User talk:Kittybrewster

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

Add a new section

Arbuthnot Heraldry

This might be of interest; http://www.heraldry-online.org.uk/arbuthnot/arbuthnot-arms.htm --Heraldic (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Schloss Lütgenhof and Moritz von Paepcke

I have been researching the Dassow family history for over fifteen years. I came across the article on Dassow, Germany and updated the content based upon the German Wikipedia article. I made updates to this article until I found out that this could be considered a conflict of interest. Independently, User:Charles01 refined Dassow, Germany. When I thanked him for his efforts, he told me that he is distantly related to Moritz von Paepcke the person who built Schloss Lütgenhof.

I hope to eventually write a Wikipedia article about Moritz von Paepcke, but so far there does not seem to be enough information to support a notable article. The history of Schloss Lütgenhof is rather interesting and Moritz von Paepcke and his family are key players. By an odd co-incidence, you (User: kittybrewster) posted to User_talk:Charles01 eight minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles01&action=history) after I did. You indicated on User:Kittybrewster/About_me that you are associated with the website http://www.kittybrewster.com/ancestry/canning.htm , a website that I just told User:Charles01 about.

Since you are an accomplished Wikipedia editor with a strong background in geneology, I would appreciate your feedback on whether an article on Moritz von Paepcke or Schloss Lütgenhof.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the castle and of Moritz von Paepcke. But it seems to me that the reliable sources we need are written in German which both you are Charles01 speak but which I do not. I will be the first to read the article when one of you is good enough to write it. Both topics are surely WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Leslie Ward

They'e all on Commons, and correctly tagged. This is the relevant tag: {{PD-art-life-70}}. Ty 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Award notice

I've awarded you a barnstar for your work clearing out the CFB cruft. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One man's barnstar is another man's bane.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Castle residents

I've just expanded Bruce Castle substantially; however, this has left it with a number of redlinks that ought not to be. Would you (or anyone watching this page with access to Burke's) be able to create at least minimal stubs for Hugh Hare, 1st Baron Coleraine, Henry Hare, 2nd Baron Coleraine and Henry Hare, 3rd Baron Coleraine, and ideally John Wilmot (MP) (c.1749-1815) which are the four most glaring?

Many thanks… – iridescent 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to Burke's, John Wilmot was a barrister who assumed (1812) the additional name of Eardley and was father of Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet. No mention of his parliamentary career. According to LeighRayment.com the MP was John Wilmot. Are they undoubtedly the same chap? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's confusing, as there appear to be four generations, all with the same name but different titles; John Eardley Wilmot, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1766 to 1771; his son John Wilmot (MP) (the occupant of the castle) who later assumed the name of Eardley-Wilmot (see [1] for some verification of his existence, at least); his son Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot, 1st Baronet, MP for North Warwickshire; and his son Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, 2nd Baronet, MP for South Warwickshire.

The second one (1749-1815) does appear to be the one who did everything I've ascribed to him in the article (MP for Tiverton & Coventry; Commissioner into the conduct of the American Revolution; founder with Wilberforce and Burke of "Wilmot's Committee" to aid refugees from revolutionary France); there's a biography of him here in Clarke's The Georgian Era (1833);

WILMOT, (JOHN EARDLEY,) son of the chief-justice, was born at Derby, in 1748, and received his education at Westminster and Oxford, where he obtained a fellowship of All Souls' College. He, at first, studied under Doctor (afterwards Bishop) Warburton, for the church; but afterwards, imbibing a partiality for the law, he came to the bar; a step, which his father called, " quitting a bed of roses for a crown ot' thorns." In 1776, about five years after his call, he was returned to parliament for Tiverton, in Devonshire; and, taking part with the opposition, attacked the ministerial party in a pamphlet, denouncing the continuance of war. In 1781, he was appointed a master in Chancery; and, in 1782, was commissioned, in conjunction with others, to inquire into the distribution of the sums destined for the relief ot the American loyalists. In the following year, he spoke on the subject in parliament; and, in reply to Mr. Fox s condemnation of the large sums expended on the American sufferers, declared " he would share with them his last shilling and his last loaf." In 1784, and the parliament which followed in 1790, he sat as member for Coventry, and supported the views of Mr. Pitt during every session. He was particularly hostile to the French revolution ; and, by his exertions, obtained the distribution of a fund, under the sanction of parliament, in behalf of the emigrants from that country. In 1804, he retired altogether from public life; and, devoting himself to literary pursuits, published, shortly afterwards, a life of his father, and also of Bishop Hough. Previously to this, he had written A Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England; and, in the year of his death, which occurred in June, 1815, printed An Historical Review of the Commission relative to the American Loyalists. He was a man of the most upright and unimpeachable character, both public and private; and, in the former, was equally distinguished for his learning and eloquence. He was twice married : first, to the only daughter of S. Sainthell, Esq., by whom he had one son and four daughters, who survived him ; and, secondly, in 1793, to Miss Hastam, by whom he had two children, who died in their infancy.

I admit to never having heard of this book before and have no idea how reliable a source it is, but have no reason to doubt it; it appears to confirm the information I've already used in the article from other sources. If true, I am surprised at the lack of information available for someone who appears to have been a fairly significant figure in the period. – iridescent 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

awb

..do you have an awb session open? I can talk you through the steps Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Start up awb and and select "wiki search" in the "Make from" drop down box. A text box will open up (labeled WIki search"). Type passed away in that. Press the Make List Button.
2. After several seconds the list will be complete. It appears to have exactly 1000 items in it, but you don't really need all of those.
3. Right click on any of the items in the list and select "filter". left click. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
4. A large popup box will appear. In the "namespaces to keep" click the "content" radio box once (to clear everything in the column). Do the same for the "Talk" box (to clear that column too). Then click the box labeled (main), directly under "Content". Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Click the "Apply" button in the top right corner. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
6. OK now your list has 995 items. Just to the right of the list of articles that was generated, there is an area labeled "Find and Replace". Click the "Enabled" radio box. Then click the "Normal Settings" button.
7. A new large popup will appear. In the "find" column type the URL you want to find, and in the "replace" column type the new one. You can do this for several rows.. you can find and replace several things. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Click the Done button in the top right corner. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Go to the Tab that says Skip. Click the box that says "No changes are made." Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Go to the tab that says Start. Click the Minor Edit box, and then the Start button. It will ask you to log in. Do so. The click the Start button again. You're ready to go... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my IQ question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Per image talk page, permission has been granted, but not the permission required by wikipedia, so it will be deleted. I suggest getting the correct permission. Ty 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agnatic/cognatic

Hi! :) When succession is agnatic, only males can succeed. If a man has no sons, he is succeeded by his brother or his brother's son or his uncle etc. Daughters cannot succeed. Had succession to the British throne been agnatic, William IV would've been been succeeded by his brother and not by his niece. Succession to the British throne is cognatic, while succession to the Hanoverian throne was agnatic - that's why Victoria got the UK while her uncle got Hanover. Japan and Liecthenstein are some of the countries that still practice agnatic primogeniture. Cognatic primogeniture may be male-preferance primogeniture (women succeed if they have no brothers) or equal primogeniture (eldest child succeed regardless of gender). Legitimacy is usually important, as illegitimate children usually can't succeed (there are exceptions, though). Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Who ya gonna call? Hoaxbusters!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts in bringing to AfD AND CfD all the huge collection of Spring family/Baron Lavenham hoax articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbuthnot painting

At my Wikimedia Commons page, which I rarely check (sorry), you asked about my attribution of a portrait to Godfrey Kneller. This site has the painting, the artist, and the sitter. - Astrochemist (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Baron Kilmarnock

Who inherits the chiefship of Clan Boyd now? Does legitimatio per subsequens matrimonium apply? Choess (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it not go to the new Laird? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The new baron is the brother of the late 7th baron; the latter has a son born prior to his parents' marriage, who was nable to succeed to the UK title but may perhaps be eligible for Scots honours (e.g., the remainder of the earldom of Erroll). Choess (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chief of the Clan is the person who is entitled to the undifferenced Arms. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. See Clan chief. For the purposes of wiki, the chief is the persone who the references list as such, eg: Burks, Standing council, or clan web site. These give Kilmarnockk as chief, notably the 7th. Please give your references if you change the chief, I do not think it is the place of editors to decide how a chieftain descends. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

7th Baron having recently died, I imagine nobody has yet applied for the undifferenced Arms. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You do not apply for "undifferenced arms", if they exist and are matriculated under the 3 generation or 100 years rule they are inherited. But this is another matter and not relevant. undifferenced arms have nothing to do with clan chiefs. Further the arms of Baron Kilmarnock are not the undifferenced Boyd arms, They are Quarterly, 1st Azure a fess chequy Argent and Gules (for Boyd), 2nd Argent three inescutcheons Gules (for Hay), 3rd Argent three gillyflowers Gules within a double tressure flory counter flory Vert (for Livingston), 4th Sable a bend between six billets Or (for Callendar). The undifferenced Boyd arms would be Azure a fess chequy Argent and Gules. No source as yet gives the name of the new chief, so we can not put it, nor should we speculate in this matter. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. My thought was that the arms of 7th Baron might go to his son or his brother (the 8th Baron). I then read Clan_chief#.22Chief_of_the_Name_and_Arms.22. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thread concerning you on the incidents noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster_editing_disruptively.

Regards.

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Based on community consensensus as found on WP:ANI#Temporary three way topic ban, I am enacting a topic ban on the subject of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on you and Vintagekits, as well as mandating that BrownHairedGirl not use administrative tools on the same topic. --Tznkai (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; this is nonsense. What transgression have I committed concerning Baronets, other than reporting multiple disruptive page moves to AN/I? I think there is not a consensus and that you are insuffiently independent to judge it. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration request

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=287957652&oldid=287954949--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

re Barbara Everard

Thanks for your assistance - I'm helping a new editor (the artist's son) to get the article together, as he originally posted it to his userspace along with a plea for help. Wish me luck in teasing out those refs ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban, still - [2]

Notifying you of WP:ANI#Kittybrewster again--Tznkai (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked you from editing for 12 hours, per your incivil comments about Vintagekits and your WP:POINTy AfD nomination. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The block is justified. I made a mistake. Sorry guys. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban:boxing (broadly construed)

Unilaterally, and without prior discussion, I am banning you from editing or otherwise directly actioning any article relating to boxing. You may comment upon any talkpage of an article (or talkpage) not previously edited by User:Vintagekits in the last three months, or on a specific topic commented upon by that editor in the last year. I shall be immediately notifying this topic ban on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster again, where I invite you to notify your agreement or objection - as desired. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For how long and why? Mistaken AFD which was speedy closed?

Please explain "or on a specific topic commented upon by that editor in the last year". Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think that indefinite would be the time limit - if you and Vk come to some understanding then the ban would be deprecated, otherwise it would seem reasonable to keep the two of you from bumping into each other forever. Why? Because it is apparent that you and Vk are mutually antagonistic and removing both parties from area's which the other is recognised as having a major interest decreases the likelihood of friction occurring.

The specific topic restriction is for an article talkpage where Vk has made a comment under a heading, you should not contribute to that section within a year of Vk commenting. Again, this lessens the possibility of the two of you getting into a dispute.

If it is apparent that there is a problem with a boxing related article which you are unable to resolve per this restriction, then contact a neutral third party (me, if you wish) to effect any necessary actions. I have amended the wording of the ban to clarify this, but I would not expect to see a raft of requests for such actions as you have not previously been over involved in editing boxing articles.

It is my hope that you recognise that this is part of an attempt to keep both you and Vk editing in areas of Wikipedia where you both have made valuable contributions, and to diminish the areas of potential conflict. It is a big encyclopedia, and should be able to contain the talents of two people without creating disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems broadly reasonable. It is not really an area in which I am particularly interested. What is unreasonable is the Tzankai topic ban on me re Baronets. That should apply to Vk only. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your topic ban from Baronets is negotiable. Perhaps you might consider proposing limitations (or reviews) on your editing that would satisfy the concerns aired. You may point out that by agreeing the boxing article editing restrictions you are showing that you are willing to diminish potential disruption in Vk's area of interests, and suggest that the same be applied in an area in which you have previously made good contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten the RfAR - I think that needs concluding and digesting before considering reviewing the topic ban, if it still applies or is open to negotiation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian "nobility"

Is there a WP:RS for these? How should I spell priviledge and appologise? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is Kitty, it's called the Libro d'Oro della Nobilta Italiana. One is either in or out, and if out, one stays out. No running the local council, a trade union or winning the lottery and/or giving it to the Labour/Conservative party will change that. The Italian nobility have learnt to fight to survive, they are tough lot - attack them with caution. Regarding my spelling, when you can speak Italian as well as I can speak English, then you may comment. Until that happy day, shutuppa-your-mouth and leave the wisecracks to me. Giano (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in my library. You will have to drop off a copy if your satnav is working again. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't think I will bother, it's not as though you are likely to know anyone - is it? Giano (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I had not realised that was a requirement for writing a bio article. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baronets naming dispute, have voted to implement a motion. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The motion is as follows:

The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed. Kittybrewster is admonished to respect community and administrator decisions, including the imposition of sanctions, and directed to utilize the standard channels of appeal and review in cases where he disagrees. Disregard for sanctions, whether imposed by an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee, is grounds for the imposition of escalating blocks and/or further sanctions. Vintagekits and Kittbrewster are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted. They are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal against topic ban

• Why am I topic banned (baronets and knights)?
• I posted notification of an ongoing problem to AN/I
• Then I stepped well back.
• Obviously I appeal.
• I am baffled.
• I simply don't understand what I should have done differently.
• Cross-posted to A/N
• Kittybrewster ☎ 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Kittybrewster! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 days for this move. Per Arbitration Committee motion, you "are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted." See here for the original motion. KnightLago (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I appeal the block. This man in neither. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you use the {{unblock}} template, KB, and describe exactly why this block should be revoked (or certainly reduced from 3 days, which is long in the extreme). I concur that this was not technically a violation because the article is not about a Baronet and was incorrectly titled. Rockpocket 07:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|No breach of topic ban. the man was not a baronet}}

I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, given the fact that the article was incorrectly titled and the subject was, indeed, never a baronet. I'd ask the reviewing admin to strongly consider this. I'm not going to unblock myself, due to the possibility a WP:COI is perceived. Rockpocket 08:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Though, I would add, it was rather inadvisable to make this move, Kb, given the likelihood it would result in this course of action. Do yourself a favor and ask someone else (me, for example) to make such page moves on your behalf in future. Rockpocket 08:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am cautious about doing that. The last time I handed over an issue to the community by reporting it to AN/I and then stepping smartly backwards, I got topic banned from the only area in which I edit. No review of my conduct whatever. This website is a forum where one just has to guess the rules and avoid AN/I. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the unblock request; I think the Arbcom motion's language is clearly intended to be broad: "moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights." This man may not have been a Baronet but the issue in the move and the article itself clearly relates to Baronets. That is a broad interpretation but the Arbcom motion specifically says this is to be broadly interpreted. So for my part I certainly decline to unblock based on this request. However, I will join in suggesting to KnightLago that 72 hours is overly harsh for a first-time good-faith mistake. Mangojuice^talk 09:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify. What does "broadly interpreted" mean? It is a binary question. Somebody either is or is not a baronet or a knight. I remain confused by the topic ban in the first place; is it punitive or preventive? Why was it imposed? What is its purpose? Its effect is obviously to prevent me improving wikipedia. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Broadly interpreted means, if the article bears any relationship to Baronets or Knights, it falls under the restriction. I am glad to help you understand the topic ban, but as for its wisdom, it was imposed by Arbcom and if you want to appeal it you'll have to appeal it to them. Mangojuice^talk 10:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "bears any relationship" mean? Arbcom tells me it was imposed by the community. Nobody has told me why. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion? The ban was placed by the community to put a stop to the drama, as a temporary measure, while Arbitration was pursued. But Arbcom took this differently, as if the community was willing to enforce the ban, thus relieving them of the need to take the case. I strongly disagree with their decision not to take the case and examine the issues carefully... partly because I felt your behavior hadn't been properly examined. But now it's Arbcom-endorsed and would basically take Arbcom to overturn it. As for "bears any relationship", interpret it as broadly as you can: it certainly doesn't take much to realize that can apply to a son of a baronet whose article was mistakenly named to include the baronet title. When in any doubt whatsoever, request that someone else make the change. I'm not saying this is what Arbcom is requiring of you, but it's a strategy that should steer you clear of all blocks in the future. Mangojuice^talk 10:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I caused no drama. I was bundled in with a disruptive editor just because I reported that disruption to AN/I. Nobody has addressed the temporariness of the measure. Arbcom and the community have both abrogated responsibility. How do I get my behaviour examined, which I requested? As things stand, Arbcom says it isn't responsible and can't overturn it. What is needed is a block/ban template showing Type, Extent, Duration, Imposed by, Administrator, Date, Reason, Difference, Purpose, How/where to appeal. The blockee needs to know what different behaviour is required of him. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee's motion in regard to page moves is broad in scope and covers anything relating to Baronets or Knights. As Mangojuice said above, while this guy may not have been a Baronet, "the issue in the move and the article itself clearly relates to Baronets." Regarding the length of block, it was not something I undertook lightly. But the fact is, I was the Clerk who notified you about the motion. We discussed it here and by email. As far as I recall, you did not raise any questions relating to the scope of this particular restriction. Also, to return after a few days break from editing and make one single edit in direct violation of the restriction seems odd to me. KnightLago (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost immediately after I posted the above I began having second thoughts. Upon reconsideration I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and unblock you with time served. I think you have the best interests of the project at heart, and this was probably an honest mistake. But you are now aware of the broad scope of this restriction, so please take care. Are there any other points within the motion that you do not understand? KnightLago (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am working on clearing the autoblock. When I searched for active autoblocks on you I found 3. Can you explain this? I am looking into the situation and will get back as soon as possible. KnightLago (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you should be good to go. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Topic ban concerning baronets and knights

1. What articles does it cover that are not of baronets or knights?
2. Is it punitive or preventive?
3. Duration of topic ban?
4. Ban imposed by whom?
5. Date of ban?
6. Reason for ban?
7. Difference justifying ban
8. Purpose of ban?
9. What different conduct on my part is wanted?
10. To whom do I appeal?
11. Where do I appeal?
12. How do I appeal?

- Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban is a community enacted sanction. In order to determine its scope you would need to go and read the discussion. The majority of your questions could most likely be answered by examining it. You were blocked in this instance for moving that article in violation of an Arbitration Committee imposed restriction. As you have already been told, in order to appeal the topic ban you would need to post at WP:ANI. Any Arbitration Committee imposed restriction would have to be appealed to the Arbcom. Do you have any specific question related to the motion notification I posted above? I want to make sure there is no further confusion over its terms in the future. KnightLago (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What articles does it cover that are not of baronets or knights? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Any article are relating to Baronets and Knights in a broad sense. KnightLago (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that include James Hunter Blair? Why? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Because (1) it was at Sir James Hunter Blair, 8th Baronet even though he's not a Baronet, and (2) as he's a son of a Baronet, it's related in a broad sense. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This also appears informative. KnightLago (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The only allegations there against me are (a) that I reported Vk's mass-moves to AN/I. Was that wrong? What else should I have done? And (b) that I have a COI. What is it? Can someone cite the relevant diff giving an example where my alleged COI caused a problem? There must be a way to appeal this. I tried to do so at AN but the appeal just got ignored and filed. If the purpose was to allow people to cool down, my response is that I never wound up the drama. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to Arbcom. You could also email Jimmy Wales directly, he has reserved authority to alter Arbcom rulings. Just do it, raise a motion, make your best argument. You will need to explain why (1) the ban is substantially interfering with you and (2) why it is inappropriate. Criticisms of your conduct can be found in the archives of the admin noticeboards; go looking for them. A simple request for evidence (from ArbCom) will fail. Or, just accept it and avoid doing page moves: remember, the ban is only against page moves. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. It is a complete 1yr topic band of Baronets. Apparently not. I'm also somewhat puzzled by the scope. If sons of Baronets are part of the ban, are also brothers, sisters, mothers, grandchildren or grandparents? I means, really, where exactly is the line drawn? And how exactly does interpreting it so liberally really help the encyclopaedia? Kb - for reasons better known to himself - is a prolific contributor to articles about the great and the good of the British class system. In that scene pretty everyone is but a marriage to a cousin away from a Baronet. Rockpocket 01:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, weird, isn't it? The community, at least some substantial portion of it, was trying to ban KB from the whole topic, not just moves. There was a request for that ban to be enforced, which I recall declining to do because I felt page moves were the main issue. And the duration part, which was in there from the beginning, was dropped by ArbCom. Please inform me if someone makes a motion / request for clarification / appeal to ArbCom; I feel that ArbCom was lazy in not accepting the case for a full hearing and would like to make that opinion known. At the very least, the duration of the ban on KB ought to be finite. Mangojuice^talk 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clive Granger's wife's maiden name was Loveland. He was a knight so I can't add that. How gay is that? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You can, as long as no page move is involved. The ArbCom motion was quite clear that the ban is only on page moves. Mangojuice^talk 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not what has been argeed, this is. If you are sidelining the restrictions that have been put on Kitty then I will assume that all restrictions are null and void, which you dont have the power to do.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You have linked to the correct ruling. Read it; ArbCom says it "recognizes and confirms" the community bans but from the context it is clear it doesn't recognize a full topic ban, because that was a proposed alternative that doesn't pass. The motion specifically says you are both topic banned from page moves, and from nominating pages created by each other for deletion, but describes no further restrictions on you. I think it would be for the good of Wikipedia for you both to be clearer on this; I will start a discussion on WP:AN to clarify the situation. Mangojuice^talk 12:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Vintagekits posting on this page? He is banned from it. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)