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)

College football coaches

Looks like we're both in the middle of nominating a load. In case you didn't know the best place to find them is probably to start here and work your way down. Having just done a load I'm going to hold off doing some for a while. Lets hope we don't start working on the same ones at the same time! Dpmuk (talk) 18:55, 17 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)

Help Me Question

please can you convert my sandbox1 into 3 columns. Contents dont matter. Many thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a table? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes a table within a hidden dropdown. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple of things but I am not exactly sure what you wanted. Take a look and if you want something else let me know. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:03, 24 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)

Peers' wives surnames

Kitty, I just had a read about peers and their wives. It says the articles on wives of peers should be named using the married surname. I shall henceforth alter the articles which are entitled with the maiden names, such as Anne Welles should in point of fact be Anne Butler. Isn't this the correct form?--jeanne (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

WP:DR. Ty 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion, although this has now been removed after Tyrenius added his opinion. I didn't realise it meant literally a third opinion, I was hoping it would stay listed until lots of neutral third parties had a chance to look into it. So some other form of dispute resolution seems appropriate. Arbcom is supposed to be the last resort, but I don't think we are there yet. JRawle (Talk) 12:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have started User:Kittybrewster/Squeakbox_DR. Feel free to edit it. Tyrenius addressed MOS but not NPOV or the deliberate editing of a redirect page to prevent reversing the page move. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Road Wizard, with admin assistance, has moved the Douglas Hogg article to simply Douglas Hogg, and added a hatnote linking to his grandfather. I'm happy with this as it's the simplest way for the disambiguation to work in this case (except that the hatnote is a bit on the long side, but that's easily fixed). That just leaves the other two articles. Hopefully the requested move will go through, after which any admin could be approached to move the remaining article back. JRawle (Talk) 19:18, 20 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)

Leigh Rayment

Hello,

Just noticed your note from last month about more pages needed fixed. (I hadn't been on Wikipedia for some time). What, if anything, still needs done?

--ThaddeusB (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

I just looked up the dead links. There are 2559 in total. Unfortunately, ~2200 of them go to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/ which you indicated should be changed to one of 4 different templates. (The other ~350 are very straight forward 1:1 changes.) If you can come up a with a systematic way of differentiating the ambiguous ones, I might be able to write a quick bot to fix them up. I assume if the article has baron or baronets in its title it should go to {{Rayment-b}}. What about other titles like earl and viscount do these always go to {{Rayment}} There were only a few with (MP) in the article title - {{Rayment-hc}} for those. What about the ones that are just someone's name - the text of the article usually says something like "was a conservative politician" - do they go to the MP page or somewhere else or ?

In any case, if you can come up with some simple rules to make those determinations, the bot should be easy to write.

Let me know --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt it can go to {{rayment}}. Earls, Viscounts, Dukes, Marquesses, etc are all peers and therefore go to {{rayment}}. Many baronets are also MPs and should therefore properly be in {{rayment-b}} and {{rayment-hc}}. The ones that are just someone's name - the text of the article usually says something like "was a conservative politician" - would go to the MP page. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started coding the Bot now. How would you like me to handle links found on Talk pages, for example: Talk:Lord_Richard_Cavendish_(1871–1946). Not sure if a bot if allowed to edit user pages/user talk pages, but if it is do you think should I correct those as well? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes definitely. Because angeltowns/town leads nowhere. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything is coded and appears to be working properly, but I need some clarification. Should pages like Baron Lyttelton get a Rayment-b and a Rayment-hc template; similiarly should Earl of Cottenham get Rayment and Rayment-hc. Or should the double linkage be reserved for specific people, e.g. Welbore Ellis, 1st Baron Mendip? Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For some reason the BAG people are very hesitant to approve the bot I wrote. Perhaps if you were to comment on the request it would be of some help. To me it seems they are being stubborn for no real reason, so maybe another voice will help. I am getting pretty frustrated with the situation. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot has now completed its trial. A list of pages I changed for you so far can be found at User:DeadLinkBOT/Logs/AngelTowns.log. If you could review that and comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DeadLinkBOT#Discussion I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of bio on Amir Faisal Alavi

Appreciates your edits for improving the article on Maj Gen Alavi. The name of Maj Gen Alavi is most commonly in media is referred in full as Amir Faisal Alavi. In his own writings he has signed as Amir Faisal Alavi. WP:NCP also states the following "Generally, use the most common format of a name: if that is with a middle name or an abbreviation, make the Wikipedia article name conform to that format." I would strongly recommend that we use the old name as name for the article and redirect Faisal Alavi to that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoresearch (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am persuaded. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed back. By the way some one found out and updated the Maj. Gen Alavi's DOB. That was something I had tried to find but could not find any source myself.Indoresearch (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting that anon user's edits to my talk page. He's a kid who has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and edit-warring, and all he seems to do now is log in anonymously and tell me where he is ... so I can block him again. Mr. Darcy talk 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Have fun. I expect he will get bored eventually. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sir Robert Keith Arbuthnot 4th Bt.jpg

Hello: I was just editing the article on Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet and thought the picture was a little low resolution. I see that you uploaded it, so I was wondering if you might have a higher resolution version which you could upload? I don't know what you feel about this, but personally I quite like to upload images with relatively high resolutions if the original is up to it. Thanks. Sandpiper (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I will re-scan. My original has lousy contrast. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I also now noticed that the image seems to have the wrong copyright tag. I would hazard it ought to have a PD:published before 1923 so copyright free in the US. Potentially it might be totally copyright free, but that rather depends on who took it, when, and when they died. In any event, it will need a better tag before someone notices and tries to delete it. (well, ok, they havn't noticed in two years, but if you upload a new one someone might).Sandpiper (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PD-art-life-70 ? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you also uploaded a picture of his final ship, HMS Defence. Once again, I wonder whether the copyright status of this needs correcting, and whether it might be copyright free and eligible fo wikicommons? I also wondered whether the images could be cropped to remove the original borders? Sandpiper (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure it is out of copyright but I am dreadful at getting those tags right. Any idea what is correct? I don't see why it shouldn't go to wikicommons but have never uploaded anything there. And I would be quite happy if somebody removed the borders but I am not good at picture manipulation. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean about the forest of different tags and the difficulty trying to work out which one is right. First off, now it has a Gnu-own work licence, which is wrong. Although as the person who scanned it you might have a claim to some sort of copyright for working on it, generally this is considered just a mechanical process which doesn't count. It needs a tag relating to the original picture. I can't read the writing below arbuthnot's picture, which might say something about the original photographer (or it might be on the edge of the picture somewhere.) It looks as if it came from a book, so if that book was published pre-1923 it can be tagged PD-US or PD-US-1923-abroad if published outside the US, as it will be copyright free in the US. That is good enough for here, but not for commons, where they insist it be available world wide. To check if it is free worldwide you need either to be able to identify the photographer and know he died 70 years ago, or know it is officially a studio picture credited to a company or newspaper staff picture, when it just gets 70 years from first publication and is likely ok, or know the original photographer (for example a picture form an old family album) and that his heirs are willing to release copyright, or demonstrate that you have made a reasonable go at finding this out and failed. Ok, that is complicated and I don't think it is completely accurate even so. I'm afraid I don't know if a photograph counts as art, but I suspect it does not. That is another of these little complications. I think there is a legal precedent which makes photographs of original artworks non-copyright in the US, so long as the original copyright on the artwork has expired and this is the proper use of such tags.

If you can look at the originals and see when the book was published, photographer mentioned on the pic or contents page or in a list of picture credits perhaps we can go from there? As to cropping the pictures, if you can just upload clear shots, I will crop them and re-post the new versions. i would have done this with the ship, but I thought the copyright ought to be sorted first. I am honestly not sure what the best way of processing pictures is to make them suitable for wiki. I have found that with .jpg images, it is better to scan them at a relatively high resolution, and then compress them ruthlessly to reduce the file size. my paint program allows me to change the compression level and look at the results before saving the file. Anyhow, if you can find some raw images I will have a go at them. Sandpiper (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• [tinyurl DOT com/87qz5g HMS Defence].
• The photograph of the Admiral comes from "Memories of the Arbuthnots". Published 1920. No photographer is named. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

then I think the admiral can be tagged PD-US and that will be fine, but depending whether first published in the US or outside should be that tag or the alternate. Copyright law in the US is slightly different depending where it was first published. The image page ought to have the book author, publishers name and location as well, though, if available. The picture shows arbuthnot in captains uniform, so it ought to be 1910 or earlier.

I'm not sure about that ship image you link, is that were the image originally came from? The problem is it doesn't explain the copyright status, just asks for money for a copy. Logically the picture is pre 1916, but it is possible, say, it wasn't published until 1950, so would still have time to run on its copyright. Most likely not, but the question is to pin it down. Sandpiper (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot (1920). Memories of the Arbuthnots. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London.
• HMS Defence. I don't remember but it wouldnt have been that site. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tidied up the information on the arbuthnot image page. I was just looking about and noticed this [2] if you happened to be interested. Having just looked more closely at the arbuthnot page, I wondered whether you chose your wiki name as relevant nickname or by right?Sandpiper (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Another sock?

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EstherLois. Your opinion would be useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Runciman family

What exactly is on your mind ?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AGF on discussion about Multi Corporation

I would like to know what you mean by AGF. About notability: It is very hard for me to make a distinction between what kind of text is notable and from which point on it gets promotional. In my opinion this distinction is very subjective and I do not understand why you assume that the article I wrote is promotional. Afterwards, I understand that my first version was deleted, but I do not understand why you assume that this version is a form of promotion. The notability of the corporation is (according to me) proven by its numerous award winning projects and its contributions made to the people living in and around their developments. Furthermore, I don't have a COI! But don't you understand that I started something due to a fascination and now I want get a tangible result? About RS: I first added printed sources, but those were not accepted. When I compare the article with others, it already provides way more 3rd party sources that a lot of articles, especially when it comes to articles about corporations. I am waiting for reactions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verena Köster (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean we should assume good faith. You need to assert notability in the lead section. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:14, 19 February 2009 (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)

Your edits on WQA

Hi. Wikiquette Alerts is a step in dispute resolution; it is not the venue for policy based discussions. One or more of your edits has been reverted [3] as they are still Wikiquette related, but not a complaint against a particular user. Your proposal is most appropriate for Wikipedia talk:Civility. If you choose to voice your proposal, you may also wish to notify the administrator noticeboard so the community is notified that you are making a proposal, and you may also want to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask below. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edmond Safra

I don't know anything about the article, but you are an experienced editor, so I'm sure you can fix it! Ty 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Adverb placement

Kitty, are you absolutely positive about the correctness of this edit of yours? I'm not an expert on grammar, but everything inside me is telling me that this was correct before you changed it. Unschool 05:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely positive. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we each see "peacefully" serving a different purpose. What word do you see being modified by "peacefully"? Unschool 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"to resolve" - in a peaceful manner. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we do agree on that. It's just that, as I read your version, it gives the impression (to me) that "peacefully" is modifying "helped"; in fact, that's what I thought might be the reason you wanted it moved. But you say, like me, that it's modifying "resolve". So can you explain any further why you believe it goes before the "to"? I must admit, all I'm going on here is my gut instincts; I'm always open to learning more. Unschool 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kitty is advocating the old school that there should not be a split infinitive, although this is now a common usage and not adopting it can lead to a somewhat stilted result. How about "The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve conflicts on Wikipedia peacefully." Ty 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Your suggestion is excellent. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We are all agreed, then. Unschool 06:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Old school it may be, but often beyond pointless. See Steven Pinker's recent commentary on the matter. Also, Robert Weisberg's letter demonstrates why forcing illogical grammatical convention is not a good thing for semantics. Bongomatic 16:17, 21 March 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)

Re: Sir David Robert Gilmour, 4th Baronet

It looks like Proteus is taking a break. I've changed the page as as far as I know, the barony was a life peerage of his father's. Craigy (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baronets

Yes, I am doing it parallel to my bot's normal job. Is it ok? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. I'll finish the job tonight. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 9 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)

Confusion

Can you help me out? I noticed that User:Tryde had moved a load of articles from, e.g. Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet to Sir Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet; as I understand our guideline, this is only necessary to disambiguate. I've asked him to comment, but he hasn't yet. What should we be doing here? --Rodhullandemu 15:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

He is doing fine. He is avoiding the solecism in having the postfix without the suffix. I think there were two Gabriel Goldneys but the second does not yet have an article. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's just that I don't think disambig comes into it since there can only be one 1st Baronet, and all of them are "Sir" anyway. Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Very true. But both 1st and 2nd Baronet and at least one other are Gabriel Goldney. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, the guidance applicable here is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British_peerage, item #4. The article should be called "Sir Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet", or "Gabriel Goldney", but not "Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way; in which case, it needs to be made crystal clear. --Rodhullandemu 00:20, 19 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)

UK unwanted faxes

Hi, I added some information on the nofax.co.uk company to your query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#UK unwanted faxes. 84user (talk) 23:26, 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)

Clan Boyd

Hello, I noted your edits at Clan Boyd. What is your reference to the chief of Boyd having recently died? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Marianne Smythe hoax

Hi! I noticed that you tagged Marianne Smythe for {{rescue}} after nominating it for deletion. Thanks for giving the article a fair shake by alerting the Article Rescue Squadron. However, it's looking pretty likely that the article is a hoax, and therefore, not rescuable. Would you mind if I untagged it for rescue? Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Swaminarayan

No particular reason, but I feel it is more respectful to say passed away. Also, some people in the sect don't feel that he "died". In other words he just left his mortal body. SO using died can be controversial World (talk • contributions) 01:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that passed away falls under WEASEL WORDS and is a (wiki discouraged) euphemism for died. If some people feel he just left his mortal body that is fine but doesnt that just mean he died in encyclopedic terms? The word died implies no disrespect. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people feel that it does imply disrespect. It isn't a weasel word. Even if it were at least it isn't POV where it says he left his mortal body. Passed away if a synonym for died. It used to say died if you look at the pages long history. However IPS continuously changed it. See WP:Weasel Words World (talk • contributions) 16:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, it is specifically against guideline. Bongomatic 16:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Centre Trust

Please expand your reasoning on this AFD by saying why you think it is not notable and what guidelines or policies you think the article fails. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on the person uploading the article to show notability by RS and V. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"passed away" vs. "died"

Not that I care much either way, but is there any particular reason that you're changing "passed away" to "died" in a lot of articles and pages? --Conti|✉ 12:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For once, I completely agree with Kittybrewster. Passed away is a meaningless "genteel" phrase that actually means very little. People die, to try and beat arownd that fact with soft gentle niceties would be unencyclopedic and coy. I have frequently changed the phrase many times myself. Giano (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia has specific guidelines on this very locution. Can you imagine a serious newspaper reporting on a death by using the phrase "passed away"? Unthinkable. Bongomatic 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Even worse is "sadly passed away". Kittybrewster ☎ 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "sadly passed away" is much worse—especially as the strict parsing of that phrase implies a mental state of the decedent (since English has adverbs before verbs, I can't figure out how to make the obligatory pun about "antecedent decedent"). Bongomatic 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And for once I agree with Giano. Kittybrewster is quite right to remove this euphemism, which manages to be more verbose and less clear than the simpler alternative. I'm sure that wikipedia is widely read by people for whom English is not their first language, and twee euphemisms like this create a completely unnecessary barrier to understanding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus. "passed away" is normally a good indication that the material has been lifted from an paid obituary notice, or written by someone who thinks such notices to represent the highest level of prose style. DGG (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "so cruelly taken from his friends" - "Gone to join the angels" or my favourite, which I once read in a Sicilian obituary (I Promise it's true) "left us to become a sunbeam." Giano (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for "Yielded up the ghost". Kittybrewster ☎ 09:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pushing up daisies. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Wow, consensus! Actually, I went through the database sometime ago with Autowikibrowser and changed dozens of these awful things. I don't remember how to do that, so if anyone who uses AWB is listening here, that might be a project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright, you guys convinced me. :) --Conti|✉ 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like support for the euphemism has popped its clogs or gone for a Burton. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely toast. Hiding T 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tragically snuffed it, fallen off its perch and kicked its bucket. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the late lamented cliché?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Gently slipped away, guided by angels, into a better world". I presume none of the esteemed colleagues has forgotten this classic conversation? Kosebamse (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)