User talk:Kittybrewster

This user is very busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This page is not a boxing ring

Champagne

This editor is opening the champagne. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very nasty disruptive editor has been indefinitely banned. David Lauder 08:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get too excited; I dare say that yet another Admin will unblock him, and even if that doesn't happen I suspect that we'll be welcoming a new and completely different editor (with exactly the same temperament) in due course. I'll enjoy my two or three days of peace and quiet while I can!--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we will be lurking with checkuser to hand - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor was it? Anyway, checkuser is pretty-near useless when someone just flips IP and removes the cookie. What's really needed is a good Semantic Analyzer! MarkThomas 12:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I'm not sure that a semantic analyser is necessary given the distinctive grammar and vocabulary. The real irony is that this could all have been dealt with - at least - a couple of months ago [1]. We assorted wee druckin flanga[s] and frucd strunt[s] ([2]), traitor bassa dob lovein chunt[s] ([3]), self hating dob loving chunt[s] (I'm not sure what the difference is) ([4]), wanker[s] ([5]), SCOTTISH BIGOT BASTARDS ([6]), and TRAITOR HUN LOVIMG CHUNT[s] (last one) will just have to rub along without Vintagekits, at least until he pops up again in five days time to unleash his vengance.

I shall do such things - such things I know not - but they shall be the terror of the Earth! (King Lear)

I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you! (Malvolio in Twelfth Night)--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Told you. (Groan.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what a bore! --Counter-revolutionary 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the above examples of VK's violent, abusive behaviour. This chap is so stoopid! ha! --Counter-revolutionary 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading his own comments on his talk page, he continues to fail to take responsibility for his own actions; he blames some other bunch of editors (whoever they may be). But there are some very good editors/admins now keeping an eye on him, thank goodness - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was rather looking forward to the threatened revenge, of a thousand stout Fenian POV-warriors descending on Wikipedia to add PoW templates, change 'volunteer' to 'Volunteer', and change all references from 'murdered' to 'killed'. It would have been a good laugh had it happened, but it all turned out to be hot air.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed. The chap insists upon arguing - without even targetting somebody different. Is he on all four wheels? How long before an admin indefinitely bans him and means it? I couldn't have believed it would be so immediate. My mind is boggled. WIkipedia is on test here.- Kittybrewster (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is opening fresh champagne. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the rush to instant judgment begins! We have the archetypal random Admin popping up on only their second visit - actually, I was secretly hoping for a wheel-warring unblock, so this whole sadly hilarious farce could carry on - and the Hammer of the Arbuthnots has also re-emerged, determined to expose the whole ghastly conspiracy: thank goodness we have such dedicated editors as him! I take the slightly jaundiced view that even Vintagekits doesn't deserve to have his Talk page filled up with so much rubbish, almost all of it posted by people who haven't bothered to read what others have actually written. I dare say that things will get worse before they get better - and you'll start blanking this page again - so why not post a message at the top that only those who attended Aytong or Arrer are permitted to post here?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven Baronetcies

Any problems? Tryde 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't got access to www.baronetage.org members' area. Why do you wonder if I may ask? Regards, Tryde 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't communicate via email on Wikipedia. Tryde 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format

I understood from browsing baronetcies that the correct format/heading is, say, Sir Thomas Brown, 10th Baronet. It is, after all, their legal right to be addressed this way in all publications. No book would simply refer to Thomas Brown. Is there a guideline you can direct me to? David Lauder 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7] - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I am aware of that. What I really meant is one of these buried pages on Wikipedia where the anti-establishment brigade have reached one of their 'neutral' consensuses. David Lauder 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find something on project baronetcies page, David. Apparently wiki. only uses Sir Counter Revolutionary, 5th Baronet, if there was another Counter Revolutionary, if not, and they all had different first names, then apparently we don't use the Sir, bart. in the article's title. It should always be used in the 1st line though. --Counter-revolutionary 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case it is wrong. The Standing Council of Baronets states: a baronet is entitled to the prefix 'Sir' and the word 'Baronet' after his name. I have never known anyone anywhere to dispute this, other than the old Eastern Bloc or hard-line Marxists. Have I missed something on Wikipedia? David Lauder 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know...but wikipedia is crazy! See Norman Stronge, not Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet, as there are no other Norman Stronges! --Counter-revolutionary 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names (point 4):

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

It should be noted that this is a wiki-wide naming convention, not a localised agreement. If you wish to amend it, post on the project talk page to start a discussion. Tyrenius 08:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet

(New section was started by Vintagekits on my user talk page and copied here from beneath "Condolences" section W. Frank ✉ 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have made some changes to the above. Can you copyedit it again to see if its OK. regards--Vintagekits 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this coming week, and possibly longer, Vinny. If you really don't know why, read this page above and below or go back through the history of my recent edit summaries. User:Kittybrewster is very good at this sort of thing and will probably help you out. All I did was a simple copyedit - and not a very good one at that - if you're desperate, e-mail me. W. Frank ✉ 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just looking for you to put it into proper English, dont worry about the technical terms - I'll sort that.--Vintagekits 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wonderful work you've done there in kicking the article into shape; it's much appreciated. W. Frank ✉ 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaimhreadhan condolences

You may wish to say something here: User_talk:W._Frank#Condolences

Gore-Booth baronets

See Talk:Gore_Baronets#Territorial_designation_of_the_1760_creation. You thoughts and expertise welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anstruther Baronets

I'm not honestly sure. Sir Ian's obituary in The Times speaks of him as being a holder of the 1798 baronetcy. However, according to this thread, Debrett's and Burke's only list Sir Ian as holding two baronetcies. Online sources drawing on those (Rayment, thepeerage.com) concur in pronouncing the 1798 baronetcy extinct. This would be consistent with a British baronetcy created with a remainder to heirs-male, rather than to heirs-male whatsoever. Choess 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

François Velde, on Usenet, has kindly pointed out that the London Gazette for 1798 confirms that the remainder of the British baronetcy was to "heirs-male of the body legitimately begotten", which would make the baronetcy extinct upon the death of Sir Windham in 1980, and that The Times and The Scotsman were also reporting, in Sir Windham's obituary, that both baronetcies passed to Sir Ralph Hugo (which would appear to be untrue). Do you think that the secretary of the Standing Council would be willing to answer a query if I emailed him? Choess 03:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Ian Anstruther (and Nicholas Nuttall). My articles just repeat what was said in the published obituaries, although I saw that our article on the Anstruther Baronets said something different. I would be interested to know the answer. -- !! ?? 09:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from Who's Who that Sir Ian thought he had three baronetcies but I am persuaded by Choess's words above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a reasonably deduction. However, without a reliable source, it becomes original research, does it not? -- !! ?? 10:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is per Rayment. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Louise Windsor

Hullo, they're are trying to say that Lady Louise should be "The Lady Louise Windsor", and even have sources to show this! I am of the opinion that this is incorrect as she is not a suo jure peeress and that "the" should only be used for substantive titles. What do you think?

On another point; do you know why one of Sir Ian Anstruther's baronetcies was inherited by one son and the other by a younger son? --Counter-revolutionary 19:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I agree with you but Proteus does not. (2) The elder son was born premaritally and subsequently legitimated. They pass respectively under the laws of Scotland and GB - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, thought it may have been that. --Counter-revolutionary 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almeric Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough

(This one's for anyone else who thinks they can help, too) I know he's not (as far as I know) related to the Arbuthnots, but do you have anything to add (or take away) from Almeric Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough? I've just finished a rewrite of his formerly rather sorry born-lived-died article, and I'm starting to think something isn't right, and am wondering if there were in fact two Almeric Pagets active at this time. (In particular, I'm not convinced that an active Nazi sympathiser married to an obsessive conspiracy theorist would have attained a senior position in the Conservative Party during wartime; he also seems to have lived in a very odd selection of places) However, it's such an unusual name & title, it seems unlikely there would be two of them. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster warned

User:Kittybrewster, I'm crossposting this from Vintagekits' page. Would you like to urgently explain if you're merely using the notion of "suicide" in some sort of taste-challenged metaphorical sense in this comment, and apologize for all other possible interpretations, before I block you for referring to the suicide of a user as being something "on the positive side"? Please? Vintagekits' talkpage would be the right venue for an explanation and apology. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For the sake of clarity (1) I do not encourage anyone to commit suicide (2) I was referring to his wiki-suicide for which he alone is responsible and (3) While I wish VK well in all things, I particularly think he will be happier and less angry if he learns to take responsibility for his actions. Furthermore I deplore your splitting an infinitive and I remind you that blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Please feel free to move the "urgently" to a better position if you can find one. For the sake of piety, yes, blocks aren't "supposed" to be punitive. Yet many blocks are in practice of the "discouraging that kind of behaviour" kind, and neither the community nor the Arbitration Committee apparently have a problem with them. Here, for example, is the ANI discussion of a typical discouragement block imposed by myself. Punitive. Not even a warning. See the admin consensus ? The rules are what we actually do. Bishonen | talk 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We foreigners are mostly illiterate - just remember "To heavily cane the boy who split his infinitive sternly went Father Francis Xavier" that was the way we were taught it by the Jesuits. I suppose you went to one of those mamby pamby progressive schools Bishonen. Giano 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Lots of love'? --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing out loud. Now look up ROTFL. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were in with a chance there. It doesn't seem a very humourous remark to me - perhaps the response is to intended needle.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water off a duck's back. Bishonenn is confessing to being partisan. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster, just reading through your statement to the arbcom, as I have pointed out before I am not a member of WP:IR as you state.--padraig 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you join, Padraig? (Your edits seem to be almost exclusively related to WP:IR related articles) W. Frank talk ✉ 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So all the articles I have done on Northern Ireland elections during the period 1922-72, are all republican related are they, my interests are Irish politics and history I don't need to join a wiki project to edit any topic or article that interests me.--padraig 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User space

Please do not edit in my user space [8] I am quite happy to discuss anything on that page with you here or on its talk page. Thank you. Giano 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it gives an entirely truthful impression for you, Giano II, to say that you are quite happy to discuss anything when you very quickly delete relevant and civil comments as you did tonight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano%2Fsome_thoughts&diff=153430452&oldid=153428848

Some might also consider your edit summary a tad misleading. What, exactly, was not "serious" about the comments you removed so very quickly?

(Apologies to you, Kittybrewster, for raising these matters here, but I suspect they will be equally rapidly removed again if left in Giano II's own user space. Simply tell me not to post here, Kittybrewster, and I will stop.)

I also think you need to move beyond your ethnic prejudices, Giano II. The disruptions caused by Vintagekits and his supporters are condemned by most Irish Wikipedians. They are rather embarrassed by this pushing of a POV sympathetic to terrorism. Most Irish families are only too glad to see that reconciliation is progressing apace in the North of Ireland. It is a great pity that you yourself are doing little to help matters by simplistic and erroneous categorisation of "the dispute" as one between the "British" and the "Irish". Are you aware that both Vintagekits and Brixton Busters and 303 all have British passports? And that the majority of Vintagekit's blocking admins qualify for Irish passports?

The dispute is really between editors that wish to help make a great and useful encyclopaedia and those that wish to enhance the IRA/SF's reputation and electability. Many people outside these islands fail stupidly to realise that the various incarnations of the IRA have never enjoyed more than 10% popular support in Ireland since 1924. Just how much Irish history do you know or understand?

The critical question you should ask yourself, Giano II, is this: does your current editing focus help or harm our project in the long term?84.13.10.123 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Truth"

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I just want the truth of what has been going on here, no matter how unpalatable or insensitive that is going to be. Nothing detracts me. Giano 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, distract?

I am sorry to pose what you may regard as an unpalatable or insensitive question, but how much of the truth about yourself do you wish to reveal? Is there a page I should be looking at which tells me more about you?

Wikipedia is concerned with verifiable referenced points of view - it is neither designed nor equipped to arbiter "the Truth". That is why you should sit and cogitate for a while the question I posed earlier: does your current editing focus help or harm our project in the long term?' 84.13.10.123 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't enter into conversation with anonymous editors, and even if I did it would not be on some other editor's page. Giano 23:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your prerogative but, as I've pointed out above, you do not enter into dialogue in your own user space either. Goodnight.84.13.10.123 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

"User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you (User:Scolaire) are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Can you tell me in what way I am an "involved party"? It might help me to decide what I should say. Scolaire 12:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that this case is about whether a block/ban on VK is appropriate and if so the duration. He and/or others have sought to extend the enquiry to embrace others who have interacted with him. In turn, those editors have interacted with others. It is absolutely open to you not to respond at all or to respond with "I don't see myself as being involved in this; I have nothing to say". - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Thanks. I thought there was an implication that I was involved in a particular dispute. Just wanted to check the facts before I said anything. Scolaire 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets project

I have, as you will know, made considerable additions to the WP Baronets project and carried out significant research/cited sources. I have done the Lauder baronets, all relatively notable, but I have made greater contributions overall to the project. However, the attacks continue on a broad scale against this project and it seems to me that it is pointless arguing against our opponents because there are more of them and they cite any number of so-called 'consensus' opinions/guidelines against us, even thought they are just that, opinions, and vary sometimes totally, with actual facts. I'll be honest, I don't think there is any point in fighting against this small army of editors/administrators who are opposed to the aristocracy, baronets, the British establishment, and indeed in some cases anything British. I am withdrawing from the baronets project. Next time you're on that page please remove my name from it. Regards, David Lauder 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me to do. Maybe BHG is doing her best; mostly people do that. The way you put makes me think you are the sole arbiter of facts and everybody else is wrong. It may be so. I think if you take a short wikibreak you will find there are still valuable contributions for you to make on your return. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the sole arbiter of facts at all. It just appears that so many guidelines have been created (regardless of the fact that it states on each of them that they are guidelines and not set in stone) which all, in some way or other overlap each other, so that those determined to mess with constructive efforts are always covered. A sort of, 'no one can ever be wrong except he who protests' scenario. Wikipedia has a correct provision for stubs to be created by those who have some knowledge of a subject, and so that other editors may research good sources and add to those pages. Yet where baronets are concerned this facility is derided as meaningless. As for BHG, here is a person actively opposed to the notability of baronets, essentially regarding them as meaningless, and yet she is part of the WP Baronets project! Tell me I am wrong when I ask where in real life does this sort of thing occur? It just seems to me that it is a form of anarchy where you have a so-called 'consensus' of people deciding for themselves that notable people are in fact not notable. It is akin to groups of people sitting on a street corner and deciding that a law of the land is unjust and they are therefore not going to obey it, and when anyone asks why they reply because consensus in our little group says so. Tell me what other encylcopaedia in the entire world denies notability in this manner. David Lauder 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Community Charge. Kittybrewster (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]