User talk:Ebonelm

User:ThomasPark02
I've reverted your change to User:ThomasPark02, as he is not currently blocked for sockpuppetry but for edit warring. I'm trying to calm things and find a way to help him become a productive contributor, and I don't think it helps for you to take "enforcement" actions right now. So, can I please ask you to leave that kind of thing to me and to other admins? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --John (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Ebonelm. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AEbonelm granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! -- samtar talk or stalk 12:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:D'Israeli
Hi again Ebonelm. Could you comment on whether D'Israeli should redirect to Benjamin Disraeli as R from alternative spelling? Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 07:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of London Assembly election, 2020 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article London Assembly election, 2020 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/London Assembly election, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nördic  Nightfury  15:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Timothy Joseph Wood 20:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history at Michael Heseltine 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 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. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @ I think that you need to go back and re-evaluate the accusations you've just made against me. I am an experienced editor who performed two reverts on edits made by a new user who was unilaterally trying to impose a lower quality image into an article. Two other editors using IP addresses also reverted edits made by Stroll demonstrating an established local consensus. You clearly haven't investigated the situation with due diligence User:Strolls has very obviously violated 3RR with these three reverts 1, 2, and 3. Looking at Strolls talk page I note that you have taken a much softer approach at discussing this matter with this user which is alarming given they are the one individual in this situation to have violated the rules. Rather than using an overly aggressive tone against me you should be applying sanctions against Strolls. Ebonelm (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * While I probably didn't need to drop the 3RR template on you, you were still well on your way towards breaking 3RR if things continued. Even if you are right, be the bigger person and take it to the talk page. It's not the end of the world if the "wrong" version is on the page for a day or two. As for not putting a template on Strolls, they were elbows-deep in a conversation about the situation (both on their talk and on ANI) so it was unnecessary to do anything more than give a notice about the ANI closure. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sex trade articles
I appreicate you voicing your opinion on Sex trade in Ghana but apparently the conversation has being moved to Talk:Prostitution in Africa so please voice your thoughts there. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Development-Induced Displacement
Hi - you removed my content on Development-Induced Displacement, speculating that it was just a "test". It was not just a test and I had put all my edits in my sandbox. Could you please be more specific about why you remived the content so that I may make the appropriate adjustments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkelleygsu (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Page swap
FYI that as a page mover you can use WP:PAGESWAP to do a round-robin move in cases like the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism RM. I would do it for you, but I had commented. Its a pretty useful script if you are going to be closing RMs. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2020 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 2020. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 2020 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Philip Stevens (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Chamberlain arcticle
Could please explain to me, why do you think I crossed boundary of Neutral point of view in Neville Chamberlain article? Thank you. --Robin WH (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:IMPARTIAL. The tone of your edits on the Neville Chamberlain article do not meet encyclopedic standards. Using terms such as 'humiliating' of placing the word '(betrayal)' in brackets after a neutral subheading is a clear violation of WP:NPOV hence why I was the second user to revert your edit. Ebonelm (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Catholic Church
Please see Talk:Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Although your close on 16 April was correct at that time according to the limited discussion it has since become clear that there is no consensus for that move. Would you mind if I moved it back to the status quo ante? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @. Yes I would object to the article being moved back to the previous title. The move request had been up for nine days, which is two days longer than the seven days required by WP:RMCI. In that time a nominator and a second participant both advocated for the move, no objections were raised. I stand by my close as sound. If other editors have subsequently seen the change in articles title and object and want to debate it being moved back that is fine, I recently was involved with similar scenario at List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in which we successfully restored the previous title (and current), so I appreciate that sometimes requested moves go unnoticed by otherwise active editors on a topic. Personally I think that it is important to not automatically revert to previous titles when objections are raised as if this became a trend I feel it would undermine the whole WP:RM system. While of course there are certain circumstances in which a move should be reverted quickly I feel that this is not one of them as the current title meets the criteria of WP:CONSISTENCY, and is consistent with the trend in favour of moving titles from 'Roman Catholic' to 'Catholic Church' which has been on-going for over a year now, the request clearly dealt with the objections raised to a similar move request held last year by opting for the formulation 'and the' rather than 'in the'. Ebonelm (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous languages in South Sudan
Hello Ebonelm,

You deleted Arabic as a national language in South Sudan and you wrote that Arabic is not an indigenous language in South Sudan. Why do you think that Arabic is not an indigenous language in South Sudan? Please see the reliable source that Arabic is an indigenous language in South Sudan.

I would be happy if you reply.

Kind Regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.72.130 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom. Thanks for the source however I don't agree that the source backs up your assertion from a legal standpoint. While it is suggested that Juba Arabic may be indigenous as it developed in Juba rather than elsewhere it also points out that it is not treated that way by the South Sudanese government. To quote the from the last page of the same document "the position of Juba Arabic is sociolinguistically controversial: it is widely used as a lingua franca and even a mother tongue in South Sudan, yet it is ineligible for official recognition". I would argue that the South Sudanese government did not intend for Arabic to be considered an official language as Arabic is not the native language of any of the ethnic groups in South Sudan, and the practice of the government backs this up. Ebonelm (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Ebonelm,


 * Thank you for your reply.


 * 1. Concerning official language:
 * You are right that the South Sudanese government did not intent for Arabic to be considered an official language in South Sudan. According to the new transitional constitution of the Republic of South Sudan of 2011, English is the sole official language in South Sudan.


 * I didn`t write that Arabic or Juba Arabic is an official language in South Sudan.


 * 2.Concerning indigenous language:
 * Juba Arabic is an indigenous language in South Sudan (and also a widely spoken language in South Sudan) as mentioned in the source. I don`t understand why you resists this fact. Why do you insists on the opinion or are you agree that Juba Arabic is an indigenous language in South Sudan?


 * Another source regarding Juba Arabic:
 * In an interview with a newspaper, the Foreign Minister of South Sudan Deng Alor Kuol said: South Sudan is the closest African country to the Arab world, and we speak a special kind of Arabic known as Juba Arabic.


 * I would be happy if you reply.


 * Kind Regards,


 * Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.72.130 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election
I've nominated this article for deletion. As a contributor, your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ken Loach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left Unity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ken_Loach check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ken_Loach?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fifth Fraser Ministry


The article Fifth Fraser Ministry has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Didn't actually exist as sources now acknowledge: see discussion at WT:AUSPOL."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Saint Lucian political party shortname templates


A tag has been placed on Category:Saint Lucian political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Saint Lucian political party color templates


A tag has been placed on Category:Saint Lucian political party color templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk  07:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Alex Chisholm
I have just noticed that you reverted my edit of the entry for Alex Chisholm so that in the sidebar it still claims his job title is "Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office". I had changed that title because his job title was "Permanent Secretary (Cabinet Office), Chief Operating Officer for the Civil Service" [source: Cabinet Office website]. The main text of his Wikipedia entry correctly describes him as "Permanent Secretary". It may be that you think that the title "Permanent Secretary" is just an abbreviation of the fuller form, but that is only so in a few specific cases, for historical reasons, and is not so in this case. For example, the most senior civil servant in the Treasury has the formal title "Permanent Secretary". (I know this not only from the published sources but because I was at one time private secretary to the then Permanent Secretary of the Treasury and had previously served as secretary of the committee, chaired by the head of the Civil Service, that recommended candidates for appointment to the most senior jobs in Whitehall.) Jgcolman (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Akierra Missick
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly
 * Edwin Astwood
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly
 * Ellis Webster
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly
 * Erwin Jay Saunders
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly
 * Josephine Connolly
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly
 * Natalio Wheatley
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly
 * Washington Misick
 * added a link pointing to Member of the House of Assembly

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nigel Dakin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Head of the Commonwealth. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Wikipedia does not choose between sources. If sources disagree, give both views or neither.'' DrKay (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forced displacement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Hi @Ebonelm! I noticed that you reversed my edit on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I wrote most of that article a couple of years ago, but following on from a discussion on the talk page, it turned out that I had made some errors. In essence, that was what my big edit today was about. I also did some updating and cut away some parts (which, again, I had previously added) that I now think are unnecessary for a Wikipedia article. Does that explain my edit? Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @FollowTheTortoise, thanks for the explanation however I would recommend that you only remove the specific information you have sources to show are incorrect rather than wiping the majority of the article are you also removed considerable amounts of correct and well reference material. While I can see that you did considerably rewrite this article several years ago per WP:OWN that does not mean you can just remove content. Ebonelm (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me. With your permission, I will have another go at an edit! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @Ebonelm. I noticed that you reversed my new edit. It would really help me if you could explain exactly what you are opposed to me changing. While it looks from the edit history page like I removed a lot of content, I think that this is mainly because I removed the timeline. I would be happy to keep the timeline in the article (so long as Clement Attlee could be added, as per the sources), but the reason why I removed it was because I thought that it would look silly with Attlee on, as the time difference between 1945 and 1995 is so large. I suppose that we could alternatively specify that the timeline only covers from 1995. Else, you can see exactly what I changed here. Thanks again and I am looking forward to hearing from you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon @Ebonelm. I hope that you do not mind me messaging you again! I was planning to have another go at editing the article and I wondered if you could give me any tips ahead of this. Would it help if I split my edits into smaller edits, so it would be easier to understand what I am doing and to make it easier to pinpoint any specific edits that you are unhappy with? Thank you again! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @Ebonelm. I noticed that you reversed my most recent edits to the article again. I am not really sure why you say that any content was removed without explanation, because I thought that I had explained all of my edits, so it would be really useful if you could tell me what went unexplained. Also, can you point me towards the "claims regarding Clement Atlee disputed by many reliable sources"? By my understanding, the various sources explain that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by George VI, but Deputy Prime Ministers are not appointed by the monarch. I did not understand the latter point in the past, hence why I previously excluded Attlee from the list, but it is clear to me from the sources now: mea culpa! Like you, I am sure, I just want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, so it would be good to get to the bottom of this. I was also thinking that it might help if we got somebody else involved in this discussion. Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. You might find this discussion, which began the process of changing my mind, useful on the point that monarchs do not appoint Deputy Prime Ministers (and, therefore, that it is irrelevant whether Attlee's appointment was approved by the monarch or not). To add to that, Vernon Bogdanor says: "In Britain, by contrast with Australia, the sovereign has always refused to recognize the position of deputy prime minister", Jonathan Kirkup and Stephen Thornton say: "But the post itself is something of a chimera, possessing no seal of office and having never been officially recognised by the monarch" and (on a slightly different note) this GOV.UK announcement has Oliver Dowden's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister listed separately to those appointments which are approved by the monarch. Also, both Philip Norton and Rodney Brazier include Attlee in their respective lists of people who held the title of Deputy Prime Minister, so I would be interested to see what reliable sources say that Attlee was not a Deputy Prime Minister. Thanks again! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope that you do not mind, but I have asked for a third opinion on both the WikiProject Politics talk page and Deputy Prime Minister talk page with a view of resolving this matter. As I say, I think we both just want the article to be as accurate as possible. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @FollowTheTortoise, its really very simple, when adding new content to an article it is your responsibility as an editor to ensure you are not removing other sourced content, or to provide a clear justification for the removal of sourced content. Some of your edits have been constructive however because of the way you have edited the article I am forced to manually revert as the undo function does not work. I suggest that you take a more careful and conservative approach to making changes. Re the Vernon Bogdanor quote you cannot use a book from 1995 (which will have been written in 1994 at the latest) to argue that a constitutional change which occured in 1995 has not occurred. 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for getting back to me and for your comments. I took to reading WP:EDITING and had the idea of putting together a table with all of my suggested edits, so you and others had the opportunity to object to, and we could better discuss, specific edits. I have set this out below and it represents the changes which I think I currently want to make to the article (this is slightly different to the edits that I actually made a couple of days ago, taking in mind your advice to be conservative). I obviously understand that it will be a bit of a task to work through that table!
 * As per your comment about the Bogdanor book, you are obviously right that that book could not discuss the phenomenon of the monarch appointing Deputy Prime Ministers if it had not started yet, but there is no reason to suggest that Deputy Prime Ministers from 1995 were appointed by the monarch. Philip Norton just says: "the situation changed in the 1990s and there was a move, in effect, from an informal to a formal designation, with Michael Heseltine in 1995 being officially styled as deputy prime minister and answering parliamentary questions in that capacity" — no mention of royal involvement. Also, the Thornton and Kirkup blog post is from 2017 and they also say in a 2017 academic article: "successive monarchs have been stubbornly reluctant to recognise the position at all". And, a bit more cryptically, in a 2020 book, Norton also says: "Sensitivity to the royal prerogative still shape the status. It remains formally a title conferred on an individual. Those on whom the title is conferred still have to be appointed to a salaried ministerial post." I am yet to find a source which supports the view that Deputy Prime Ministers are appointed by the monarch and thus the fact that Attlee's appointment was not approved by the monarch does not make him worthy of being in the table (and even if I did, this may verge on WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH; what we would really need in such a scenario is academic consensus that Attlee should not be included in such lists, which simply does not exist — see 26 below).
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !Suggested edit !Reason
 * colspan="3" |INFOBOX
 * 1
 * Remove 10 Downing Street as one of the departments of the Deputy Prime Minister
 * Unsourced
 * 2
 * Change the first Deputy Prime Minister from Michael Heseltine to Clement Attlee
 * See 26
 * colspan="3" |LEDE
 * 3
 * Remove "the second highest ranking minister of the Crown" from the lede
 * Unsourced
 * 4
 * Add to the lede that the title is not always in use and that Prime Ministers sometimes have 'informal deputies'
 * Useful context, particularly in light of the informal deputies section
 * colspan="3" |CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
 * 5
 * State that Deputy Prime Minister is a title
 * This is supported by Kirkup and Thornton (2017) and Norton (2020). "Title" is also uniquely used to describe the Deputy Prime Minister in the Cabinet Manual
 * 6
 * State that Deputy Prime Ministers are not appointed by the monarch
 * This is supported by Bogdanor (1995), Kirkup and Thornton (2017) and Thornton and Kirkup (2017)
 * 7
 * Reword the "classical argument" sentence to make the context for royal objections to Deputy Prime Ministers clearer and add some information about its history in respect of Anthony Eden
 * This is a more accurate use of Bogdanor (1995) and useful context
 * 8
 * Move Brazier and Bogdanor's arguments in favour of appointing a Deputy Prime Minister to after Norton's two advantages of a Deputy Prime Minister, add Seldon's voice and cut this down to a sentence
 * This flows better and one sentence ensures that not too much prominence is given to this reason over Norton's two other reasons
 * 9
 * Remove "(though this might be different within political parties in relation to their respective leaderships)"
 * Unsourced
 * 10
 * Add "The title is not always in use and the holder's responsibilities will vary depending on the circumstances"
 * Useful context
 * 11
 * Add Kirkup and Thornton's list of why Deputy Prime Ministers are appointed to Brazier's
 * Useful context
 * 12
 * Add Norton's two advantages to having a Deputy Prime Minister
 * Useful context
 * colspan="2" |HISTORY
 * 13
 * Remove the examples of other junior party leaders given offices in coalitions
 * Irrelevant to a section about people who have been Deputy Prime Minister
 * 14
 * Add a source to why there was nobody formally styled Deputy Prime Minister until Michael Heseltine and that Heseltine was Deputy Prime Minister
 * Add source
 * 15
 * Add a source to Prescott, Clegg, Raab, Coffey and Dowden being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Add source
 * 16
 * Remove that there was no Deputy Prime Minister under Gordon Brown, David Cameron after 2015 and Theresa May
 * Irrelevant
 * 17
 * Remove explanations as to why Clegg left office and the fact that there was a Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary at the same time for the first time between 2010 and 2015
 * Irrelevant
 * 18
 * Remove explanation that Coffey is the shortest serving
 * Irrelevant plus currently untrue!
 * 19
 * Remove reference to Raab deputising for Boris Johnson in April 2020 before being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Included below
 * 20
 * Remove explanation as to Raab being the first non-consecutive Deputy Prime Minister and why he stopped being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Irrelevant
 * colspan="3" |SUCCESSION
 * 21
 * Move succession section to the bottom of the article
 * I think it fits better away from the sections on the title of Deputy Prime Minister, as being Deputy Prime Minister gives no right to succeed the Prime Minister!
 * 22
 * Replace 2006 Cabinet Office quote with 2021 Simon Case quote
 * The newer source is much more relevant
 * 23
 * Merge the travelling and April 2020 sentences into one paragraph
 * This reads better and means there is a paragraph on when there is not and when there is a Prime Minister
 * colspan="3" |LIST OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS
 * 24
 * Remove reference to ministers being appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister
 * This general rule is explicitly displaced by 6
 * 25
 * Remove the comment that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by the King
 * Included above (albeit in more brief form; more context could be added if necessary)
 * 26
 * Remove "Six people can be described as definitely having been appointed deputy prime minister in such a manner" and add Attlee to the table of Deputy Prime Ministers
 * Both Norton (2020) and Brazier (2020) include Attlee in their lists. Kirkup and Thornton (2017) also say, of three other lists, "Howard’s (1995) list, like Gay and Bogdanor starts with Attlee, seeing him as ‘official’ deputy". Perhaps see also WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH?
 * 27
 * Remove gaps from the table
 * I think that it would look silly to list every ministry between 1945 and 1995; in any case, I think it is obvious to the reader that there is sometimes not a Deputy Prime Minister (I have even suggested including this in the lede — see 4)
 * colspan="3" |TIMELINE
 * 28
 * Add Attlee to the timeline
 * See 26
 * }
 * Thank you again for your comments! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Ebonelm. It has been almost a month since I created this table now — do you have any thoughts? Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ebonelm, @FollowTheTortoise This discussion seems to have gone stagnant, so I'd like to chip in. From what I can see, most of the changes proposed by FollowTheTortoise above would be reliably sourced. The article in its current state has several glaring inaccuracies, such as Attlee being an unlisted (in the timeline), "unofficial" DPM and disregarded as the first DPM in favour of Michael Heseltine, and the claim in the lede that the DPM is a ministerial post and the "second highest ranking minister of the Crown". I think the factual inaccuracies with the DPM article are in dire need of correction. I fear that, overtime, many of these inaccuracies will sort of "bed in", leading to cases of WP:Circular and other editors trying to revert the removal of these factual errors in acts of WP:Good Faith.
 * One worst case scenario I can think of right now is for reliable sources to start going around claiming Attlee wasn't the DPM. Outside of his premiership, I'd argue one of the things he's best known for is his role in WW2 as Britain's first DPM . Both the claim about Attlee and the ministerial ranking are very important factual errors and unsourced as far as I know (as evidenced by FollowTheTortoise above, the DPM is not a ministerial post, it's actually a titular role not even appointed by the monarch), yet these claims may have a knock off effect on other WP articles. What's worse, there is also the risk of reliable sources picking these inaccuracies up and stating them as fact, which is the last thing we need.
 * On @FollowTheTortoise's proposed edits, I'd say I agree with most of them. On edit 17, I do think the case of there being both a DPM and First SoS at the same time in the Cameron-Clegg coalition should still be mentioned, as the two are often thought of as having the same role (deputy to the PM). Perhaps it can serve as a clarification on the role of the DPM in coalitions i.e. a title for the leader of the junior coalition partner and not the PM's actual deputy the First SoS. I'd also suggest adding those proposed edits to the DPM article's talk page so that other editors won't have to go through the link to see the proposals. Bit nit-picky, but it does drive up engagement to have the proposals right there for everyone to see and encourages further discussion amongst editors.
 * That's really all I have to say for now. I do hope that my contribution revives this discussion and that I get a quick response, though I intend no pressure of course! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying, @ThatRandomGuy1! I completely agree that it is important that the article is corrected and I put my hands up to say that some of these errors were inadvertently added by me through misunderstandings. I would also be completely fine with mentioning that there was a Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State for the first time at the same time between 2010 and 2015 in respect of 17. I would also like to make a change to the table for myself, in respect of 6: in order to be even more faithful to the source material (quoted above), I would rather that we say that successive monarchs have refused to officially recognise the position of Deputy Prime Minister rather than they are not involved in the appointment (I think that the former suggests the latter, but I want to be as accurate as possible). Also, including the table on the edit page is an excellent idea and I will do that now, reflecting the changes to 17 and 6. Thanks again and, @Ebonelm, I notice that you have not edited in a while, so I hope that you are well. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @FollowTheTortoise! Thanks for your response. Now that you've moved the table into the DPM article I think it's best to continue discussing the proposed changes over there. @Ebonelm I share FollowTheTortoise's concerns and hope you're ok. Your contribution to this discussion is very much appreciated! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 23
 * Merge the travelling and April 2020 sentences into one paragraph
 * This reads better and means there is a paragraph on when there is not and when there is a Prime Minister
 * colspan="3" |LIST OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS
 * 24
 * Remove reference to ministers being appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister
 * This general rule is explicitly displaced by 6
 * 25
 * Remove the comment that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by the King
 * Included above (albeit in more brief form; more context could be added if necessary)
 * 26
 * Remove "Six people can be described as definitely having been appointed deputy prime minister in such a manner" and add Attlee to the table of Deputy Prime Ministers
 * Both Norton (2020) and Brazier (2020) include Attlee in their lists. Kirkup and Thornton (2017) also say, of three other lists, "Howard’s (1995) list, like Gay and Bogdanor starts with Attlee, seeing him as ‘official’ deputy". Perhaps see also WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH?
 * 27
 * Remove gaps from the table
 * I think that it would look silly to list every ministry between 1945 and 1995; in any case, I think it is obvious to the reader that there is sometimes not a Deputy Prime Minister (I have even suggested including this in the lede — see 4)
 * colspan="3" |TIMELINE
 * 28
 * Add Attlee to the timeline
 * See 26
 * }
 * Thank you again for your comments! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Ebonelm. It has been almost a month since I created this table now — do you have any thoughts? Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ebonelm, @FollowTheTortoise This discussion seems to have gone stagnant, so I'd like to chip in. From what I can see, most of the changes proposed by FollowTheTortoise above would be reliably sourced. The article in its current state has several glaring inaccuracies, such as Attlee being an unlisted (in the timeline), "unofficial" DPM and disregarded as the first DPM in favour of Michael Heseltine, and the claim in the lede that the DPM is a ministerial post and the "second highest ranking minister of the Crown". I think the factual inaccuracies with the DPM article are in dire need of correction. I fear that, overtime, many of these inaccuracies will sort of "bed in", leading to cases of WP:Circular and other editors trying to revert the removal of these factual errors in acts of WP:Good Faith.
 * One worst case scenario I can think of right now is for reliable sources to start going around claiming Attlee wasn't the DPM. Outside of his premiership, I'd argue one of the things he's best known for is his role in WW2 as Britain's first DPM . Both the claim about Attlee and the ministerial ranking are very important factual errors and unsourced as far as I know (as evidenced by FollowTheTortoise above, the DPM is not a ministerial post, it's actually a titular role not even appointed by the monarch), yet these claims may have a knock off effect on other WP articles. What's worse, there is also the risk of reliable sources picking these inaccuracies up and stating them as fact, which is the last thing we need.
 * On @FollowTheTortoise's proposed edits, I'd say I agree with most of them. On edit 17, I do think the case of there being both a DPM and First SoS at the same time in the Cameron-Clegg coalition should still be mentioned, as the two are often thought of as having the same role (deputy to the PM). Perhaps it can serve as a clarification on the role of the DPM in coalitions i.e. a title for the leader of the junior coalition partner and not the PM's actual deputy the First SoS. I'd also suggest adding those proposed edits to the DPM article's talk page so that other editors won't have to go through the link to see the proposals. Bit nit-picky, but it does drive up engagement to have the proposals right there for everyone to see and encourages further discussion amongst editors.
 * That's really all I have to say for now. I do hope that my contribution revives this discussion and that I get a quick response, though I intend no pressure of course! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying, @ThatRandomGuy1! I completely agree that it is important that the article is corrected and I put my hands up to say that some of these errors were inadvertently added by me through misunderstandings. I would also be completely fine with mentioning that there was a Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State for the first time at the same time between 2010 and 2015 in respect of 17. I would also like to make a change to the table for myself, in respect of 6: in order to be even more faithful to the source material (quoted above), I would rather that we say that successive monarchs have refused to officially recognise the position of Deputy Prime Minister rather than they are not involved in the appointment (I think that the former suggests the latter, but I want to be as accurate as possible). Also, including the table on the edit page is an excellent idea and I will do that now, reflecting the changes to 17 and 6. Thanks again and, @Ebonelm, I notice that you have not edited in a while, so I hope that you are well. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @FollowTheTortoise! Thanks for your response. Now that you've moved the table into the DPM article I think it's best to continue discussing the proposed changes over there. @Ebonelm I share FollowTheTortoise's concerns and hope you're ok. Your contribution to this discussion is very much appreciated! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Ebonelm. It has been almost a month since I created this table now — do you have any thoughts? Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ebonelm, @FollowTheTortoise This discussion seems to have gone stagnant, so I'd like to chip in. From what I can see, most of the changes proposed by FollowTheTortoise above would be reliably sourced. The article in its current state has several glaring inaccuracies, such as Attlee being an unlisted (in the timeline), "unofficial" DPM and disregarded as the first DPM in favour of Michael Heseltine, and the claim in the lede that the DPM is a ministerial post and the "second highest ranking minister of the Crown". I think the factual inaccuracies with the DPM article are in dire need of correction. I fear that, overtime, many of these inaccuracies will sort of "bed in", leading to cases of WP:Circular and other editors trying to revert the removal of these factual errors in acts of WP:Good Faith.
 * One worst case scenario I can think of right now is for reliable sources to start going around claiming Attlee wasn't the DPM. Outside of his premiership, I'd argue one of the things he's best known for is his role in WW2 as Britain's first DPM . Both the claim about Attlee and the ministerial ranking are very important factual errors and unsourced as far as I know (as evidenced by FollowTheTortoise above, the DPM is not a ministerial post, it's actually a titular role not even appointed by the monarch), yet these claims may have a knock off effect on other WP articles. What's worse, there is also the risk of reliable sources picking these inaccuracies up and stating them as fact, which is the last thing we need.
 * On @FollowTheTortoise's proposed edits, I'd say I agree with most of them. On edit 17, I do think the case of there being both a DPM and First SoS at the same time in the Cameron-Clegg coalition should still be mentioned, as the two are often thought of as having the same role (deputy to the PM). Perhaps it can serve as a clarification on the role of the DPM in coalitions i.e. a title for the leader of the junior coalition partner and not the PM's actual deputy the First SoS. I'd also suggest adding those proposed edits to the DPM article's talk page so that other editors won't have to go through the link to see the proposals. Bit nit-picky, but it does drive up engagement to have the proposals right there for everyone to see and encourages further discussion amongst editors.
 * That's really all I have to say for now. I do hope that my contribution revives this discussion and that I get a quick response, though I intend no pressure of course! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying, @ThatRandomGuy1! I completely agree that it is important that the article is corrected and I put my hands up to say that some of these errors were inadvertently added by me through misunderstandings. I would also be completely fine with mentioning that there was a Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State for the first time at the same time between 2010 and 2015 in respect of 17. I would also like to make a change to the table for myself, in respect of 6: in order to be even more faithful to the source material (quoted above), I would rather that we say that successive monarchs have refused to officially recognise the position of Deputy Prime Minister rather than they are not involved in the appointment (I think that the former suggests the latter, but I want to be as accurate as possible). Also, including the table on the edit page is an excellent idea and I will do that now, reflecting the changes to 17 and 6. Thanks again and, @Ebonelm, I notice that you have not edited in a while, so I hope that you are well. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @FollowTheTortoise! Thanks for your response. Now that you've moved the table into the DPM article I think it's best to continue discussing the proposed changes over there. @Ebonelm I share FollowTheTortoise's concerns and hope you're ok. Your contribution to this discussion is very much appreciated! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vanbrugh College Shield.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vanbrugh College Shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (1837-1901)
Not ideal but can be used as a temporary replacement image first., you can use as a reference. File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg File:Scottish royal coat of arms.svg 2401:E180:8811:5E1C:46B9:5BF6:F7BE:5E12 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2023 (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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)