User talk:Kittybrewster/Archive 1#Diarmuid O.27Neill

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{tl|test4}} or {{tl|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:

:::#go to the history

:::#find the last unvandalized copy

:::#open it for editing

:::#select all the text

:::#copy it

:::#go to the current version of the article

:::#open it for editing

:::#select all the text

:::#paste the text from the unvandalized version

:::#note you were reverting vandalism in the edit summary

:::#save page

:::#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

:::::#go to the history

:::::#find the last unvandalized copy

:::::#open it for editing

:::::#note you were reverting vandalism in the edit summary

:::::#save page

:::::#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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I moved the comment you left on this article (presumably related to its proposed deletion) into a {{tl|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)

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Browne%2C_1st_Baronet_of_London, saying e.g. "For Sir John Smith (tinker) see Sir John Smith of Clapham". - Kittybrewster 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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" [http://www.thepeerage.com 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 [http://www.gazette-online.co.uk/ the Gazettes] (a great website if you have the patience for it). Craigy (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

"[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)

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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metrified_English_unit&diff=80981706&oldid=80978057] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metrified_English_unit&diff=next&oldid=80981706] 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)

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('