User talk:Bocaj12

Correct style and form
Hi Bocaj12 - I note you restated (à propos of Baroness Mone) "Style of 'Right Honourable' must be included, it is an essential part of a life peeress' title and style" - this is incorrect. Whereas it used to be the case that peers of the Realm were accorded the honorific prefix of '''Rt. Hon. (for Earls/Viscounts/Barons, or Most Hon. for Marquesses & Most Noble''' for Dukes), this was in the days when the vast majority of their number were Privy Counsellors (starting in the Georgian era and becoming predominant in Victorian times). It is a moot point as to when this practice formally ceased, but certainly upon the advent of Tony Blair as PM in 1997 all such "ancient" and traditional forms of address were strongly discouraged in what was New Labour's modernising agenda. Notwithstanding which for those who are not PCs it is not nor was it ever "essential" to be accorded the honorific prefix Rt Hon. (it was in fact entirely unessential being a courtesy style). I shall therefore restore Lady Mone's article so that it reads correctly. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further queries about this - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to point this out to me. However, you are mistaken. The style of 'Right Honourable' is essential to the style of a baron, and Tony Blair's "modernising agenda" did not change that. Unless you can direct me to letters patent given by Her Majesty removing such style, or an Act of Parliament doing the same, I'm afraid that nothing has changed. New Labour's discouragement is not a rule of peerage law. Only Her Majesty and Parliament may regulate such styles. Bocaj12 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Likewise thanks yours and here is the text for the creation of peerages (published by the Crown Office). You will note there is no mention of Right Honourable as you allege. Thank you. M Mabelina (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

When did I "allege" that the style was referred to in the letters patent creating individual peerages? I asked you to direct me, if you could, to letters patent or an Act of Parliament which gave effect to a general removal of the style of "Right Honourable" from existing barons, viscounts and earls? Since there are no such letters or laws, you couldn't and can't. Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council are only type of person entitled to the style. Peers below the rank of Marquess are another, as are certain Lord Mayors and Provosts. In fact, the convention for peers who are Privy Counsellors is to use the postnominal letters of PC after their full title, to distinguish them from other peers, who have the same style (for example, The Right Honourable The Lord Mandelson PC). Bocaj12 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on here - you've got this the wrong way round - there is no official decree removing Rt. Hon. because it never existed in the first place. You can't remove something that doesn't exist. Your styling of Mandelson is incorrect too. Do you understand? M Mabelina (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It certainly did exist, and still does. If you look, for example, at Lord Mandelson's page on Wikipedia, you will see that he is referred to in the correct way.
 * See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Honourable#United_Kingdom. Bocaj12 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And here: http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/baron

You have also contradicted yourself by saying originally "Whereas it used to be the case that peers of the Realm were accorded the honorific prefix of Rt. Hon." and then saying "there is no official decree removing Rt. Hon. because it never existed in the first place". Look at the links above, at the Wikipedia page of other peers which list the correct style of 'Right Honourable', at London Gazette notices which mention existing peers (which include the style), or any of many other resources which prove that your strange denials of this fact are unfounded. Why not do the decent thing and admit that you were wrong, so we can settle this tedious discussion? Bocaj12 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Bocaj12: let us try to resolve this amicably without need to resort to Admins, since your tone sounds very shirty and you are twisting my statements:
 * 1. "It certainly did exist, and still does" you state: "It" here applies to courtesy styles or honorific prefixes - far from denying their existence I am merely saying they are courtesy style/honorific prefixes, ie. exactly that namely honorary, not part of the title itself.
 * 2. you accuse me of contradiction: wrong again I'm afraid. In the quotation above I state that they are honorific prefixes, and I said that they have never existed as part of the title but merely as an honorary add-on; so the simple crux of your disagreement is as to whether Rt. Hon. is an integral part of the title rather than an honorary prefix (as I maintain). I quoted you the formal letters patent proformas for the creation of peerage titles published by The Crown Office but you have ignored this. Bottom line is that they are honorofic prefixes and I suggest you do the decent thing and admit that you were wrong, so we can settle this tedious discussion (a sentiment we also both agree on). Thank you. Mabelina (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

| Here is a notice in the London Gazette (published by authority of the Crown) from 1988 which refers to Lord Strathclyde. He was not then a Privy Counsellor (he was sworn of the Council in 1995), but he is referred to as "The Right Honourable Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy du Blicquy, Baron Strathclyde". Similarly, Baroness Mone would be styled "The Right Honourable Michelle Georgina, Baroness Mone, OBE". (With the historic convention of their surnames being omitted.) This is by virtue of their peerages - neither of them was, at the time, a Privy Counsellor. Also, in the | Wikipedia article on the style of Right Honourable, the first people it lists as being "entitled to the style in a personal capacity" are "peers who are earls, viscounts, or barons, and their spouses". Do you see now? Bocaj12 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me also clarify that I do not think it is essential to the title alone but to the title and style - I never used 'title' alone, but did in fact use 'style' alone the second time. I am aware that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to her simply as Baroness Mone or Lady Mone, since that is her title. However, the convention on Wikipedia, as you can see if you look at the Wikipedia page of almost any other prominent life peer, is to include the full formal title (i.e. The Right Honourable The Baroness Mone OBE) in the box at the top right and in a list of styles, if any. You'll have noticed that I did not go in inserting 'The Right Honourable' everywhere, only where Wikipedia convention expects it. Bocaj12 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to Lord Mandelson's page: "(Either: The Rt. Hon. the Lord M.. or... The Lord Mandelson PC (but not both) & adding Debrett's People of Today as external link)" - if that's what you think, why did you change 'The Rt Hon. The Baroness Mone'?


 * Hi Bocaj12 - my message just now was somehow deleted by edit conflict. I just typed another reply which you deleted by edit conflict so I'll try again shortly - the matter is so, so simple... (but you clearly have an issue).
 * Hi again Bocaj12 - this exchange of views started by your stating "(Style of 'Right Honourable' must be included, it is an essential part of a life peeress' title and style)" to which I stated from the outset that it is not essential: I trust we now agree on that? and also concur that it is down to Wiki policy as to whether The Right Honourable is appropriate to be included as an honorific-prefix in info boxes where the said peer is not a PC. I am glad that we have been able to discuss this without escalating the matter since we now appear to be on the same page. Perhaps we both observe that correct form is nowadays becoming less well understood than ever before, so Wiki could play a useful part in at least displaying titles correctly? One thing for certain is that using Rt Hon as prefix and PC as postnom in the same style is definitely incorrect, so maybe we could have a think as to how Wiki could overcome the easy-to-make mistake of OVERLINK-ing type issue - this would be most constructive I believe. Many thanks again for your consideration & looking forward to hearing further. Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I concede that I was wrong to say 'must' without clarifying that I meant 'in that specific box, due to Wikipedia convention'. As for style of a Privy Counsellor, it is fine to use both Right Hon. and PC - Debrett's isn't the sole authority on this, it is down to conventions and the common law. Since barons, viscounts and earls are Right Honourable whatever they do, it is useful and acceptable to append 'PC' to their title if they are Privy Counsellors. I see no reason to remove instances of this, since it is not formally incorrect and could not be said to be. However, I'm glad that we found common ground, although I am still unsure why you were deleting "The Right Honourable" from Baroness Mone's page if you agreed with me. But thank you for your patience and courtesy. I think we have demonstrated that even tedious disputes can have happy endings. Bocaj12 (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

- thanks likewise, not least because it is most disagreeable to remain in a state of disagreement. I concur that Debrett's is not the fountain of all knowledge regarding Correct Form and further agree that such customary usage evolves over time. What I have noticed, though, is that Wiki's rather formulaic Info Box set-up is prompting complacent journalists for the most part to copy its content, thereby introducing new terms (to an extent) even though that was not Wiki's intention at the outset. As I understand it, excusing any appearance of immodesty please, I note that at formal functions nowadays it is stated either: ''The Lord M.. PC, or (The) Rt Hon. The Lord M...'' but never both - so this is a new departure from established practice, perhaps helped by Wiki (but certainly not discouraged), and if so almost definitely inadvertently. Without much research I can't find any authority citing that Rt Hon & PC in the same style is correct (& I personally don't think Wiki should change things just because Info Box technology is set up in that way - Italian Wiki is better in this respect for your guidance). Thanks again for your congenial response. M Mabelina (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Most interesting. I shall look into it further. Farewell and thank you for your reply.
 * Much obliged... M (qv. eg: Jonathan Hill @ it.wikipedia.org)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Philipps, Viscountess St Davids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Writ of summons. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Your recent editing history at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That was actually your 4th revert, I left one out in the report. Please undo it - I've suggested that if you undo it you shouldn't be blocked. Doug Weller  talk 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: After being told about the rule, you were repeatedly urged both here and on WP:AN3 to self-revert, but did not. Compare my comment here. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC).

October 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Intelligent Design, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)