Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:32, 21 August 2007

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

This page is not a boxing ring

Champagne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unproven Baronetcies

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

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

I don't communicate via email on Misplaced Pages. Tryde 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet

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

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

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

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

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

Gaimhreadhan condolences

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

Gore-Booth baronets

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

Anstruther Baronets

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lady Louise Windsor

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

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

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

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