User talk:Black Kite/Archive 95

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Black Kite, in the recent edit here "{{In the news/footer" was removed. Best, CMD (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, got it as soon as I posted it but then my browser decided to hang while I was fixing it! Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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 https://www.burkespeerage.com/search.php 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 Kellycrak88 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Burke's peerage isn't the problem. Adding details of information about non-notable children is. Black Kite (talk) 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). Fram (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2024 (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. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2024 (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... Fram (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You'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'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. Kellycrak88 (talk) 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 WP:BLPPRIVACY. All that is required is "he is married to X and has two children". Black Kite (talk) 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:

Peerage of the United Kingdom

Peerage of Great Britain

If you don't remove all the DOBs then I remain open to others for consenus. Kellycrak88 (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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. Fram (talk) 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:

1. "Page 31: "...the owner (can) claim ennoblement by the "nobilitating effect" of the "NOBLE quality" of the feudal title on which the land is held. The title of "Baron of So-and-So" or "Baroness of So-and-So" can be adopted... there is a right to relevant baronial additaments to the coat of arms. Baronial robes can be worn. The baron can, in theory, hold a baron's court, appoint a baron baillie to be judge, and exercise a minor civil and criminal jurisdiction."" (PDF). Scottish Law Commission Government Website. 16 June 2024. Retrieved 16 June 2024.

Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh right, baronial robes can be worn, that changes everything... Fram (talk) 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. Fram (talk) 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? Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you might recall from here that there is an IP who has been making WP:FORUM violations for months. Well they're back.[1] Please take a look at the edit history of Talk:Dominik Mysterio and Talk:The Judgment Day to see how extensive the problem is. — Czello ^(music) 11:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sigh. 6 months this time. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm sure they'll move over to another IP soon enough, though... — Czello ^(music) 12:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP - second block in the last few days.[2] Doug Weller talk 08:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've rev-deleted the X links, we don't need any of that shite. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Mind if i ask for a single clarification? Trade (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Trade No problem, although I will be logging off shortly (it is 11pm here). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain that one of the policies listed in the discussion states that discussions about banner pages should take place on the Wikiproject talk page. But your comment says that it needs to be taken up on the article talk page instead Trade (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in this case, because the dispute isn't really a Wikiproject one; the issue is whether the banner is relevant and/or suitable for this page. The WikiProject page would be suitable for more general discussions on banner placement. Or alternatively the 2010 RfC could be revisited, especially as I think it's somewhat out of date now (we are much tighter on BLP than we were then). Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your close as well. I have no issues with it apart from a factual inaccuracy that you added here. There was a discussion before the ANI thread, see Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#WikiProject LGBT studies. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I missed that because it was so far up the page. I'll fix that. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem with you collapsing my comment- but consistency is good. That whole thread is a buffet of WP:NOTAFORUM violations (random off-topic comments, jokes, venting etc.) so the correct course of action might have been to collapse it all, or collapse a lot more. No trout, but some chips (I like chips). Cheers Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I was just trying to get it down to the basic issues. After all, if we could say "X newspaper occasionally prints stuff that is rubbish" we could probably expand that to nearly every newspaper in the UK. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had a handful of thanks since posting this. I'm thinking of asking at AN if what you said has consensus support amongst admins. Not to seek any sort of sanction against you or DrKay (I've never had any reason to think you're not a good/effective admin) but just to clarify if what you said is indeed an unwritten rule applied by the admin corps - if it is I'm surprised but I'd like to know. So before I do that I just want to check if you're absolutely sure of your position on that. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Btw, what I said at AN3 was more combative than i should have been. Sorry about that. I was just a little shocked at the time to be honest. DeCausa (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem! I think it's just common sense more than anything else - you've got a drive-by editor inserting unsourced OR into an FA, and someone trying to keep it out. I can't ever see a situation in which they should be sanctioned for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to look. A couple of things we might want to take forward to any AN discussion; is a "drive-by" editor an official thing here, and if so, what is the opposite of a drive-by editor? I've probably been one for the majority of my 200,000 edits. I had no idea it gave you fewer rights to expect others to treat you fairly and abide by policy. Common sense is a very dangerous rationale to use for administrative decisions in my opinion. It was common sense among white people for a very long time that black people could be bought and sold as slaves, for example. I definitely prefer a rationale based on policy and community consensus. I don't think that an FA should be exempt from normal editing practices, in the absence of a community consensus to that effect. (I know there's a procedure for leniency for TFA, but this is not relevant here.) The FAC process isn't perfect and we do get some clunkers promoted sometimes. The principle that (generally speaking) "anyone can edit" and the prohibition on edit-warring are the most important things in a wiki. The behaviour of edit-warring, being an admin, and issuing a templated warning, is in my opinion a highly worrying intersection behaviorally, and I was surprised you didn't pick up on that. I don't therefore think that you made the right decision there, but so it goes. See you at AN, maybe. John (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:AN#Is reverting alleged OR from an FA exempt from the 3RR brightline? DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User SinisterUnion and user Fa30sp can be the same person, regarding the discussion about the first edition or not of the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. Obviously there a slight possibility or potential for it. I am not entirely conviced anyway. Do you remember blocking Fa30sp as I had noted to you it? Leaving a message on SinisterUnion talk page and getting no response lets my reflect, I little bit. More users (very likely by the info they post) can bring it to be the same person. Regards. Island92 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• There is a distinct possibility that is the case, you would have to open a WP:SPI though. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  That said, the discussion now you closed on the Project Wiki Football has gone on for weeks and weeks. Thank you for having closed it, I had had enough of it, honestly. Moreover, some same information are given in the respective talk page of the article where you can read previous Fa30sp comments and more recently SinisterUnion comments. For the time being I just want to wait. Let's see how it pans out with SinisterUnion. Island92 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  SinisterUnion has already started posting the same things on the respective talk page of the tournament just because the other discussion was closed. Island92 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've closed that as well. If SU keeps this up they may, unfortunately, end up in the same place as Fa30sp. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Understood. Island92 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Stable as in IP, that is. 136.53.20.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who you blocked a year ago, continues to vandalize, and probably can be given a year or two off at this point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)