Arbuthnot Murray, Esq., J.P.
• 1 January 1949: A knighthood to be conferred upon Andrew Hunter Arbuthnot Murray, Esq., O.B.E., J.P., Lord Provost of Edinburgh
• 4 March 1949: The honour of knighthood conferred on 25 February 1949 upon Andrew Hunter Arbuthnot Murray, Esq., O.B.E.
• 24 June 1949: The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew Hunter Arbuthnot Murray, O.B.E. made a Commander of the Order of St. John.
• 20 January 1953: Sir Andrew Hunter Arbuthnot Murray, Kt., O.B.E. to be Deputy Lieutenant of Edinburgh.

According to Mayors in the United Kingdom#The Right Honourable, it's attached to the Lord Provostship, although it's interesting that it didn't appear until after his knighting. Choess 18:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Knox

Hi there, just doing some fact-checking, and I wondered what source you were using for the middle name of "Hilary" in Ronald Knox: [15]? I'm sure you're right, but I was curious because it wasn't mentioned in Penelope Fitzgerald's biography. — Matt Crypto 12:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These - Kittybrewster 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could it perhaps be a pen-name or some other pseudonym, rather than a given name? Some of those links give Hilary in brackets, which is one way of denoting such, rather than a given name. In her book, Fitzgerald lists the middle names of the Knox brothers, and actually discusses the reasons for them -- it would be quite anomalous if she'd missed one out. Other more formal sources omit it, like Who's Who in Christianity from Routledge. I think we need a reliable source on this one. — Matt Crypto 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Whiteadder

I think that I've fixed it. Please check to see whether my IPA is correct. I've always known and heard the names pronounced "Quhitta-dar", and "Blāk-adar". Cheers. Brendandh 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?

Eliko 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Assassination

Yes, that's my point. Thanks. --Couter-revolutionary 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Missionary categories

Hi, I would welcome your thoughts at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup. (I am notifying several people who have participated in recent related CFDs)--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Arbuthnot button.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arbuthnot button.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 09:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Button

Looks like an impalement of a wife's arms at marriage to the chief of the arbuthnot arms. I'd check the names for marriages. Googling quickly on my assumed blazon gives a few families with the same arms (without the chief & roundels) like Brown of Balquham and keninmonth of craghal. The chief roundels could be a matriculation from any of such arms. Alci12 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

arbuthnot is sinister? - You asked for a description of the arms on the right of the button which is the sinister heraldically ie the unknown arms. Alci12 12:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IF you still have no joy you could post on rec heraldry as one of the Scottish members might have someone who would recognise the arms.Alci12 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good evening, Kittybrewster.

I saw a question you asked Orror on his user talk page. I am afraid he is currently unavailable (his last remark, a month ago, could be translated by leaving announcement, not for long I hope). I will awkwardly replace him here, before he can give you a better answer.

1. The sinister side of your button seems to be a chevron between three fleur-de-lis (or roses), on a chief three roundels. Unfortunately, the colors are unknown. Perhaps a chief azure (horizontal lines), the roundels or (points) — also known as bezants —, and the chevron gules (vertical lines), but it is very difficult to say positively. I have no idea of the family, probably allied with the Arbuthnots.
2. To post a request for a shield on the French wikipedia, you can use the page Shield requests. But its readers are mainly French-speaking readers, of course. If you do not speak French yourself, you can post it on my own talk page; I will try to translate it before submitting it on the project page. To keep you waiting for the return of Orror...

Regards, Bruno Vallette 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet

Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet, the chap user:vintagekits has put this up for speedy-deletion, I think it satisfies requirements, could you help. Thanks, best wishes --Couter-revolutionary 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support User Couter-revolutionary in this. David Lauder 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good afternoon. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:N

I have reverted the change you made to the notability guidelines, as I do not feel there is consensus for this change. I have posted the removed text on the discussion page instead so that it may be discussed. Please comment if you would like! Also, please note that only very minor changes (such as uncontroversial corrections to spelling, grammar, or formatting) should be marked as minor edits. Thanks! Seraphimblade 07:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates of birth

Those people in the very many directories extant, such as Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who, Kellys, Whittakers, Who's Who in Scotland, Dods, etc., all carry the dates of birth for living people/people in the public domain. Therefore it seems slightly silly to be making a stand on this point. David Lauder 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. - Kittybrewster 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Diarmuid O'Neill

Please stop canvassing for votes of the AfD it is against wiki policy.--Vintagekits 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With due respect he is not "canvassing" He is suggesting other editors consider voting. Not quite the same thing. We all have a right to vote on AfDs but often we are unaware of them. David Lauder 11:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

God almighty! The ridiculous shouting-down of those who support deletion of this article is the very worst advertisement for its continued existence. What have I got myself into?!--Major Bonkers 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear what you have got yourself in for by reading WP:CANVAS and WP:CIVIL. We all could have contacted those who we know would vote it the manner the we supported but some of us chose not to. I am not shouting down your viewpoint, altough it seems to be based on what he stood for rather that the actual events - but you are entitled to you viewpoint, I guess consider a breach of WP:CANVAS as abusing the whole AfD process.--Vintagekits 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept that either Kittybrewster, David Lauder, myself, or anybody else has breached any Wikipedia guidelines. Nor do I think it appropriate for you to refer to WP:CIVIL, given your own postings.--Major Bonkers 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to notify only certain people who one has a good idea will !vote a particular way. It is a distortion of the AfD process. If there is neutral notifying, i.e. to people on both sides of a debate, that is more acceptable, but can still be questioned. The best way is to trust community response. This is something in wikipedia's interest, as many non-involved editors monitor AfDs. Caucuses are not in wikipedia's interest. Tyrenius 03:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.--Major Bonkers 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suttie

Was the first baronet a Suttie or a Grant-Suttie? It seems to me that on the official list page of these people it should give the surname of the original grantee, not as it is today. You could then put in the notes box "now xyzxyz" or "since 1790 xyzxyz". That would be more correct. David Lauder 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suttie, now Grant-Suttie. [16] - Kittybrewster 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Denis O'Donnell

I have left some points on the talk page for this article a while ago; Patrick Denis O'Donnell. What do you think, if it doesn't comply with AfD it definitely ought to be shorter.--Couter-revolutionary 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a personal attack

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Referring to Vintagekits as "Vintagetits" was completely out of line, and I'm disappointed to see an experienced user behave in such a manner. If you apologize on WP:AN/I, I'll reduce or perhaps rescind the block. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is it not highly probable this was a spelling mistake! --Couter-revolutionary 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Couter. Kittybrewster's about me page states he has parkinson's disease. It was probably a typo. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I think this is the only answer. This ban should be revoked immediately. So much for innocent until proven guilty, or does basic jurisprudence not extend to wikipedia!--Couter-revolutionary 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not a typo, and neither of you is helping Kitty with your comments. Let him/her respond directly. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can he speak if he is blocked?--Couter-revolutionary 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course he can - blocked users can communicate via their talk pages. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

When does the block expire? --TomasBat (Talk) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally back MrDarcy. There's been enough trolling going on as regards Vintagekits and the comments above are further examples of inappropriate behaviour. The block is for 24 hours and MrDarcy has offered the chance of it being reassessed. No, Kittybrewster can't post on AN/I at the moment but s/he can post on this page. It's obvious there is quite a lot of strong feeling around some editing issues right now. Silly provocations have a disproportionate effect in such circumstances, and will be treated accordingly. Editors have the right to contribute to wikipedia within policy without receiving personal harrassment. Tyrenius 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a kangaroo court decision if you ask me. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes? Kittybrewster has done sterling work on and for Wikipedia. Possibly he has been provoked by User:Vintagekits - a scan of his edits seem to me, at least, to be fairly provocative. Why is it not possible to contact Kittybrewster either on this page or by email and have a civil discussion about perceived bad behaviour, rather than heaps of schoolroom accusations and blanket blocks. I support the remarks of User:Couter-revolutionary. David Lauder 11:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate. Experienced editors have no excuse for not knowing about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. One attack. One block. No heaps and blankets. Tyrenius 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA doesn't make an exception that allows personal attacks when a user is provoked. Personal attacks are never acceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need yet another Wikipedia bylaw for self-evident provocateurs. David Lauder 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are treading on thin ice here. Tyrenius 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is he treading on thin ice? For disagreeing with you or for pointing out a deficiency in policy? I make two points: firstly, under English law, Mr. Darcy having voted to keep the AfD in question is presumed to an interest and therefore a bias in determining to block Kittybrewster (and without a hearing); secondly, as the provocateur in question is merrily nominating various of Kittybrewster's articles for deletion, Mr. Darcy is at best giving that individual a carte blanche to continue or, at worst, stands to be accused of acting in a partisan manner.--Major Bonkers 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thin ice because some of David Lauder's actions could well be seen as provocative. Re. your comments, please see WP:WIKILAWYER. MrDarcy has put the block on AN/I for review. Isotope23 has endorsed it, as do I. Who is nominating Kittybrewster's articles for deletion? You can't stop someone nominating articles for deletion. Tyrenius 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response. Darcy said That was not a typo but he cannot know that and is merely expressing his view. He then says neither of you is helping Kitty (sic) with your comments and I wonder what that means. He accuses me of being related to Robert Murray Arbuthnot or possible conflict of interest or possible canvassing on the afd. All false. I wish the first were true. Prove it please (within four weeks) and I will donate GBP10,000 to wikipedia. Besides which, since when was being related to a reason not to wikiedit something? I have been spending the day off-air travelling to Crieff and frankly have more urgent fish to fry than get too involved in what I experience as ad hominem personal attacks by Darcy. Besides which they make me shake excessively. So I am going to take a pill and suggest Darcy does the same. - Kittybrewster 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it at that and get on with better things. Enjoy your trip. Tyrenius 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the point I'm making--Major Bonkers 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see you being recognized for your contributions. You are one of the best parts of my Wikipedia experience, and a significant part of why I keep coming back. Best wishes. Laura1822 15:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He has contributed sterling work. David Lauder 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot Road is Proposed for Deletion

I thought that you should know that the article Arbuthnot Road has been tagged for a proposed deletion. I know that you created this article and have been working towards making it better. Should you wish to contest this proposed deletion, follow the instructions inside the proposed deletion box, otherwise it will be deleted after 5 days. Luke! 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heraldic translation: help needed

Good evening,

It is my turn to ask you if you can translate a blazon. I drew the coat of arms of Coubron but I don't know how to describe in English the hunting horn on which some elements are of an other colour: the little pipe in which you blow, the lace and the metal ring at the end of the horn. Can you help me, please? Bruno Vallette 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Do you know how to load them? David Lauder 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. left hand side of the page. under toolbox. upload file .... msn messenger. kitty....@hotmail.com - Kittybrewster 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Baffling. I've emailed you some in case you can help. I won't be offended at all if you cannot. David Lauder 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tremendously grateful to you for putting up the pictures. Thank you so very much. (John Maitland is crooked. Is that my poor scanning abilities? Can it be corrected?) If any detail of the books is needed I can supply it. They are 19th century. David Lauder 07:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is your scanning. I could correct it but a re-scan would be better. So please re-scan - then crop using maybe picasa2 (free - search for it on google). then log into msn messenger and I will talk you through the process. - Kittybrewster 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am indebted to you. David Lauder 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And me to you. Traquair is an antecedent. - Kittybrewster 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton

Hi there. Can you please have a look at Hamilton. There is a user Alan.ca who has been asking for cites on what should be a disambiguation page, and is constantly reverting any edits I make. I gave in and included the nearest refs. I could find. However he is now accusing me of vandalism, something I do not adhere to unless to one's own things in private! I am getting progressively more grumpy with this. I would appreciate your view. Thanks. Brendandh 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh you are wonderful. Thanks for sorting that one out so I didn't burst a valve. :-P Brendandh 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Antony Gormley

If you are going to make any edits like this with the member v. Volunteer issue. Please ensure that it is in line with mediation, otherwise people will get upset. regards--Vintagekits 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Kittybrewster is correct. Tyrenius 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Gerard Moynihan

The article seems to have been edited in line with your comments. "Renowned" is still a peacock term it would be better without. Tyrenius 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aylesbury Baronets

I've nominated Aylesbury Baronets, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Aylesbury Baronets satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylesbury Baronets and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Aylesbury Baronets during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Inkpaduta 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New life peers

• Hello, thank you for the reference to the new life peers - I will look after the articles within the next days. May I wonder how you know the titles, they have chosen themselves? - all what I had found in the net, referred to appointments only (for example [17]) Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

I don't. If they choose "Campbell of Kapuchnik" a move will be needed. - Kittybrewster 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is not a crystal ball, you shouldnt just make titles up.--Vintagekits 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing prod tags

You can not remove the prod tags on articles unless if you are the author of the article. You have done this THREE times today and have been informed that you shouldnt do it. Next time you do it I will be forced to submit the article for AfD and report your conduct also.--Vintagekits 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the articles and continue to do so. These people are far from nn which is am imappropriate tag. I have not been informed that I shouldn't do it. I do wonder how you got on at school, if you went to school - you are always threatening to report people. Please stop Wikipedia:Wikistalking me. - Kittybrewster 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are links on the prod tag, maybe you should have familiarised yourself with the detail of these before you removed them. You are an experienced editor on wiki, ignorance of the policy should not be an excuse. Also, once again your comments here have breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I will be reporting this as you have been warned and blocked for this previously. --Vintagekits 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. I was blocked for a spelling error. WP:AGF. High time you get sorted out. Stop harassing me. - Kittybrewster 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not harsassing you, what you say is incorrect - you were blocked for a personal attack.--Vintagekits 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So much for your undertaking [18]. I feel harrassed. - Kittybrewster 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I will support you. David Lauder 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide details of this harassment.--Vintagekits 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No point in stating the obvious. I will let Tyrenius resolve it. - Kittybrewster 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for that.--Vintagekits 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts

Vintagekits is wrong about prod tags. It says on the notice:

You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.[my italics]

Anyone can remove a prod tag. If no one does, then the article can be summarily deleted after 5 days. If you are editing the article and feel there is room for improvement, it is a good idea not to remove the prod tag immediately, because it gives you 5 days of safety during which time the article will not be deleted — a period of grace in other words to bring it up to scratch.

Vintagekits is presumably thinking of "speedy delete" tags, which are quite different, and which the initial author of the article is forbidden to remove, although anyone else can if the article "does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it."

Other observations

Ignorance is an excuse, even for experienced editors, because there are always things that people don't know. Therefore a statement to that effect should be taken in good faith and the user helped to master the procedure.

Comments about going to school etc are provocative and not helpful when there is already an antagonistic situation.

It is likewise counterproductive to rub someone's nose in the fact that they were once blocked for a mishap either of the mind or of the keypad.

So in this section at least there is something to take on board on both sides. Best to draw a line under it, and read the text on deletion notices carefully in future.

Tyrenius 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Agreed - and if you post it here or on my talk page, I promise to investigate it myself. If you're being harassed, I want it stopped. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot Viscounts

I have inadvertantly done a page for Robert Arbuthnot, 2nd Viscount Arbuthnot, not realising that one existed with two 't's on the surname. I have looked at five different peerages 18th - 20th century and all spell it with one 't'. So does Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall in his Journals. If the surname had two 't's in ancient times (I dread to list the many spellings of Lauder over the centuries) when was the second 't' dropped? David Lauder 16:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The name was generally spelled Arbuthnot until the 8th Viscount and his descendants. Unusually they are Viscounts of - Kittybrewster 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at Anderson (Scottish Nation) who is saying the family came from the lands of Arbuthnott in Kincardineshire. He seems to think it was spelt with two 't's more or less into the 17th century. He says the first Viscount spelt it that way, so I am clearly wrong spelling it with one 't'. Interestingly he has a long biography of Alexander Arbuthnot, the Protestant zealot, whom he says was a grandson of Sir Robert Arbuthnott of that Ilk. It seems the additional 't' was added and dropped depending on the weather. David Lauder 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is thoroughly inconsistent. I doubt any of them wrote or spelled at all (personally). There is one document in which the name is spelled within it Arbuthnot Arbuthnott and Arbuthnoth. The present Viscount is a historian by interest and agrees with me that the 8th Viscount as the first who consistently spelled it Arbuthnott. We think that is when the village acquired its present spelling. When the Ordinance Survey came to the main house and asked how it should be spelled. I find this exchange interesting. I have an unidentified computer virus (ot picked up by AVG) so I expect to go off air for a while as I get it sorted (the cursor moves back/forth at random) - but I may be blocked anyway for thoughts and comments. - Kittybrewster 10:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Brown's Peerage of Scotland (1834) states (p.163) the title was created Viscount Arbuthnot, as does Edmund Lodge Norroy King of Arms (1858) (p.20-1). No 'of'. Is 'of' in the Letters Patent? David Lauder 11:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have them! I am guided by the present Laird. - Kittybrewster 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

This edit[19] is a personal attack. I have asked you previously to desist from such comments. This is a final warning. Next time you will be blocked. You can make observations without insulting other editors. Tyrenius 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel bound to support Kitty here. I cannot see how that edit in any way constitutes a personal attack. No other editor is mentioned by name by him at all. It is a comment and nothing more. This "personal attack" business is getting a bit out of hand. It should not be so constantly used to silence comment. David Lauder 08:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I note Tyrenius' view and acknowledge he is entitled to it. May I ask how long this damocletian sword remains dangling? - Kittybrewster 13:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That was quite clearly a personal attack against Vintagekits ("the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor"), a user you've already been blocked for attacking once before. Consider this a second of Tyrenius' final warning. Attack Vintagekits (or any other user) again and you'll be blocked. If you wish to continue editing here, you'll have to do so without making personal attacks of any sort. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I note Mr Darcy's view and acknowledge he is entitled to it and was not aware that warnings needed to be seconded ... learning all the time. May I ask how long this damocletian sword remains dangling? - Kittybrewster 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Warnings do not need to be seconded. However the fact that it has been should help you to see even more clearly what is considered undesirable behaviour. MrDarcy has previously stated his determination that all editors should be able to operate freely without being abused, and this extends of course to you if you are on the receiving end. I totally support this intent. I have spent a considerable amount of time not only investigating complaints, but also attempting to provide explanations as to how policies and guidelines should be interpreted and used. As far as "how long", that is a matter of judgement for the admin. If it happened next week, the damocletian cord would undoubtedly snap. If there was an isolated incident in a couple of months, I would probably warn again, depending on how egregious it was. MrDarcy may decide differently to me. David Lauder has commended you as an educated individual, so you I am sure you are capable of communicating whatever facts you need to, without overlaying them with pejorative and personal remarks. Try imagining that you are on the receiving end of them. Tyrenius 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I too feel bound to support Kitty. I have avoided getting involved in these wars myself because I don't want to be stalked and harassed the way Kitty has. I did however observe that when a certain set of editors who share an interest in a topic took exception to a request for deletion that Kitty made on the basis of non-notability, suddenly some of Kitty's articles started getting requests for deletion on the basis of non-notability, which were made by those interested in the first topic. It was CLEARLY tit-for-tat, and the arguments made in support of deletion were generally spurious. It was so self-evident that, I repeat, I was afraid to get involved for fear of having my own edits and interests followed and attacked as non-notable. And yes, it's been personal, and vicious, and I've wanted to avoid that too. I expect I'll catch some flak for sticking my neck out now, but this has gotten so outrageous that I am compelled to speak up. Kitty has made enormous contributions to Wikipedia and is being harrassed because he dared (how shocking!) to express an opinion that others don't share, and then had the audacity to defend himself from attack (horrors!). He has been far more tolerant and forgiving than his opponents have been, and now that he's asking for help fending off the abuse, he's being attacked again. The volume of text contributed to this dispute, which is splattered all over Wikipedia, is merely Exhibit A. If half as many bytes had been contriubted to Wikipedia itself as have been devoted to this absurd controversy, then we'd have some great new articles and everyone's blood pressure would be healthy. PLEASE END THIS NOW, and let's get back to what we're here for: creating a Wikipedia. Laura1822 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get back to editing wikipedia, the best way is not to leave a post full of unsubstantiated accusations against unnamed editors. If you have any specific complaints, please supply the diffs to prove your argument. I am particularly concerned with your accusation of spurious tit-for-tat deletion proposals: please specify exactly where this occurs. Likewise please indicate exactly where he is being harassed for specifying any opinion which others don't share. If you are unable to do this, please withdraw your remarks and kindly refrain in future from what is abstract inflammatory talk, which helps no one. Before you proceed with your complaints, you might like to study the analysis I have already made on previous allegations, which I have spent a considerable amount of time looking into. I have given warnings to any user who is violating protocols, without favour. Tyrenius 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Life peers

Just a quick word on the new life peers. They should not have been moved as their titles are not currently known, indeed they are not peers yet so the Life peers category should also not be added. Only when the titles are gazetted should they moved and the categories added. I also note that when you moved John Krebs (which I've since moved back for above reasons) you didn't fix the redirects. Thanks. --Berks105 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your improving work is terrific. - Kittybrewster 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And well done yourself for creating pages for the soon-to-be-peers who didnt already have pages, that was great work. --Berks105 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly, or Baron Ponsonby

Hi Kittybrewster, as you are an informed commentator I would be very grateful if you could take a look sometime at the following thread talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly and give us the benefit of your experience. Thanks Christina Kaye 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

On a happier note, you might have seen that I have added an image for Henry Chamberlain. Of course, all these historic personages would have had portraits painted, and they are now all out of copyright so can be freely used. Simply put on the image page:

{{PD-art}}

if the artist has been dead for 100 years or more, or, if dead for 70 years or more:

{{PD-art-life-70}}

Tyrenius

Well done and thank you. What if the portrait was photographed within the last 30 years and there may be a claim that the photograph is copyrighted? Kittybrewster 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent in US case law that you cannot copyright a photo which merely reproduces a 2-D image, on the basis that this act does not have sufficient creative input (the more accurate it is, the less creative input it is considered to have!). As wiki servers are in Florida, wiki permits the use of photos of 2-D (as opposed to 3-D, i.e. sculptures) artwork if the artwork itself is out of copyright. This is now established usage on wiki. This is my understanding of the situation and I must point out that IANAL (I am not a lawyer). UK copyright anyway is death of author + 70 years. Tyrenius 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Burials

I saw somewhere that you were looking for someone's tomb. I see from my notes that "Janet, sister to the Viscount of Arbuthnot, died at Prestonpans in July 1704 and was interred on the 18th inst." presumably there. Might others be there? David Lauder 13:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was and am looking for 8th Viscount who is thought to have died in Bruges. Janet will be sister of 4th Viscount. What is your source of 1704 please? - Kittybrewster 13:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Index to Genealogies, Birthbriefs and Funeral Escutcheons Recorded in the Lyon Office, by Francis J Grant, WS, Rothesay Herald and Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records, Scottish Record Society, Edinburgh, 1908. David Lauder 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you v much. - Kittybrewster 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Personality disorders

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Personality disorders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. NeantHumain 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Premorbid personality

I have made some heavy modifications to the article Premorbid personality that you started although it remains a stub. Judging by a recent edit to the article Depressive personality disorder [20], I think you may have a misunderstanding of what premorbid personality means; it does not refer to suicidal ideation or a person's proximity to death. It refers to the condition of an individual's personality or in research the general characteristics in group before the onset of a diagnosable disorder.--NeantHumain 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintage

Fwiw, it is my belief that MrDarcy is unduly heavy-handed in imposing blocks, that he does not AGF sufficiently and that Vintage was justified in his recent protests. Notwithstanding that he should have complained to you (as he did) and not ALSO placed a comment on Astro's page. - Kittybrewster 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether heavy-handed or not, MrDarcy has shown he is even-handed, which I think is the most important point. Additionally, if users conducted themselves with the requisite courtesy, tolerance and collegiality, then the question of blocks would not arise in the first place. I AGF on both parties in the Vintagekits block, namely that Vk did genuinely not intend his remark as one to Astrotrain, and MrDarcy did genuinely believe, for reasons of odd formatting or whatever, that it was made to Astrotrain. I have recommended to Vk that he makes complaints to admins, not to users in future, to avoid any misunderstandings. Tyrenius 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe he's even-handed. He's previously blocked Kittybrewster and let his provoker off; perhaps not unrelated to the fact that one's British and the other American.--Major Bonkers 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)