User talk:Kittybrewster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Old Summer Palace 2 Giuseppe Castiglione (1829-1908) 3 Arbuthnot Heraldry 4 User:Vintagekits 5 HMS Oxford 6 Sir Knights 7 Reference Desk 8 You know how to do this

[edit] Old Summer Palace

The Yuanmingyuan is on my watch list; and so I learned of your most recent edit. When I clicked on "(diff)," I wasn't expecting to find anything especially interesting; but I was drawn up short. Initially, I thought there must be some mistake -- but no. Your edit was precisely correct, of course.

So now I'm curious: How did you happen to notice that this article was linked to the wrong Castiglione? --Tenmei (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Castiglione (1829-1908)

The dates don't make sense. "He started exhibiting his paintings in Paris and Turin in 1869", but he got a medal in 1861 in Paris. Refs (as in inline citations) would be good! See WP:REFB. Tyrenius (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to complete the ref details. I've done it for the first one.[1] Also with EL, so they're not just numbers. Tyrenius (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, DYK Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_March_21. Ty 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbuthnot Heraldry

This might be of interest; http://www.heraldry-online.org.uk/arbuthnot/arbuthnot-arms.htm --Heraldic (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vintagekits

Hi Kittybrewster. While I know you feel strongly about the above editor, this, this and this are just being vindictive and aren't helping matters. Please don't do this - Alison ^❤ 21:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he is banned and therefore not allowed to edit and that his edits should be reverted. - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not allowed to edit mainspace. He's allowed edit his talk page, especially if he's discussing block/unblock issues - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The table on boxers is not a permitted edit for a banned editor or an indefinitely blocked editor (and he is banned). - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KB, my AGF here is wearing somewhat thin right now. "There but for the grace of God" ... and all that. Please leave the situation be, as persisting at what you're doing will just cause another Troubles war, and things have been relatively peaceful of late - Alison ^❤ 22:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KB, you really should listen to Alison: your involvement will not help at all. I share your concern that an indef block and community ban are not being properly enforced, but this is best left to the uninvolved admins who are already on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Delighted to hear it. I will rely on your judgement as ever. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers, I merely asked Vk for info on boxing articles. VK didn't try to edit the boxing articles himself. I didn't mean to cause such a commotion. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion. I counsel taking a deep breath before commenting! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would counsel not commenting at all. The community at large needs to decide on this and input from those that Vk have a particular issue with (and you and I top that list) will only galvanize further Troubles related ill-feeling.

Anyway, you can see where this is going a mile away. If Vk and his sponsor are persistent enough in their requests, he will be unblocked, be it now or in the future. The first step was to dispute there was a "ban", once that is done all they need is one admin who is willing to ascertain the "consensus" in a favorable manner. That is when the real fun and games will begin: will someone step up spark the next round of Giano vs authority by disputing the unblock? If not, then Giano successfully reinforces his image as champion of the little man and shows how he can solve a dispute that ArbCom couldn't. If so? Ding, ding, off we go again. Rockpocket 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [Sorry to use your page for a comment to Rockpocket, Kittybrewster—I was in too much of a hurry. I've moved it to his page, where it obviously goes better. ] Bishonen | talk 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

I broadly agree with you Rockpocket. Major Bonkers is wrong to equate Lauder with vk. Vk is being used to some extent by Giano. Everybody seems scared of Giano's caustic wit and even Arbcom has not figured out how to deal with him. Lauder is very passionate but generally civil (and seems to be banned for a long past legal threat by Sussexman who may even not be the same person). Vk is passionate but not invariably civil. If he gets unblocked (and everybody knows I think he should not) I hope the preventive Damocletian sword will be that any block results in an automatic perma-ban. My principal reason is that he seems not to have it in him to take responsibility for his transgressions not least because of his numerous apologists. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can keep Vk in check it is Giano, especially when Giano has something invested in seeing Vk turn into a valued contributor. While one could argue the toss on whether Vk deserves to edit, ultimately what really matters is whether or not it will lead to more problems. I don't think it will be too much of a problem however it works out for Vk. Therefore, the ultimate result of this little campaign, with regards to Vk, isn't particularly concerning to me. The problem is going to come from the fact that Giano is involved (and, to clarify per the comment above, thats not necessarily through any particular fault of his own) which I why I would rather the Troubles editors steer well clear. The Giano conflict meeting The Troubles conflict would be a perfect storm of drama that I intend to not be involved in and I urge as many others do do likewise. Rockpocket 10:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not mention Lauder in the same breath as Vintagekits, Lauder is the banned and confirmed sockpocket of Sussexman, and we all know the story, and I would advise you not to got there. You seem to be unaware Kittybrewster, that this is a collaborative project - that is a place, where one has to cope and get on with people from all walks of life and backgrounds. While no doubt you pages on your relations are interesting to your friends etc., many others, such as Vintagekits, write on a variety of subjects. Sadly when a group such as yours, tends to write only on their own class and politics, it will find it only encounters a very narrow field - those who support and those who do not support. Therefore that you encounter people like VK at their most belligerent and upset should not be a surprise to you. Perhaps, you should extend your interests beyond your relations and politics, and those of your friends, and actually look at some of the sterling good work that VK and many of those wishing to see him unblocked, have done here, on other subjects. You may be surprised. The snide personal attacks on me, often to be found found on the pages of you and your friends are as water off a duck's back to me. In fact, I advise you to follow my example and try and see the good in everybody. I don't share VK's politics or views, but I respect his rights to hold those views, you and your group like to mention your elitist and privileged education on your pages, I doubt VK was so fortunate, so it would be nice to see some evidence of your education, good manners and tolerance, all virtues which those schools are so proud of fostering because at the moment I have seen precious few examples of anything but a nationalistic, snobbish and narrow-minded attitude which is not compatible to either a collegiate atmosphere or collaborating on a multinational project. Giano (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow; Now that's what I call a response. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a constructive or collaborative one however. Full of SchoolMarm Giano's usual acerbic generalisations, stock phrases, nonsense and assumptions. Vintagekits and Lauder are often equated and compared with each other, have often crossed swords and have recently been compared again elsewhere. I rub along just fine with people from all walks of life and all backgrounds so Guiano is wrong on that one. He suggests I follow his example and try to see the good in everybody. This assumes that he does so and that I do not, that his example is somehow a good one and would suit me (although most of the examples he sets would not suit me at all). He makes generalised statements about me and "my group" or "my friends" about my (or our) edits, articles, relations and politics. He accuses me or them or us of an attitude which makes further assumptions with which I do not identify. On the evidence to date I think he may be right in saying that I probably benefitted from an education that Vk did not enjoy. But Vk is clearly not devoid of intelligence and it is right that his record be examined. As for Lauder=Sussexman, I remain in doubt. I am sure they know each other and perhaps have used the same computer. But checkuser seems to me sometimes to embrace different people. I think Lauder has had socks but I am not sure that he is Sussexman. I simply don't know. But Giano telling me not to go there is just him being bossy, bullying and didactic and is not of interest to me.

As for you, Guiano, please stay off my page. You are not being constructive or helpful and I am advised to delete your nonsense without responding to it. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I do equate Vintagekits with David Lauder; however, I do think it unjust that DL, whose record is far less disruptive than Vintagekits', has somehow managed to wrangle himself a more onerous banning. To that extent, when I see the cause of Vintagekits promoted, I think it a useful corrective to link the cases. As for the rest of the 'discussion', above, Rockpocket's advice - leave AN/I well alone - seems the most sensible; given that the passions aroused by this topic are liable to spiral out of control (again), I've now suggested on AN/I that the whole matter is dealt with by the ArbCom. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That won't be taken up. Giano wants to control the whole issue. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, you are quite welcome to an input, so long as you are well behaved and don't try to "needle" him, as you are attempting to do to me with your poor spelling "Guiano" Never mind. Giano (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So kind. Yet another false assumption. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Oxford

Two is the answer, I've added to HMS Oxford's page if you want the general details, but feel free to ask if you want any more specific information. ttfn, Benea (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Knights

It's wikistyle *not* to include Sir et al in an article name. See Winston Churchill and John A. Macdonald. Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk

Your expertise would be most helpful in responding to a question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities for May 17, specifically "What if they hadn't refused a title?". Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You know how to do this

...and I don't. Please can you set up re-directs so that General Anders and Wladislaw Anders reach Władysław Anders. Many thanks! --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)