Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 24 May 2007

AfD nomination of Terence John Arbuthnot

An article that you have been involved in editing, Terence John Arbuthnot, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination). Thank you. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to the automated message, this is not sniping at you - be aware that I did !vote "keep" on the last Arbuthnot - but this is nominated for technical reasons as I'm unable to find sources for the decoration. As I say on the discussion, if you can provide a source for it consider the nomination withdrawn. I appreciate that it wasn't you who added the offending information in this particular case so you may not know where Phoe found it but hopefully it's listed somewhere — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not regard you as invariably antagonistic towards articles I have created or contributed towards. You weigh things in the balance perfectly reasonably. No problem on that score. Furthermore you are civil. And you advised me of the afd. The source of the Order of Leopold of Belgium is Burke's Peerage - which I have just looked in, in order to verify it. - Kittybrewster (talk)

Unfortunately someone's now put a delete on it, which means by arcane Misplaced Pages rules I can't now withdraw it unless/until they change their mind, but I'll leave a note that (assuming that is what the Burke's entry says - someone will need to check as otherwise the usual suspects may claim you made it up) I have no problem with an admin speedy-closing as keep — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW I've removed Sandy Arbuthnot from Category:Arbuthnot family - since he's a fictional character, I don't think you can claim him... As far as I'm aware he wasn't based on a real Arbuthnot so there doesn't seem to be a link that way — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he was based on Aubrey Herbert. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your email, and agree with your position. I have blocked Vintagekits 48 hours, given the severity of the attack and the fact that he has been blocked thrice previously (all in this calendar year) for violating WP:NPA. My request to you is that you refrain from responding in any way - please just let it go so the issue doesn't escalate. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked. The blocking itself should be warning enough to Vintagekits to mind our policies.

There are widespread concerns about the Arbuthnot articles, given the paucity of verifiable information in them. I would not call them "lies" but they have a strong smell of unfiltered family history. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone on earth has a family history. It is not possible to detach people from their families. Some people have families with countless notables, other families have none. Thats just the way it is. Where there is a stub on Misplaced Pages that interests you, why not attempt some research on it (not just via the Internet), otherwise, why take an interest at all? David Lauder 11:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a family history. Few families have one or more people in their history who are notable; fewer have a family history that is notable in itself. Some of the Arbuthnot articles are clearly notable; others display little or not notability, and have no place in a general interest encyclopedia. And I am sure you aware of Misplaced Pages policies such as verifiability and avoiding a conflict of interest, and what Misplaced Pages is not.

I have created my fair share of stubs on notable topics (and indeed expanded my fair share of stubs into longer articles). If it were as easy as doing a bit of research (internet or otherwise) and writing up the articles, I suspect that it would happen and the article would be kept, if the research demonstrated in a verifiable way that the subject was notable (see what happened to Harriet Arbuthnot, when someone did the necessary work). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "Few families have one or more people in their history who are notable; fewer have a family history that is notable in itself." Is this your personal opinion? If I were Winston's Churchill's son contributing articles on him and his families would that be a conflict of interest? The thing is, this broadside on the Arbuthnot families just stinks. Its that simple. I never rely upon Misplaced Pages rules as a cover for my activities. I justify them by logic. David Lauder 14:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is my personal opinion. Have I represented it as anything else? Do hold a personal opinion that is contrary to that opinion - that is, that many families have one or more people in their history who are notable, and/or that many families have a history that is notable in itself?

Yes, if you were Winston Churchill's son contributing articles on him and his families that could be a conflict of interest - particularly if you displayed a burning interest in the history of that particular set of families to the exclusion of other topics, to the extent of maintaining exernal websites on the topic, and kept adding stubs on non-notable members of the wider family. And there would be a further problem if you were contributing snippets of information gleaned from a private family documents or from private research without citations to external and independent sources of verification. That is the point.

(Apologies to Kittybrewster for taking up so much of his talk page.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not fussed about that. I will blank it soon. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

That campaigns against you/articles you have commenced, continues. Regards, David Lauder 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does clicking on John Bernard Arbuthnot lead to Beachcomber? JB Arbuthnot had an extremely long entry in the 1945 edition of Who's Who. Regards, David Lauder 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

..a great pity neither of you had the energy to add it then! Giano 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My question was not addressed to you. David Lauder 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a vert gentlemanly comment! Giano 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are not talking to me either, but if you read Beachcomber you will see that he was an early contributor to the column. If you read the version before it was redirected,, which is still there in the edit history, you will see that the article said little more of note about him.

If there are good sources that contain more information about him and demonstrate that he was indeed notable in his own right, please go ahead and expand his article. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say, from an ordinary observer's point of view that he was indeed of some notability. I admit he wasn't a fashion designer, or a pop star who sold several hundred thousand CDs of utter bilge, but there you are. Standards of notability on Misplaced Pages take on new meanings all the time. Regards, David Lauder 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. A musician who sells hundreds of thousands of CDs is pretty notable to the many thousands of people who paid good money for the; and it rather depends on how much impact the said fashion designed had - Coco Chanel?

There was a fairly long discussion at WP:AFD about whether he was notable or not, the general upshot of which was that his "Beachcomber" connection was notable, but nothing else appeared to be (born, married, had children, died; Major in the Scots Guards who fought in South Africa and WWI; ADC to the Governor of Hong King and MVO; journalist who founded a column, writing as "Beachcomber"; banker at an unspecified bank at some unspecified point). If you can add anything new - why did he get the MVO? did he do anything interesting in the Boer War or the Great War? did he do anything interesting in Hong Kong? what else did he do as a journalist? - please go ahead. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If it humours you to believe so, then continue in your delusion, but many editors are now very wary of Kittybrewster's aggrandisement of his relations. I shall shortly be suggesting that Kittybrewster is put on a parole of having to cite page numbers and ISBNs of almost every verb he writes. He will not be allowed to cite his own web-sites or books published by his own relatives unless they follow the same guideline. Short of banning Kittybrewster completely I can see no alternative to restore trust in anything he writes. Giano 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two errors you are aware of. I can't think of more. First Memories states that George Bingham Arbuthnot was a General. In fact he was a Major-General which is a kind of General. Second Memories refers to Rockfleet which I found from other sources was in fact Rockfleet Castle. You thought that unlikely and I lacked the confidence to be certain those other sources were correct. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not think - I knew it was impossible, anyone with any knowledge of social history can pick that book apart at the seems. It forms the basis for all your pages. They are, like the book, flawed. Now you and all your supporters can shout, scream and kick but nothing can change that. Giano 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify- George Bingham Arbuthnot ended his career in the HEIC as a Colonel. During his retirement he was awarded the honorary rank of Major-General on 31 December, 1861 (from 25 March, 1862 edition of the London Gazette). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly a delightful chap. How will you manage with ISBN's given that they are a relatively new addition in the book world? David Lauder 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is a problem for Kittybrewster, not me. We will not be trusting any more pages by Kittybrewster's Granny. Oh and lease do not call me "chap" I did attend a British public school and have many friends who also attended them also but "chap" is a little passè, almost as though one is trying to prove something - impresses the Americans though no doubt! Giano 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• And who is "we"? Do you speak for everyone on Misplaced Pages? I am not interested in what school you went to but I am interested in common decency and good manners. David Lauder 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then employ some and behave yourself! Giano 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen Who's Who 1945. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have it here but couldn't locate his WP page. I see now its been wiped. David Lauder 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I provided a link above to the most recent old version of the article before it was changed into a redirect. You can edit that old version just like a normal article and save it, thus resurrecting the old versionl; however, it is likely to be deleted quick-smart if you do not expand it first. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster/Notebook - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories need to be neutralised while article is in user space. I had a go, but it doesn't seem to have worked. Maybe someone else could take a look, or just delete them altogether for now. Problem solved. Tyrenius 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please, as a courtesy to other users, could you use edit summaries. It saves having to check any alterations you make to things on a watchlist if you simply put in basic things like 'adding source' or 'spelling correction'. It also makes the article history more useful if epople can see at a glance who's doing what. If you can't be bothered doing that, do what I often do and simply copy your new text into your edit summary box.--Doc 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the editor who thinks Evie Greene married Terence John Arbuthnot per your edit on Terry's afd. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, she did marry Ernest Kennaway Arbuthnot, so you probably can legitimately claim her as one of yours — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got that wrong. So many Arbuthnots. Anyway, please use edit summaries.--Doc 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Dick

Don't be one Giano 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)