Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 7 July 2009

List of proposed moves

Vintagekits, you're welcome to place a list of baronets you think should be moved on my talk page. I don't know whether or not you're considered topic-banned at this point, but I would be perfectly happy to get a list from you and ask anyone watching here not to consider this a violation of any such a ban. (I would reverse a block on such grounds, but I have some work to do and may not be around for a while, so I'd like to make that clear to others.) Choess (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• this is just for those in the Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, there is also the Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England, Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain, Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland, Category:Baronets in the Jacobite peerage and Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia. I've already "fixed" most of the ones A-D but there are a few left overs. So here is A-G. More later.

• 1. Sir Antony Guy Acland, 5th Baronet – has a redirect of Antony Guy Acland.
• 2. Sir William Bagge, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William Bagge – only other William Bagge is his son and was only a Baronet for a year and does not assert any notability.
• 3. Sir Godfrey Baring, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Godfrey Baring.
• 4. Sir Joseph Beecham, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Joseph Beecham.
• 5. Sir George Bonham, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of George Bonham.
• 6. Sir Noël Bowater, 2nd Baronet, - has a redirect of Noël Bowater.
• 7. Sir Gurney Braithwaite, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Gurney Braithwaite.
• 8. Sir George Bullough, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of George Bullough.
• 9. Sir Edward Buxton, 2nd Baronet, - Edward Buxton redirects to Edward North Buxton who is a different person and this article could be called simply Edward Buxton.
• 10. Sir John Cargill, 1st Baronet, – more commonly known as John Traill Cargill.
• 11. Sir Toby Clarke, 6th Baronet, - no article for Toby Clarke.
• 12. Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet, - not a proven Baronet.
• 13. Sir Augustus Clifford, 1st Baronet, - no article for Augustus Clifford.
• 14. Sir Philip Colfox, 1st Baronet, - no article for Philip Colfox.
• 15. Sir Charles Dalrymple, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Charles Dalrymple, the other Charles Dalrymple is a 3rd Baronet and asserts no notability.
• 16. Sir Kenneth Douglas, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Kenneth Douglas.
• 17. Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, 5th Baronet, - has a redirect of Cosmo Duff-Gordon.
• 18. Sir William Duff-Gordon, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of William Duff-Gordon.
• 19. Sir Culling Eardley, 3rd Baronet, - has a redirect of Culling Eardley. The other Culling Eardley is his father and asserts no notability.
• 20. Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Currimbhoy Ebrahim. This offspring with Currimbhoy Ebrahim in their name have different first names.
• 21. Sir Ellis Ellis-Griffith, 1st Baronet, - Ellis Ellis-Griffith is an incorrect disamb page created by Kitty – in which he mispells the 2nd Baronets name.
• 22. Sir Howard Elphinstone, 3rd Baronet, no article for Howard Elphinstone and he was more commonly known as Howard Warburton Elphinstone.
• 23. Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Alexander Erskine-Hill.
• 24. Sir Nugent Everard, 1st Baronet, no article for Nugent Everard.
• 25. Sir Henry Ferguson Davie, 1st Baronet, no article for Henry Ferguson Davie.
• 26. Sir Edmund Findlay, 2nd Baronet, no article for Edmund Findlay.
• 27. Sir Patrick Ford, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Patrick Ford.
• 28. Sir Arthur Forwood, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Arthur Forwood.
• 29. Sir Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey, 3rd Baronet, no article for Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey.
• 30. Sir David Gammans, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of David Gammans.
• 31. Sir Harold Gillett, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harold Gillett.
• 32. Sir Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet, no article for Gabriel Goldney.
• 33. Sir Francis Goldsmid, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Francis Goldsmid.
• 34. Sir Isaac Goldsmid, 1st Baronet, no article for Isaac Goldsmid.
• 35. Sir Fergus Graham, 5th Baronet, has a redirect for Sir Fergus Graham, 5th Baronet.
• 36. Sir Graham Graham-Montgomery, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Graham Graham-Montgomery.
• 37. Sir Alexander Cray Grant, 8th Baronet, has a redirect of Alexander Cray Grant.
• 38. Sir Charles Graves-Sawle, 2nd Baronet, no article for Charles Graves-Sawle.
• 39. Sir Richard Green-Price, 1st Baronet, no article for Richard Green-Price.
• 40. Sir Herbert Brent Grotrian, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Herbert Brent Grotrian.
• 41. Sir William Gull, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William Gull.
• 42. Sir Derrick Gunston, 1st Baronet, has a redirect to Derrick Gunston.

--Vintagekits (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

H and I

• 43. Sir Walter Halsey, 2nd Baronet, no article for Walter Halsey.
• 44. Sir Percy Harris, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Percy Harris.
• 45. Sir William Wilson-Todd, 1st Baronet, no article for William Wilson-Todd.
• 46. Sir Robert Harty, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Robert Harty.
• 47. Sir Arthur Haworth, 1st Baronet, has a direct of Arthur Haworth.
• 48. Sir Cuthbert Headlam, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Cuthbert Headlam.
• 49. Sir John Heathcoat-Amory, 1st Baronet, no article for John Heathcoat-Amory.
• 50. Sir John Henniker Heaton, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of John Henniker Heaton.
• 51. Sir James Henderson-Stewart, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of James Henderson-Stewart.
• 52. Sir Arthur Henniker-Hughan, 6th Baronet, has a redirect of Arthur Henniker-Hughan.
• 53. Sir Arthur Heywood, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Arthur Heywood.
• 54. Sir Alfred Hickman, 1st Baronet, no article for Alfred Hickman.
• 55. Sir Basil Hill-Wood, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Basil Hill-Wood.
• 56. Sir Samuel Hill-Wood, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Samuel Hill-Wood.
• 56a. Sir Benjamin Hingley, 1st Baronet, no article for Benjamin Hingley.
• 57. Sir Charles Hobhouse, 4th Baronet, has a redirect of Charles Hobhouse.
• 58. Sir Isaac Holden, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Isaac Holden.
• 59. Sir Everard Home, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Everard Home.
• 60. Sir Harold Hood, 2nd Baronet, no article for Harold Hood.
• 61. Sir Claudius Hunter, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Claudius Hunter.
• 62. Sir Robert Inglis, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Robert Inglis.
• 63. Sir Hugh Inglis, 1st Baronet, no article for Hugh Inglis.

J, K and L

• 64. Sir William Moore Johnson, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William Moore Johnson.
• 65. Sir Harford Jones Brydges, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harford Jones Brydges.
• 66. Sir Evan Davies Jones, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Evan Davies Jones.
• 67. Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, 1st Baronet, no article for James Kay-Shuttleworth.
• 68. Sir Hamilton Kerr, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Hamilton Kerr.
• 69. Sir Henry King, 1st Baronet, more commonly known as Henry Seymour King.
• 69. Sir Henry Kimber, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Henry Kimber.
• 70. Sir Francis Henry Laking, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Francis Henry Laking.
• 71. Sir Thomas Larcom, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas Larcom.
• 72. Sir Trevor Lawrence, 2nd Baronet, no article for Trevor Lawrence.
• 73. Sir Thomas Lea, 1st Baronet, no article for Thomas Lea.
• 74. Sir Elliott Lees, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Elliott Lees.
• 75. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of George Cornewall Lewis.
• 76. Sir Thomas Frankland Lewis, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas Frankland Lewis.
• 77. Sir Charles Dillwyn-Venables-Llewellyn, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect to Charles Dillwyn-Venables-Llewellyn.
• 78. Sir Guy Lloyd, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Guy Lloyd.
• 79. Sir Marteine Lloyd, 2nd Baronet, redirects to Lloyd Baronets.
• 80. Sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Manasseh Masseh Lopes.
• 81. Sir Ralph Lopes, 2nd Baronet, no article of Ralph Lopes.
• 82. Sir Massey Lopes, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Massey Lopes.
• 83. Sir Gerard Lowther, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Gerard Lowther.
• 84. Sir Jocelyn Lucas, 4th Baronet, has a redirect of Jocelyn Lucas.
• 85. Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Hugh Lucas-Tooth.

M

• 86. Sir Thomas McClure, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas McClure.
• 87. Sir Robert McConnell, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Robert McConnell.
• 88. Sir William MacCormac, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William MacCormac.
• 89. Sir Archibald Macdonald, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Archibald Macdonald.
• 90. Sir Harry Mackeson, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harry Mackeson.
• 91. Sir Rupert Mackeson, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Rupert Mackeson.
• 92. Sir Fitzroy Hew Royle MacLean of Dunconnel, 1st Baronet, and Fitzroy Hew Royle MacLean is an incorrect redirect to a disamb.
• 93. Sir John Maclure, 1st Baronet, no article for John Maclure.
• 94. Sir Donald Macmaster, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Donald Macmaster.
• 95. Sir Patrick Macnaghten, 11th Baronet, no article for Patrick Macnaghten.
• 96. Sir Philip Magnus-Allcroft, 2nd Baronet, no article for Philip Magnus-Allcroft.
• 97. Sir William Mahon, 7th Baronet, no article for William Mahon.
• 98. Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harry Mallaby-Deeley.
• 99. Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Mervyn Manningham-Buller.
• 100. Sir John Blundell Maple, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of John Blundell Maple.
• 101. Sir Anthony Mather-Jackson, 6th Baronet, no article for Anthony Mather-Jackson.
• 102. Sir Willie Mathews, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Willie Mathews.
• 103. Sir James McGrigor, 1st Baronet, no article for James McGrigor.
• 104. Sir Mark MacTaggart-Stewart, 1st Baronet, no article for Mark MacTaggart-Stewart.
• 105. Sir John Middlemore, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of John Middlemore.
• 106. Sir Powlett Milbank, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Powlett Milbank.
• 107. Sir Frederick Milbank, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Frederick Milbank.
• 108. Sir Philip Miles, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Philip Miles.
• 109. Sir Harold Paton Mitchell, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harold Paton Mitchell.
• 110. Sir Anderson Montague-Barlow, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Anderson Montague-Barlow.
• 111. Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Clive Morrison-Bell.
• 112. Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas Munro.
• 113. Sir Philip Muntz, 1st Baronet, no article for Philip Muntz.
• 114. Sir Max Muspratt, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Max Muspratt.

N, O and P

• 115. Sir Joseph Napier, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Joseph Napier.
• 116. Sir Herbert Naylor-Leyland, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Herbert Naylor-Leyland.
• 117. Sir Richard Neave, 1st Baronet – no article for Richard Neave.
• 118. Sir John Neeld, 1st Baronet – no article for John Neeld.
• 119. Sir Harry Newton, 2nd Baronet – has a redirect of Harry Newton.
• 120. Sir Godfrey Nicholson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Godfrey Nicholson.
• 121. Sir Andrew Noble, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Andrew Noble.
• 122. Sir Iain Noble, 3rd Baronet - has a redirect of Iain Noble.
• 123. Sir John Norton-Griffiths, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of John Norton-Griffiths.
• 124. Sir Christopher Nugent, 6th Baronet – no article for Christopher Nugent.
• 125. Sir Percy Nugent, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Percy Nugent.
• 126. Sir Walter Nugent, 4th Baronet - has a redirect of Walter Nugent.
• 127. Sir Anthony Nutting, 3rd Baronet - has a redirect of Anthony Nutting.
• 128. Sir Michael O'Loghlen, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Michael O'Loghlen.
• 129. Sir Colman O'Loghlen, 2nd Baronet - has a redirect of Colman O'Loghlen.
• 130. Sir Archibald Orr-Ewing, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Archibald Orr-Ewing. There is another Archibald Orr-Ewing but he is a 3rd Baronet and there is nothing to suggest any notability.
• 131. Sir Richard Paget, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Richard Paget.
• 132. Sir Gilbert Parker, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Gilbert Parker.
• 133. Sir William Payne-Gallwey, 1st Baronet - no article for William Payne-Gallwey.
• 134. Sir Henry Peek, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Henry Peek.
• 135. Sir Sidney Peel, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Sidney Peel.
• 136. Sir James Pender, 1st Baronet – no article for James Pender.
• 137. Sir Robert Perks, 1st Baronet – no article for Robert Perks.
• 138. Sir Christopher Peto, 3rd Baronet – has a redirect of Christopher Peto.
• 139. Sir Basil Peto, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Basil Peto.
• 140. Sir Robert Phillimore, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Robert Phillimore.
• 141. Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Kenneth Pickthorn.
• 142. Sir Philip Pilditch, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Philip Pilditch.
• 143. Sir Charles Pole, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Charles Pole.
• 144. Sir Charles Ponsonby, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Charles Ponsonby.
• 145. Sir Uvedale Price, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Uvedale Price.
• 146. Sir Peter Proby, 2nd Baronet – no article for Peter Proby.

R and S

• 147. Sir William Raeburn, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of William Raeburn.
• 148. Sir John Ramsden, 5th Baronet – no article for John Ramsden.
• 150. Sir Carne Rasch, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Carne Rasch.
• 151. Sir Alfred Rawlinson, 3rd Baronet – has a redirect of Alfred Rawlinson – and was actually known as Toby Rawlinson.
• 152. Sir Henry Ripley, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Ripley.
• 153. Sir Leonard Ropner, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Leonard Ropner.
• 154. Sir Robert Ropner, 1st Baronet – no article for Robert Ropner.
• 155. Sir Josias Rowley, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Josias Rowley.
• 156. Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Edward Ruggles-Brise.
• 157. Sir Hugo Rutherford, 2nd Baronet – has a redirect of Hugo Rutherford.
• 158. Sir Thomas Salt, 1st Baronet – no article for Thomas Salt.
• 159. Sir Stuart Samuel, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Stuart Samuel.
• 160. Sir Edward Sassoon, 2nd Baronet, of Kensington Gore – has a redirect of Edward Sassoon.
• 161. Sir Philip Sassoon, 3rd Baronet – has a redirect of Philip Sassoon.
• 162. Sir William Savory, 1st Baronet – no article for William Savory.
• 163. Sir Thomas Scarisbrick, 1st Baronet – no article for Thomas Scarisbrick.
• 163a. Sir Charles Seely, 2nd Baronet, more commonly known as Charles Hilton Seely.
• 164. Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Geoffrey Shakespeare.
• 165. Sir Ernest Shepperson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Ernest Shepperson.
• 166. Sir George Shiffner, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of George Shiffner.
• 167. Sir Robert Workman Smith, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Robert Workman Smith.
• 168. Sir William McNair Snadden, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of William McNair Snadden.
• 169. Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Louis Spears.
• 170. Sir Albert Spicer, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Albert Spicer.
• 171. Sir Alexander Sprot, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Alexander Sprot.
• 172. Sir Lovelace Stamer, 3rd Baronet – no article for Lovelace Stamer.
• 173. Sir Samuel Strang Steel, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Samuel Strang Steel.
• 174. Sir Henry Kenyon Stephenson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Kenyon Stephenson.
• 175. Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of George Stokes.
• 176. Sir Henry Studholme, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Studholme.
• 177. Sir Duncan Swann, 2nd Baronet – no article for Duncan Swann.
• 178. Sir Alan Sykes, 1st Baronet – no article for Alan Sykes.

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z

• 179. Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt.
• 180. Sir Gordon Touche, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Gordon Touche.
• 181. Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Ernest Tritton.
• 182. Sir Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes.
• 183. Sir Reginald Tyrwhitt, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Reginald Tyrwhitt.
• 184. Sir Robert Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Robert Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald.
• 185. Sir Lambert Ward, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Lambert Ward.
• 186. Sir Charles Warde, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Charles Warde.
• 187. Sir Courtenay Warner, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Courtenay Warner.
• 188. Sir Sydney Waterlow, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Sydney Waterlow.
• 189. Sir Henry Webb, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Webb.
• 190. Sir William Welby-Gregory, 4th Baronet – has a redirect of William Welby-Gregory.
• 191. Sir Thomas Woollaston White, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Thomas Woollaston White.
• 192. Sir Herbert Huntington-Whiteley, 1st Baronet – no article for Herbert Huntington-Whiteley.
• 193. Sir Charles William Willink, 2nd Baronet – no article for Charles William Willink.
• 194. Sir William Welby-Gregory, 4th Baronet – no article for William Welby-Gregory.
• 195. Sir Henry Willink, 1st Baronet – no article for Henry Willink.
• 196. Sir Walter Womersley, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Walter Womersley.
• 197. Sir Thomas Worsfold, 1st Baronet – no article for Thomas Worsfold.
• 198. Sir Richard Worsley, 7th Baronet – has a redirect of Richard Worsley.
• 199. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Laming Worthington-Evans.
• 200. Sir Nathaniel Wraxall, 1st Baronet – no article for Nathaniel Wraxall.
• 201. Sir Thomas Wrightson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Thomas Wrightson.

Wowsers, why do those articles have Sir in their titles? Seems un-needed IMO. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know - but KB and BHG seem very eager to keep them like this for some reason.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, as I had already posted Sandstein's talk page, this list is a very useful starting-point. Thank you for providing it.

As I have repeatedly stressed, I don't want the titles kept except disambiguation purposes, and that includes disambiguating redlinks. Before any pages are moved, those checks need to be done, and I see no sign in your list of any such checks having been done. Once those checks have been done, I guess that probably 80% or more of them can be moved ... but the question is which 80%. That's why the rapid-fire naming was a bad idea, but this list is a great idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are to be disamb pages with red links then those redlinks must be for people with proven notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO, members of national parliaments have a presumption of notability, so that covers both peerages and MPs; in other cases such as Albert Bennett, the other links fall into other classes of presumed notability (in the case of the Alfred Bennetts by playing sport at a high enough level). In the case of MPs and peers, some of the many redlinks are already pre-emptively and systematically disambiguated (by middle name, by d.o.b and or d.o.d., or other suffixes or other titles), though some are not. A whatlinkshere on the bare name will find some, but more checks are needed both on wikipedia and elsewhere (e.g. at http://www.leighrayment.com, at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com or http://www.thepeerage.com), or through other sources which document the positions of power and influence held by these oligarchic families. That's why it's a time-consuming process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that MP's are automatically notable. And if you wish to create disamb pages which link to such notable individuals then I am happy for you to do so. However, I would not agree that you should create a disamb page with the "correct form" of the name and a load of redlinks to the 6th, 7th, 8th etc Baronets without proving they are notable.

Does anyone know where User:Choess is? Because I would have thought that I would have had some feedback on this by now.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans

At the moment there is no consensus to topic ban you from anywhere, and anyone trying to impose such a sanction is acting unlawfully. I do, however, see a consensus slowly building to topic ban you and Kittybrewster, possible BHG too, as a temporary measure pending a greater deliberation, preferably by the Arbcom. It may be helpful if you put forward some sound and rational ideas for a solution to the editing impasse you KB and BHG seem to have reached. You are a very useful and competent editor, banning you from any topic would be a detriment to the project, so I hope you have some ideas which will be agreeable to all. Giano (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think there is anything I can add further than the discussion I tried to start on BHG's talkpage and this post on ANI. If there is anything else I can you let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Question that has nothing to do with baronets

You're probably best placed to give a second opinion – do you think Ricky Hatton vs. Paulie Malignaggi and the like ought to exist as separate articles? I can understand why we have separate articles on historic fights like Jack Dempsey vs. Luis Ángel Firpo, but Category:Boxing fights is full of things like this that don't seem to have any particular significance (no major titles changing hands, no records set etc). Someone's obviously put a lot of work into them, so I don't want to wade in and start AFD tagging, but I really can't see why we have them – we don't have articles on every football match etc. – iridescent 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly refreshing! Personally I wouldnt get involved in editing such as article - but that is purely a subjective decision. Its hard to argue against it considering the multiple sources. I suppose its a matter of where do you draw the line. I know that the football (soccer) project have a ruling with regards articles for individual matches - I am not sure what that ruling is but it would probably be good guidance.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Based on community consensensus as found on WP:ANI#Temporary three way topic ban, I am enacting a topic ban on the subject of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on you and Kittybrewster, as well as mandating that BrownHairedGirl not use administrative tools on the same topic.

--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just look VK, Somebody posted this link on the Arb page today Just read through it, just look at the socks that BHG was cohorting with then, supporting her and KB's point of view. There's even old Frank remember him - weren't you supposed to have threatened to murder him - death by email or something? Then he dissapeared before he could provide the evidence, leaving them all looking rather silly. I suspect they all suffered death by checkuser, if the truth be known. What happened to him, didn't he say he was dead or was that "his friend" who died suddenly after being caught sharing Frank's computer? How time marches on, less than 2 years, if only we had known then what we know now. Giano (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All very suspect alright! lol!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Benjamin Flores

I have nominated Benjamin Flores, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Flores. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

VK do not rise to the bait. I have asked here for an univolved admin to deal with the matter . Any coment by you could be misinterpretated, so say nothing. Giano (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and effort.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology/comment

I thought I'd post an apology for my comments at AN regarding my behaviour. Treating a fellow contributor like that was completely unacceptable. I would like to reiterate, however, that I have no POV here. Before this dispute I had never interacted with either you or Kittybrewster before, and I support parts of both sides arguments. However, I think you need to look at your own behaviour - with the way you are treating people, you will eventually piss them off to the point where they don't want to deal with you in any way not involving a block button. Accusing people of sockpuppetry, for example, is over the line (although there was some evidence of bias on his part, regardless). I hope you can accept both the apology and comment in good faith, and we can try and put all this behind us. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, comments noted - clean slate.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

{{UKFlags}}

Regardless of whether the Union Jack should sit next to the link or not—I honestly care not about that particular point—please leave the actual link to Flag of Northern Ireland in the Home Nations section. The point of that section of the template template is to link to those articles for the flags to the current nations in the UK, rather than overly concerning itself with the itty-bitty little flag icon that accompanies it. Northern Ireland is a current part of the United Kingdom, it has an article concerning its current flag or lack of, ergo it is a completely valid link alongside the articles that deal with the current flags for the other UK nations. The historical section link is also more suited to the Ulster Banner article than the Flag of Northern Ireland article as the former deals with the historical flag, while the latter deals more with the present-day situation. Come on, lets try and deal with this in a civil manner, rather than bandying around unnecessary accusations that other editors are treating it like a "joke shop". -- Sabre (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

Hello Vintagekits, good to hear from you again. I'm not so sure about an appeal, I've already tried it . I wouldn't mind so much except for the extraordinary breadth of interpretation of the ban, which has already been stretched over half a century before the beginning of the Troubles. While the ban specifically refers to "the conflict in Northern Ireland", one of the ArbCom members who decided on it told me he considered this to cover any conflict in the northern half of Ireland at any time, which means I even have to think twice about editing articles like Táin Bó Cúailnge! Anyways, how are you? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Worth a try.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. I'm not that bothered about not being allowed to edit articles about the recent conflict; what wrecks my head is how the ban has been extended well beyond its original remit. I took one block for editing human shield to describe the British tactic of taking IRA prisoners along in their trucks to prevent grenade attacks in the Irish War for Independence. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

Yes, that is certainly a good idea. I am in the process of adding a few images to the article. I already managed to get someone to upload a Creative Commons-licensed photo of a ticket, so I'm quite proud of that. I need to find a shop that sells the match ball, though, so that I can add a free image of the ball to the article. All I've found so far is an image of the Finale Capitano version, not the full Finale version :( – PeeJay 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was also planning on doing a full re-wording of the match summary, and I was also going to add a Reaction section. – PeeJay 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, definitely. I'm just downloading the coverage of the match from the internet, so I'll add a section about the opening ceremony in a moment. – PeeJay 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be doing a review of the second half similar to the review of the first half that I did. If you could do a bit about the players reactions and the media's reactions to the match, that would be great. Furthermore, a bit about the financial rewards that came with reaching the final would be superb. – PeeJay 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mate, what happened? I thought you were gonna do some editing to the article this weekend :-( – PeeJay 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Drink, girls, sunshine, BBQ and drink! Irishmen are easily distracted! I'll get onto it mate! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, do what you can when you can. I hope you like the match summary I've done and all the images I added! – PeeJay 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Yes, I am stopping to create, give daily-fight by fight-follow-up to any of the lists. If you check them you will see that all what I did there is not more the same. If you follow my wiki-history you will understand. I was years working in them before bring them to wikipedia, for nothing. At least i have my medical devices and my books: no one can edit them without go to court, hehe =) Thanks for your concern but I think the torch might be passed to somebody else. ~~Io_Wiki2007~~ (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my friend. No, I am not departing, just abandoning the lists that were/are/will be edited (and destroyed) by people that do not understand (or do) the very "complex" of its structure. They are no simply lists... What is not protected or understood will be destroyed. I am a autor of books (copyrighted) and medical devices (patented); I completely know what I say. Hey, You have a friend on me; I included you in my section "Wikipedians that are Leaders". Any question of boxing just let me know. ~~Io_Wiki2007~~ (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ulster banner

I've started a discussion at the Snooker Project. I would appreciate you taking the discussion there because removing the flag has huge repercussions across all snooker articles. It is best to decide on a universal course of action rather than making arbitrary changes all over place. If we have to change it it would be best to use a bot but if editors have started removing the flag it makes the process much more difficult. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll pop of and add my two peneth worth. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenhoff

I think you should have a look at this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Charlie_Zelenoff.2FVintagekits Apparently I am your alias! --LiamE (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It was nice of LordZolton to inform me that I was being discussed. Its the first time I have been reported to ANI (and I have been reported A LOT!) for not holding the same opinion as another editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldnt quite work out what he was reporting you about, nor why he brought my name up. I think it was that he took your statements to mean that you would recreate the Charlie Z article, but clearly that isnt what you wrote. All very odd. --LiamE (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per closing admins suggestion I have recreated the Zelenoff article here as a user page. Feel free to add and edit it yourself and if you come across any news articles or of sources please add them. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

You think the pro British editors try pushing POV you aint seen nothing yet the yanks will have a shit storm surprised not already reverted. I had this with them on this article when I made an attempt to make it NPOV but no joy. And this is a GA against the criteria for a GA which I also tried to get delisted but you might as well be talking to the wall. BigDunc 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Template:September 11 arbcom This is a contentious subject and you should probably tread carefully - i.e. more carefully than you usually do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up SS? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made here. Bastun 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are an absolute dick! Talk about trying to cause hassle and drama where there isnt any.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Vk, I'd reckon you are being too generous in your assessment of our friend. Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloody dole scroungers

Did you know that being in prison is grounds for being described as unemployed, even if you're actually self employed as a farmer. All prisoners are officially workshy slobs, especially that Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years actively avoiding work the scrounger!!!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on dole scroungers but the first article found by wikipedia search is New Age travellers. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ey up Charlie

When are you fighing again? Try not to get tangled up in the ropes next time aye? Get your next fight and a couple of others under your belt and you'll probably have achieved your dream of your own Misplaced Pages article!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've first gotta get this degree course out fo the way and then I can really focus on my acting career, eh, er, sorry! I meant boxing career. However, UCLA are being real a-holes about my situation and are not giving me enough time to train! Z-Train! All aboard!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seamus Coleman

Hi VK. Well basically, first of all, the coverage is trivial. "Player X gets transferred to Everton". "Player X scored a goal for Sligo". etc. So, looking at WP:ATHLETE, this hinges on one thing - has he played in a fully professional league? And, looking at previous AFDs on players in this league, it looks like this isn't one, and therefore fails the criteria. Bollocks? Very possibly, it's one of those areas that's a bit grey. But going on previous AfDs, and consensus here, I had to close it as delete. Feel free to whack it over to WP:DRV if you want - no need to ask me again. Black Kite 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Give me one reliable source that says it's a fully professional league and I'll reverse the AfD on the spot. Still not convinced by the coverage, though. Black Kite 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully professional leagues

Hi, you may like to add a comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Definition of Fully Pro League. I think the current 'definition' of fully-professional is flawed/not fully considered and inconsistent with WP:ATH, and the list of fully pro lges is largely unsourced. Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David O'Connor (footballer)? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

League of Ireland players

Why don't you do anything to improve these articles then? Most of them have been sitting there for two years, with no references, nothing to back them up. Complete crap which doesn't belong on any encyclopedia. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the articles are shit! no doubt about that - however, that is a separate issue to nobility.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

It seems that you are having trouble remaining civil towards other users. If you refer to other users as tossers or moronic, you will be blocked.

On a separate note, you might want to stop citing that BBC article as "proof" that the Premier Division is fully professional, as it is directly contradicted by Shamrock Rovers' own website, which notes that they are part-time. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

.

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this admin is in a dispute with me with regards the notability of football players, see here and here and should not have blocked me when they are in direct dispute. Also I am insulting the editor himself I am referring to his comments as "moronic" I am not calling him personally a moron. I think the is a pretty big difference and I choose my words very carefully. This is a totally childish attempt to silence an experienced editor with an opposing view and an abuse of thier admin tools.

Decline reason:

The block reason matches up with your actions and our policies. As someone not involved in any dispute with you I agree this block is valid. You even engaged in personal attacks in your unblock request. When this block has expired, please refrain from acting abusive towards other editors. Chillum 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Actually, I am not in "direct dispute" with you - I have not actually replied to any of your posts, until after you were blocked. If you read the discussion, I was actually responding to other users (Nfitz and BigDunc). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And continuing to use such language is really not appropriate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposing views in the same dispute within the same conversation! Interesting position to take against an experienced editor. In fact I would call it completely moronic and totally counterproductive.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we have different views is irrelevant. Your treatment of other users (note that until I warned you, you had not directed any of your insults at myself), mostly Jmorrison230582 (such as calling him a tool this morning), is the issue here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is most definately not "irrelevant" actually. Its pretty feckin pertinant actually. Just look at the timeline of your edits to show your agenda! And now you are trying to ad more into that mix to cover your back. Actually if you follow my edit history you will see that Jmorrison230582 and I are having an ongoing and open discussion - we are not petty enough to allow a couple of "industrial words" get in the way of a proper discussion. You only had your nose put out of joint because I said your comments were moronic - which they were. Grow up you child! Learn the difference between being called a moron and having your comments being called moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment here, I think the "industrial words" have pretty much been in one direction. "Moronic", "tossers", etc. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What total crap!. ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

• personal attacks removed

You were blocked for being abusive to others. Since you are using your talk page to continue to do so I have removed your ability to edit the talk page. You are really being out of line by attacking people willy nilly like this. Did you really expect abuse in your unblock request to lead to an unblock? Did you think that tossing insults at everyone on your page would be productive? When your block expires please don't be abusive to Wikipedians. Chillum 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can Chillum and Number 57 please provide clarification as to what exactly the block was for and reasons for the decline because its it all seems pretty wooly at the moment.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This has already been answered. Chillum 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abusiveness and incivility

You have been blocked for incivility and abusiveness many times in the past, and your current actions do nothing to endear you to the community. However sending threatening emails to Misplaced Pages members just makes matters worse for yourself. I was going to recommend your 24 hour block be extended to a week to allow you to cool down, and due to your history, however after having sent that email to myself give me one good reason I shouldn't block you for a longer period of time? Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A. The initial block is ridiculous - the admin that blocked me has a COI and shouldnt have been involved at all - not the blocking admins next action was to close an AfD to suit his POV and opposed to mine! Just ingore that though because ye are all admins and stick together!! Ssssshhh! Didnt happen! B. When is the last time that I had a legitimate block placed on my for incivility?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now Vintage I have removed your ability to send e-mail through Misplaced Pages due to your abuse of this tool. Chillum 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? What threat did I make? How was I abusive?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The email you decided to send myself, which you still haven't responded to above. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-enabled you talk privileges and email functionality to allow you to respond. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in that email was abusive or threatening! You will get a response when all of my queries are responded to in a satificatory manner! get in line!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, since you are sending emails to Misplaced Pages users with lines such as "You've made an enemy on wiki for as long as I remain standing!", I see no option but to extend your block for an inability to be civil to other users and work within the project. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has my block been extended by 24 hours?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your block was extended due to the abusive comments on your talk page, then once your talk page was disabled the abusive email you sent. I read it. Your initial block was due to being abusive towards others. Now that you can edit your page again I suggest you do not use it to be abusive towards others. If you don't understand what is and what is not abusive behavior then we have a problem. Chillum 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ! What planet are you living one? You are right - I dont see what was abusive - please explain because at the moment I feel like punching a whole in the computer screen.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that you do not realize this post is abusive towards others. When I find myself so angry at Misplaced Pages I can't control myself I just log off and do something else. Chillum 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to your continued incivility to other users, and inability to work within the guidelines of the project, I have reblocked you for a period of 1 month. You are free to return to editing Misplaced Pages once your block has expired, but if you continue your communication patterns then a further block may be warranted. Due to your record of abusive comments and incivility to other users on these talk pages and via email, your ability to use both of those features has also been disabled. Should you decide you wish to contest his block, you may ask another user you already have external contact with to put a request in for you. I am also willing to unblock you in the event of an apology for your comments and behaviour over the last few days. Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)