| Revision as of 21:23, 3 August 2024 editTrade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,150 edits →Your closing comment left me confused: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,241 edits →Thomas Partey: Thanks.Tag: Reply |
| (181 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|counter = 95 |
|
|counter = 97 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Block == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block with. All project ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Burke's Peerage == |
|
|
⚫ |
* Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. ] 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Thomas Partey == |
|
You can't get a more reliable source in these matters than Burke's Peerage - I have already quoted the link and if you don't have the book 107th edition you can search online for the format of nobles <nowiki>https://www.burkespeerage.com/search.php</nowiki> it is standard practice to provide info on the current noble's family and heir to the title, lineage, etc. Link above search for Hypatia Lumi Brim-DeForest and Huxley Byron Brim-DeForest ] (]) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* Burke's peerage isn't the problem. Adding details of information about non-notable children is. ] 08:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*plus you are still using "armorialregister.com", which doesn't seem to be a reliable source but a purely commercial venture, and you are at 4RR (which, considering that you warned me about edit warring yesterday when I was at 2RR, is something you should be well aware of). ] (]) 09:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you have a look at the antics at ] please? The short story is that the police have been investigating allegations made about a Premier League player and a file has been passed to the CPS but neither have named the individual (and they can’t due to privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects) meaning any sources naming anyone are conjecture. We have a young editor persisting adding the accusations to the article and talk page who will not stop. They have a CTOP notification. — ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:You are breaking the the standard format accepted across wikipedia for noble titles. It is standard practice to show the lineage of noble families, look at any peer's page, you will see the peer's family members. Hence Burke's Peerage has this format showing the family. Especially in this case the heir to the title and family have titles Younger and Maid of Balvaird. Their arms are registered with the Lord Lyon the monarch's representative in Scotland. All the info is confirmed in Burke's Peerage. In regards to the Armorial register it might very well be a commercial organisation but that doesn't mean it's international register of arms it's invalid. Every herald of every country collects fees for registering and producing arms, they're government agencies, this doesn't mean they're invalid. ] (]) 09:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* {{u|Malcolmxl5}} Indefinitely blocked and every edit revision deleted. I've also semi-protected the article. Thanks, ] 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::The armorialregister.com is not a government agency though, they are a private company with no official status as far as I can see. For £100 you get a PDF certificate that you have registered with them... ] (]) 10:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
*:Thanks. — ] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::You<nowiki>'re ignoring the fact I put Burke's Peerage, it is an established source of noble families. Anyhow, putting Burke's aside a moment, Armorial Register still verifies an applicants information it's an international register of arms and I believe they've been around some decades, I don't see why you're disqualifying that as a source. You can''t just pay £100 and get anything you like put up. The guy behind it is a trusted industry source I'</nowiki>ve watched his youtube presentations on coats of arms he knows his stuff. |
|
|
:::http://armorialregister.com/arms-sco/brim-deforest-h-arms.html |
|
|
:::All it does it record arms registered at heralds. See the grant it says '''Grant: The Court of the Lord Lyon, Scotland, 14th January 2020, (Page 97, Volume 93) “Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland”.''' |
|
|
:::That means her arms as '''Hypatia Brim-DeForest, Maid of Balvaird''' is registered with the Lord Lyon the herald in Scotland representing the monarch in Scotland. |
|
|
:::It is 100% relative to the page. Claiming the family are not notable when they're listed in Burke's Peerage as a noble family and ALL OTHER PAGES FOR PEERS ON WIKIPEDIA have family members listed, is breaking standard format. |
|
|
:::I welcome other opinions from others to reach consensus before the page the is reverted. ] (]) 11:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I would strongly suggest you do not revert the page again. We absolutely ''don't'' need birthdates and full names of children. See ]. All that is required is "he is married to X and has two children". ] 11:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Therefore are you going to edit the 1000+ peer's pages with family and heir listed removing their DOB? |
|
|
:::::I await your edits: |
|
|
:::::] |
|
|
:::::] |
|
|
:::::If you don't remove all the DOBs then I remain open to others for consenus. ] (]) 11:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Such arms are pure vanity projects, everyone in Scotland in good standing Will have them granted if they apply to the Lord Lyons office. Including the arms of two toddlers, because their father bought an empty "baron" title and registered their arms is complete overkill. We record notable facts about notable people or subjects: the armorials of these children, or their grand but never used titles like "maid of ", don't belong on Misplaced Pages. But such preposterous "facts" seem to abound in the articles about these "barons", e.g. the claim "From birth he was formally styled as Mr Brady Brim-DeForest" in this same article is just silly. ] (]) 11:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Not accurate. Lord Lyon the monarchs representative in Scotland has discretion to issue Barons additaments appropriate to the Dignity of a Baron in the Baronage of Scotland AND letters patent recognising their title in the name of the crown. Their noble title is part of their name for official purposes and is a recognised UK title of nobility and honour due to the noble history of these titles. The dignity of baron and the hereditary offices associated are protected in law by the Scotland 2004 act. The vast majority of baronies are kept in the same family for generations and are never sold, very few are available for sale. In some cases Barons have an ancient right to run a baron's court that has civil precedence. Barons are involved in ceremony of state. Baronial robes can be worn. It's looking as if you are dismissing these titles because of your bias or perhaps misunderstanding against the fact they can be bought and sold. You're welcome to read more here https://www.scotsbarons.org/ the official body The Convention of the Baronage of Scotland an ancient institution that dates back to one of the Three Estates of Scotland. |
|
|
:::::You're also welcome to read more here: |
|
|
:::::# (PDF). ''Scottish Law Commission Government Website''. 16 June 2024. Retrieved 16 June 2024. |
|
| ⚫ |
:::::] (]) 14:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Oh right, baronial robes can be worn, that changes everything... ] (]) 14:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::As for your rather selective quote there, that describes the situation ''before'' the law changed, and is immediately followed by a paragraph about sales of such titles: " In recent years a market in Scottish baronies has developed. We were informed by a dealer in baronies that in June 1997 the expected price for a barony, with no special features and a minimal amount of land of no value in itself, was about £60,000. Information from other sources suggests that the market value of baronies has not decreased since then." As for e.g. the courts, the document continues "the holder of land on a barony title still has, in theory but not in practice, the right to hold a baron's court" (so only in theory, and only if you held the land, not just the title). Further " the social, ceremonial and armorial aspects of baronies should be severed from landownership. Baronies should become non-territorial dignities." and " A privately owned criminal and civil jurisdiction, even if limited and fallen into disuse,57 is such an anachronistic and objectionable relic of feudalism that it must clearly be abolished. The jurisdictional rights of barons have no value and compensation for their abolition would be inappropriate and unnecessary". Basically, the document (which is a proposal only) makes it clear that the baronial title would become ceremonial, without rights to courts, salmon fishing, ... and detached from the land: just a title, which can be sold or inherited, and has no further role or power. Which seems to match with what I said previously. ] (]) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* I have to wonder now if someone who claims a title just because they bought some land for a few thousand pounds is actually notable ''at all''? ] 09:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Does any of this need rev/del or OS do you think? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've blocked the IP - second block in the last few days. ] ] 08:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* I've rev-deleted the X links, we don't need any of that shite. ] 12:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:@] Thanks. ] ] 12:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] troll back == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, you might recall from ] that there is an IP who has been making ] violations for months. Well they're back. Please take a look at the edit history of ] and ] to see how extensive the problem is. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
* Sigh. 6 months this time. ] 12:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Thanks. I'm sure they'll move over to another IP soon enough, though... — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 12:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your closing comment left me confused == |
|
|
|
|
|
Mind if i ask for a single clarification? ] (]) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
