User talk:Earl of Sutton Coldfield

Welcome!
Peaceray (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not move pages to the help namespace when they are established articles. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 17:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will you move the article for me please? Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to move it back to it's original state (I couldn't fully do it as I don't have the user rights to delete redirects) as I can't find a discussion relating to the moving of it, if you could link me to one, I will get it moved in a short while. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Help talk:William Haughey, Baron Haughey to William Haughey, Baron Haughey Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't a discussion, that is a request from you which hasn't been discussed, you can open a discussion at requested moves. Thanks, Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you do it. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Go to Requested moves. If you need further assistance just ask. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2021–present)


A tag has been placed on List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2021–present) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Richard75 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2014–2020)


A tag has been placed on List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2014–2020) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Richard75 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Earl of Sutton Coldfield. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Capital letters
Please stop capitalising director general of the BBC. You should read MOS:JOB and realising you are doing this incorrectly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I second that wise request. Whatever our personal preferences, we all need to abide by the rules of any organisation we join, and Wikipedia's manual of style is crystal clear: we don't capitalise job titles like this. And, a word to the wise: don't keep reverting changes you don't like: repeated reversion will get you banned from editing.  Tim riley  talk   13:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Earl Marshal
The Earl Marshal is an hereditary post held by the Duke of Norfolk.

Lord Great Chamberlain
The Lord Great Chamberlain is a Hereditary office in gross post between Cholmondeley Ancaster and Carrington familes.

In 1902 it was ruled by the House of Lords that the then joint office holders (the 1st Earl of Ancaster, the 4th Marquess of Cholmondeley, and the Earl Carrington, later Marquess of Lincolnshire) had to agree on a deputy to exercise the office, subject to the approval of the Sovereign. Should there be no such agreement, the Sovereign should appoint a deputy until an agreement be reached.

In 1912 an agreement was reached. The office, or right to appoint the person to exercise the office, would thereafter rotate among the three joint office holders and their heirs after them, changing at the start of each successive reign. Cholmondeley and his heirs would serve in every other reign; Ancaster and Carrington would each serve once in four reigns.

Resigned
Pursuant to section 1 of House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Resigned Conservative peers
Pursuant to section 1 of House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Removed Conservative peers
Pursuant to section 2 of House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Resigned Crossbench peers
Pursuant to section 1 of House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Removed Crossbench peers
Pursuant to section 2 of House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Links
There is no need to change links as you did for example here. In fact the practice is discouraged. See WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lord Great Chamberlain into List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Piped links
Hi,

I've just reverted your edit at "Dave Lee Travis". The Manual of Style recommends against using a "piped" link where a redirect will do. Please see MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello again,

Could you slow down and discuss this?

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok I will have a break. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd really like to understand what it is you're trying to do. Adding a "pipe" to pages that already have a link to (for example) "Marine Broadcasting Offences Act" doesn't change the displayed text or the target page, but complicates the source code. Changing the text to "Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967" may be technically more correct, but it's cumbersome to read, which is presumably why the shorter form is generally used. What I'd really like to avoid is a situation where I end up chasing you around reverting your edits. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967 will have this from now on. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoah! Slow down! If that's the preferred form that's arrived at by consensus, the best thing to do would be to either move the page that's currently at "Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967" to "Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967" and update the links as required, or create a redirect from "Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967" to "Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967". But you're making these changes - that affect many pages - unilaterally, without discussion. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hang on it will have this format Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967|Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967 with . Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can use   and ". If that's the consensus position, the right thing to do would be what I suggested above - either move the page or create a redirect. But you haven't sought consensus for these changes that affect many pages. Let's talk about the best way to proceed. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the format which is on each article. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the format that you've decided to impose on every article! It's not just there - you put it there! I don't think it's the right format, for the reasons I explained above. We should either move the page, or make a new redirect. So please stop forcing this change through, and discuss it with me, as I asked you to ten days ago. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, each article should have Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967 where as some have Marine Broadcasting Offences Act or Marine (Offences) Act, it looks standard across the board as Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it does not have to be exactly the same in each article. Edits like this are at best a waste of time. DuncanHill (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the urge to have a consistent format, and I also think it's a good idea to use a simplified, readable form for the displayed text, rather than using the full title "Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967" every time the act is mentioned. For the reasons explained at MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE, creating "piped" links as you've been doing isn't the best way to do this. I'd like to ask for broader input as this affects so many pages. Could you suggest the best way to go about it, DuncanHill? Would an RfC be a good idea? I'm not experienced in these matters. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need for an RfC or anything else, just for Earl of Sutton Coldfield to stop it! DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have stopped now. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But really you should have stopped to discuss this ten days ago when I asked you to. You've taken a lot of time and effort to make a lot of changes that in general are not helpful, and that could have been avoided with a little discussion.
 * I agree with DuncanHill that there's no need to have complete uniformity in the title of the act. The full, correct title is cumbersome to use, and in many cases the context will make the "1967" date unnecessary. But the current variety of titles in use isn't ideal either. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, if you look at the changes you made at "Dave Lee Travis", you've added "1967" to the displayed text, but the sentence begins, "In 1967 ...", so repeating the date is unnecessary. You've also added the "piped" link to "Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967" which isn't displayed, and serves no purpose, since the original link redirected to the same page.
 * Why not create a redirect from "Marine Broadcasting Offences Act 1967" to "Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967" and use that as the short form when the date isn't clear from context? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Jan Smuts medals
South Africa From Wikimedia Commons, the free media United Kingdom
 * Dekoratie voor Trouwe Dienst
 * Efficiency Decoration
 * Medalje voor de Anglo-Boere Oorlog
 * Union of South Africa Commemoration Medal File:Union of South Africa Commemoration Medal (ribbon).png after the Coronation Medals
 * 1939–1945 Star File:Ribbon - 1939-45 Star.png
 * Africa Star File:Ribbon - Africa Star.png
 * Italy Star File:Ribbon - Italy Star.png
 * France and Germany Star File:Ribbon - France and Germany Star.png
 * Defence Medal File:Ribbon - Defence Medal.png
 * War Medal 1939–1945 File:Ribbon - War Medal.png
 * Africa Service Medal File:Ribbon - Africa Service Medal.png

Decorations (Shown in order in which appointments were made, not order of precedence)
 * King George V Silver Jubilee Medal
 * King George VI Coronation Medal

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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Hall of England. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop
You have access to this talk page solely so you can contest your block. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, but I am editing a draft on my Talkpage, but I am not this sock puppet, I may do the same edits but name me an editor who does similar edits. Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. You have access to this talk page solely to contest your block. Do not do anything else here. --Yamla (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.