Talk:Blackhall Manor/Archive 1

Untitled
There is no reaason to speak of the Achtriochtan estate in this article. Also, "Lord" implies membership of the peerage, which does not appear to be the case.

Weird comment indeed! This estate is only mentioned with respect to an 18th century family estate decision, and the word "Lord" is only used in connection with those of the Shaw Stewart family who were "Lord Lieutenants" and implies strictly nothing about the peerage.85.168.76.255 (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Individual section on the 27th baron removed to this site endidro (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Blackhall is now resident in the UK. 92.20.184.5 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Reinstated cv of 27th baron; this issue was resolved in 2013; quote "The debate was closed on 20 April 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Barony of Blackhall." Problem concerning cut and paste has been resolved by reediting as requested. Problem concerning personal knowledge not clear Coat of arms not been repasted Endidro (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have launched an arbitration request to request removal of Justlettersandnumbers from eidting this site.Endidro (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO COPYRIGHT ISSUES. WHY THIS ONGOING HARASSMENT?Endidro (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Article concerns
The article has been blanked by another editor for copyright concerns. There also appear to be issues regarding WP:COI, as well as WP:OWNERSHIP by a series of perhaps related accounts. As for the individual's notability, there has thus far been no support via WP:RELIABLE sources; please see. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

All of these issues were cleared up in 2013; so this new initiative appears to be ongoing harrassment by Wiki editors who are letting personal opinion cloud their objectivity about notability during two years of trench warfare. At all events, we shall permit the use of our material under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) as requested, and the Wiki organisation shall be informed by e-mail of this as instructed.Endidro (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , how do you know what happened in 2013? You have been on Wikipedia for ten hours. Please be careful to avoid WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Please also confirm that you understand that Wikipedia accounts are for individual, not collective, use (your statement "we shall permit …" above implies shared use).
 * If permission to use the text at http://mapage.noos.fr/rgillespi1/gillespie.html is sent to OTRS, please put a note here to say so, so that I know to look for it. However, please be aware that there is no guarantee that any part of the content will be used. Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources, and Mr. Gillespie's personal history of the Shaw-Stewart family is neither of those things. What is principally missing here is any semblance of a reliable source that confirms that this Barony is notable. I note particularly that neither The Heraldry Society of Scotland nor The Scottish Castles Association, in their discussions of matters relating directly to Mr. Gillespie and Blackhall Manor, make any mention of a "Baron of Blackhall". I'm also faintly curious to know how Mr. Gillespie became "27th Baron" before the death of Sir Houston Mark Shaw-Stewart, 11th Baronet Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall, co. Renfrew, and how he was able to do so in preference to Sir Ludovic Houston Shaw-Stewart, to whom the title would presumably have passed by inheritance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You are rude, unprofessional, stupid and wasting my time. Scrap the article. Happy now?92.20.185.75 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Following OTRS, I am now returning some of the original content to the article, which was been inexplicably removed; all of the reconstituted content appears in the accepted web source, but is otherwise worded.79.67.100.189 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That the content of someone's personal peacock page has been released under a licence that would allow its use in Wikipedia resolves the previous copyright problem. It does not guarantee or imply in any way that the content is suitable for this project or that any part of it will be used here. Wikipedia is built on what is written in independent reliable sources. Mr. Gillespie's account of his own importance is neither independent nor reliable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The words "personal peacock page" belie that your convictions have unprofessionally taken precedence over your objectivity. Your function is not to promote your personal opinions; your snide remarks about the baronial succession show that you are occupying yourself with questions which are absolutely none of your business; your systematic and tyrannical destruction of the posted article over the past 4 years, despite the 2013 decisions which found against your type of aggression all show your lack of objectivity and so, your inaptitude to fulfil the role which Wiki has entrusted to you. You ask questions which had already been answered in the original text with proofs, but your blind, destructive bloodlust to bring this article down for reasons that probably concern your own existential problems kicked them into oblivion. The latest version of the article had removed all bio information to the current baron so that you would finally shut up; the language had been reworded to avoid copyright issues and the copyright was submitted so that you would finally shut up too; it gave valid historical information and retraced a full history of ownership of a Scottish royal barony since 1395 including persons referred to in other Wiki articles; there are few other baronies able to do this.

I need to find in the Wiki organisation an objective arbitrator whom I can trust, because you are not trustworthy and you are biased, in addition to being disqualifid by your rudeness79.67.100.189 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC).


 * , what can be written about the Barony of Blackhall in Wikipedia is determined by the sources available, and not by one person's high opinion of himself. Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind, and and various sock-puppets and IPs have been relentlessly attempting to promote Robert Gillespie here; they should stop.
 * If you are able to identify independent reliable sources which could be used to expand the article, please list them here, on this talk page. Because of your patent conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from editing the article itself.
 * If you want to attract the attention of an administrator you can use the template Admin help, but please read the documentation before doing so – it lists some other options for requesting help. If you ask for admin help, your request should specify what administrator task you want carried out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This one-page article was posted in 2012. The article has local historical information concerning feudal barony since the middle ages in this part of Renfrewshire; the barony was created by King Robert II in 1395, and the first caput, Blackhall Manor remains Paisley's oldest dwelling. The current baron is the most recent of 27 since 1395, fully researched by Janet Bolton of the Royal Stewart Society, as has always been mentioned in the footnotes. The Scottish Lord Lyon King of Arms made the current baron of Blackhall infeft in 2002; a footnote extract from the Edinburgh Gazette in the original article has since been removed by others. In fact, after many, many changes to satisfy what are claimed to be Wiki guidelines, the whole article has disappeared, and has been completely overwritten.

The article existed virtually without problem for a few years until complaints were posted about article quality and the notability of the current baron. In 2012, a request was lodged for speedy deletion of the baron’s bio. The complaint boxes were eventually removed when, as instructed, we transfered the current baron's bio information in 2013 from an individual bio page to the Barony of Blackhall article.

Someone called Justlettersandnumbers disputed the baron's bio again in 2015, long after the Wiki resolution in 2013. To satisfy this person, the baron’s bio was totally removed, despite the 2013 resolution. He put up boxes complaining about copyright and challenged us about knowing the baron despite the fact that all information came from a public website and from Who’s Who.

Recently, the exchange became acrimonious: Justlettersandnumbers made personal remarks in the talk pages concerning the baron, using thinly veiled inuendo; calling the website a “peacock” page; asking pointedly why the previous baron’s son is not the current baron. Justlettersandnumbers has continually modified, and finally, removed the article without warning or ado. He or she has made threats if we attempted to reestablish the article following our complaints; he or she now wants to know our personal names!

For four years, we have worked to resolve continual challenges issued to us principally, we think, by this person. Every time we resolved the most recent criticism, another appeared in total disregard of the article’s previous Wiki authorizations and clear historical interest for Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the City of Paisley. This uncanny game goes on and on, and to arrive at this final destruction despite the research and care that went into it to meet these never-ending so-called guidelines looks now more to arise more from Justlettersandnumbers wish to harass.Endidro (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

COI (October 2015)
Knowledge of Stewart and Shaw-Stewart family history and of the history of the manor is entirely based on the publically available cited essays by Bolton and Olar as shown the base: ''The Place of Blackhall – the Story of eight centuries," Janet S. Bolton, Stewart Society Journal-Vol. XVIII N° 3; The Stewarts of Blackhall and Ardgowan," J.L. Olar BA, Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies: The Octavian Society, 1997–2000; From Royal Stewart to Shaw Stewart," Janet S. Bolton, Nenufra Publications 1989''.

No information is left on the page concerning the current baron, Gillespie, because, despite permission given to transfer his bio to this site in 2013, it was removed following the persistent harassment. All public information on him is available on the French edition of Who's Who, which had been cited in an original link, which had disappeared for no known reason.

Other information was initially supplied through an early Gillespie site which was posted in 2001, established with Scots clan interests in the name by the current baron and by others, but little of this information remains on the Wiki page despite the recently obtained copyright authorisation.

There have been four individual contributors working together having Scottish interests, particularly in Renfrewshire, to protect the Wiki page, working collectively as Endidro.Endidro (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing issues (March 2016)

 * To be worked on.Endidro (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * References created and Categories listed. Endidro (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further instructions.Endidro (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments addressed to Robert McLennon for Dispute Resolution
Hello Robert. We had asked for resolution of a dispute with Justlettersandnumbers concerning the Barony of Blackhall page. Discussion has been ongoing for years and now our article has just disappeared. There had been discussion on the talk page but the old entries were removed two years ago after a seeming resolution. Justlettersandnumbers appears repeatedly in the history as having removed text. We understand that the dispute resolution process has been stopped by you, yet it seemed to us that there is sufficient history in the talk page to search for a resolution and that Justlettersandnumbers does have an elaborate contact page. Justlettersandnumbers has removed our article repeatedly at a stroke and left something else in its place. Should we reconstitute the original to get the dispute-resolution process moving? He will just remove it again if we do, we think. We left our comments on his (or her) talk page, but he has removed them also. Please help us here. Thanks and kind wishes. Endidro (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We have just returned the article to its original with a note to please leave, as under dispute resolution. we suspect that Justlettersandnumbers will vandalise it again. It's the best we can do to prepare the resolution.Endidro (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We have just noticed that many of the changes made by Justlettersandnumbers in the history of the page have been removed!!! This person is out of control and accuses us of vandalism.Endidro (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment by User:Endidro. Unfortunately, my comments will not be what they want.  My first interaction with this user was in early March 2016 when they filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which I declined due to inadequate user talk page discussion.  I have had no further comments with this editor.  I haven't read the details of the content issue.  At this point, what I note is that User:Endrido has repeatedly referred to themselves in the first person plural, as above in "Should we reconstitute the original to get the dispute-resolution process moving?" and "We left our comments on his (or her) talk page".  The duck test normally applies to sockpuppetry, but if an editor quacks like a corporate account, walks like a corporate account, and swims like a corporate account, they probably are a corporate account.  I advise User:Endrido very strongly to read the conflict of interest policy, and, if appropriate, make the paid editing disclosure.  However, even making the paid editing disclosure doesn't permit the use of shared accounts.  I think that I am being asked to mediate this content dispute.  I won't mediate a content dispute with an improper editor, whether a shared account (for whatever purpose) or a paid editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If User:Endrido has a legitimate reason for continuing to use the first person plural without actually being plural (such as being a pretender to the Kingdom of Scots), they may state it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Endidro has been dissolved. What do you require from the editor to be an acceptable interlocutor for you?2A02:1205:C698:9940:B8C3:AB79:2EB1:BAF7 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To whom is this strange question addressed? An interlocutor for whom?  (By the way, I have left the twice-misspelled version of my surname as is as per talk page guidelines, which discourage the correction of grammatical and spelling errors.  (It is twice-misspelled because it was misspelled once on my ancestor's immigration papers, and has been official for two centuries.)  For Robert Gillespie?  I was never interested in acting as an interlocutor for anyone.  There are suggestions that Endidro was acting as an interlocutor in a claim over property and an ancient title of nobility.  In Wikipedia, one account should be one human.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Weirdness
I have been researching this article further after being asked for help by User:Endidro. On the one hand, as noted, Uer:Endidro appears to be a policy-violating shared-use account. However, there is something wrong with this article. In the list of barons, the last entry in the list states that Robert Brown is the 27th Baron of Blackwell. However, that is backed up by Reference 9, which identifies Robert Gillespie. Since the reference does not properly identify the person whom it appears to identify, should the reference be deleted and replaced by a citation-needed tag? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The apearance in the Edinburgh Gazette showing Robert Brown Gillespie as the new baron of Blackhall is shown in: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/E-25893-1107-293 We shall place this in the reference tab as you ask.Endidro (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Does this suffice to remove the citation tab?Endidro (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears, based on material that is being inserted and deleted, that the barony is in dispute. I have seen a reference to Lord Lyon. Lord Lyon King of Arms is the presiding judge of the Scottish court of chivalry, which does have jurisdiction over a dispute over the title of Baron itself, although a dispute over the baronial lands is probably decided by Scottish civil courts. In short, there does appear to be a real-world dispute, at least over a title of nobility, and possibly over the land. We need to edit this article to reflect neutral point of view as seen by reliable sources. There appear to be shared-use single-purpose accounts who may be sock-puppets for blocked or banned users, and we must be aware of them and not allow them to control editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute whatever over the barony. Why do you say this? The Lyon Clerk will confirm this immediately. Endidro (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there is a legal dispute currently in the Scottish courts is one question. Whether two different people have been identified in this article as the Baron is another question, and two people have been identified in this article as the Baron.  All article text here about who is entitled to be the 27th Baron should be referenced by reliable secondary sources.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced section 1
The section below is all unreliably sourced. Moved it here, until it can be reliably sourced.

The following list gives the name of each Baron of Blackhall, the date when infeft, signifying when the baron officially took possession of the heritable barony land, and certain notes including the names of spouses holding the title of "Lady Blackhall." King Robert III (d.1406) had an illegitimate son, (Sir) John (possibly by a daughter of Sir Gillespic Campbell of Lochow, who became the first Baron:
 * Barons of Blackhall since 1395
 * 1) Sir John, 1395; b.c. 1355; d.c. 1413; illegitimate, possibly first born, son of King Robert III (cr. 1390:d. 1406): received the lands of Blackhall in the barony of Renfrew and Lanark, by royal charter signed at Dundonald 12 December 1395: previous known charters relating to the lands of Blackhall in 1272 and in 1283
 * 2) John, 1414; d.c. 1442
 * 3) Sir James, c. 1442; b.c. 1414: slaughtered by the Boyds of Duchal in 1445
 * 4) John, c. 1445; d.c. 1493; m. Elizabeth, dr. of Robert, 1st. Lord Lyle
 * 5) John, c. 1493; b.c. 1467; d.c. 1513: possibly killed at Flodden Field: charter granted by James IV in 1508; m. Marion, dr. of Sir Adam Mure of Caldwell
 * 6) James, 1514; b.c. 1491; d.c. 1553: headed an expedition to assist the king of Denmark and received the lands of Finnock: King James V charter 1539; m. Janet Kennedy
 * 7) James, c. 1553; b.c. 1521: d.c. 1579; m. Janet, dr. of Maxwell of Newark
 * 8) James, 1574; d.c. 1589: King James VI charter of confirmation 1579 erecting his estates into the Barony of Ardgowan; m. Margaret, dr. of Sir William Wallace of Johnston and Auchenbothie
 * 9) John, c. 1589; d.c.1597; m. Margaret, dr. of Sir Archibald Stewart of Castlemilk
 * 10) James, c. 1597; b.c. 1588; d.c. 1612: Earl of Abercorn charter 1607 relative to the lands of Innerkip; unmarried: no issue
 * 11) Sir Archibald, c. 1613; b.c. 1589; d. 1665; Knighted by King Charles I ca. 1636: Commissioner for Renfrewshire, Privy Councillor: acquired the Barony of Mearns; m. 1/ Margaret, dr. of Bryce Blair; 2/ Lady Margaret, dr. of Sir George Home of Wedderburne
 * 12) John, 1634; b. 1614; d. 1656; m. Maria Stirling of Keir
 * 13) John, 1658; b. 1634; d. 1658; m. Barbara, dr. of Sir William Scott of Clerkington: no issue
 * 14) Sir Archibald, 1666; b.c. 1635; d.c. 1718: 1st Baronet of Nova Scotia 1667: King Charles II charter in 1667; m. 1/ Anne, dr. of Sir John Crawford of Kilbirnie; 2/ Agnes Dalmahoy; 3/ Mary, dr. of Sir John Douglas of Hillhead
 * 15) Archibald, 1692; b.c. 1661; d.c. 1695; unmarried: no issue
 * 16) John, 1696; b.c. 1662; d. 1713; m. Rebecca Wallace
 * 17) Sir Archibald, 1717; b. 1705; d. 1724: 2nd Baronet; unmarried: no issue
 * 18) Sir Michael, 1724; bc. 1708; d. 1796: 3rd Baronet: planned Ardgowan Estate; m. Helenor, dr. of Sir John Houston, heiress through her mother of Sir John Shaw of Greenock
 * 19) Sir John, 1796; b. 1740; d. 1812: 4th Baronet: M.P. for Renfrew 1780–1796; built Ardgowan House 1798–1804; Dame Frances, widow of Sir James Pollok, dr. of Robert Colquhoun (of Luss): no issue
 * 20) Sir Michael, 1813; b. 1766; d. 1825: 5th Baronet: change of lineage to Michael Stewart Nicholson with name change to Shaw Stewart; m. Catherine, dr. of Sir William Maxwell of Springkell
 * 21) Sir Michael, 1827; b. 1788; d. 1836: 6th Baronet; m. Eliza Mary Farquhar
 * 22) Sir Michael Robert, 1836; b. 1826; d. 1903: 7th Baronet: M.P. for Renfrewshire 1855–1865; Lord Lieutenant for Renfrewshire 1868–1903; m. Lady Octavia Grosvenor, dr. of 2nd Marquess of Westminster
 * 23) Sir Michael Hugh, 1904; b. 1854; d. 1942: 8th Baronet, K.C.B. 1933; m. Lady Alice Emma Thynne, dr. of 4th Marquess of Bath: no issue
 * 24) Sir Walter Guy, 1942; b. 1892; d. 1976: 9th Baronet; Lord Lieutenant of Renfrewshire 1950; m. Diana Bulteel
 * 25) Sir Euan Guy, 1976*; b. 1928: 10th Baronet; m. 1/ Mary Louise D. Shaw; 2/ Victoria Fryer
 * 26) Sir Houston Mark, 1980; b. 1931: 11th Baronet; m. Lucinda Victoria Fletcher
 * 27) Robert Brown, 2001; b. 1947: change of lineage with name change to Gillespie; O.B.E. 2005: m. Sylvie, dr. of Jacques Maisonrouge, G.C. Legion of Honour

- Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

unsourced 2
this is unsourced, cannot stand per WP:VERIFY Until the passage of the Scots feudal land reform act in 2004, 70 acres of land in Inverkip in Renfrewshire's Spango valley remained within the ancient feudal superiority of Blackhall.
 * Barony since Scottish Feudal Land Reform

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! As you're aware, the whole of the current text is written for one purpose only: to promote a certain Robert Gillespie. The present content was added by a blocked sockpuppet account with a declared COI. I suggest reverting to, which was short but at least based on reliable sources (I believe – I wrote it). If there's any relevant verifiable content in the present text it could then be re-added by anyone who's interested but unconnected. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; in practice our only method of discouragement with an uncooperative editor is reversion. I think Endidro's edits should be removed for that reason, and that any future edits to the article by should immediately meet the same reception. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am good with revert back to the last good version, yes. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fortunate, because it seems that the indefatigable has already gone ahead and made that revert. Thank you, DrM! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you know. I saw an ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

edits today
Changes made on 1/4/2016: I have made mention of the change of lineage from Shaw-Stewart to Gillespie. Also, tried to remove the citation request as The Edinburgh Gazette reference was given after the citation request was made to show the barony registration to Gillespie; this might be blocked by the robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I understand that you have declared a COI. If that is accurate, please do not edit the article, but instead suggest changes here on the Talk page, per the COI guideline.  If you don't understand this process or why we have it, please ask, and I will explain it to you.  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments to Unregistered Editors
Unregistered editors are from time to time, both here and on my talk page, asking me for help. It isn't clear why they are asking me for help, and I don't intend to provide help. To summarize what I think has happened, User:Endidro made the statement that they represented four editors. They were then, with consensus at WP:ANI, blocked by administrator User:MLauba, with advice to create accounts. If the statement that there were four editors is correct, four accounts should have been created. Instead, unregistered editors are asking me for help, without clarifying what sort of help they want. This article has been semi-protected for one month so that issues can be resolved on this talk page. Most of the article content has been removed from the article to the talk page because sourcing is required. The advice that I will give at this point is what other experienced editors have given, which is to find reliable sources so that the content can be restored. If any unregistered editor has any specific question (other than vague requests for an interlocutor, which are absurd requests), I will try to answer them, but with the additional very strong advice to create registered accounts, and the additional advice to ask specific questions rather than general questions about interlocutors and assistance that don't have real-world answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute as to Barony
If there really is or has been a dispute in this century as to who the Baron currently is, presumably Scottish (or even English) newspapers should have covered the story. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's probably a conspiracy to keep this out of the papers, or the government--which has suppressed this subject matter successfully--would be embarrassed. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it the British government in London that is keeping it out of the papers, or the Scottish government in Edinburgh? What does this have to do with Scottish nationalism?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)