User talk:Proteus

Please note that I reserve the right to remove any comments placed on this page.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

talk:Spencer family

I have added a further question there under the heading "lineage question", and I was told you could be of help with all this stuff. I hope you can be of any help. Thank you very much.
VM (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Sandys

Hello, nice to see that you're back. I have a couple of questions I think you could help me with. What names did the second and third Barons Sandys use (Moyses and Marcus, I believe although I don't have any sources). They also had a younger brother named Lord Arthur Augustus Edwin Hill (known as Augustus?). Can you also confirm that it was the third Baron who served as Comptroller of the Household and Treasurer of the Household in the 1840's and 1850's (as stated here). According to these Wikipedia articles, Whig Government 1835–1841, Whig Government 1846–1852 and Arthur Hill-Trevor, 1st Baron Trevor (as well as the two articles above), it was his nephew Lord Trevor who held these posts, but I think they are wrong (he wasn't an MP in 1841 for a start). Tryde (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But did the second Baron Sandys use the same first name as his elder brother, the Marquess of Downshire? Tryde (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used all his first names in the article I created on him. If we don't have a source that explicitely say what name he used, I think it's best to include all of them. I'm also going to add this discussion to the article's talk page. By the way, I was surprised that you moved Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich to Frederick Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich. I have always thought he was known as F. J. Robinson before he was created a viscount. Tryde (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sugar

Who is "we"? Bradley0110 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hey, I've replied to your reply to my comments at Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales. john k (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ths 4 your help can call me hp 83065591[reply]

Tom Denning

This needs to be reverted. Firstly, his most common name was simply Lord Denning, but secondly MOSTCOMMON specifically excludes people with peerages, who should go at the most appropriate title per MOS naming guidelines for peers (which is actually wrong in regards to how it's done irl, but meh). I was ignorant of this fact until a few months ago, when an attempted move by me was queried by a user citing the same thing. As per WP:MOSTCOMMON "The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles". Ironholds (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proteus - as you seem to be offline Ironholds contacted me. I listed the matter at AN/I for review and to get consensus to over-turn. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Odd_page_move_by_admin_-_support_for_reversion_sought. I hate go against you but you don't seem to be around to present your case. Cheers Manning (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Lord Denning MR." is how he is known in the law reports and quoted throughout the common law world.

I happen to have your talkpage on my watchlist and I couldn't help noticing Masalai's comments which seem to be personal attacks. You can always report them on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi Proteus! An article you have been involved with has been tagged as being in need of further sources to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Double-barrelled name.

Declining a British honour

Hi, Proteus. I added a couple of names to the article (R. A. Butler, 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne). I know that Charles Pelham Villiers declined a peerage in 1885 or 1886. Do you know what kind of peerage he was offered (a barony or more likely a viscountcy, I presume)? Tryde (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Proteus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Peter Inge - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Charles Morris (politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 30 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are back!

Dear lady, how wonderful that you are again with us! Your old folks' home has internet access? In any case, long may you persist! Masalai (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis/Marquess?

Per che the reverts? The Marquis of xxx is the standard spelling in Scotland for Peers of this rank, and the correct manner to address them is Marquis in Standard Scottish English. The Marquis of Huntly being the oldest of this rank extant in the Peerage of Scotland. English Marqu-es-ses may differ but these are, after all, Scottish Peerages you are looking at here. (BTW a quick google reveals 17,600,000 for the Scots spelling, as opposed to 1.3m for the English, and I know that they don't all refer to peers, but there you go!) see here http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/hamilton.htm Brendandh (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orders, Decorations and Medals of the United Kingdom

G'day Proteus,

I've become involved in a discussion re the future content of Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. I am interested in your thoughts on my and Wiki-Ed's views on this (see Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. If you are unwilling to comment on the article's talk page, I would be just as happy to correspond here. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Wenman

Hi. I know that you have access to some good sources and perhaps you could help me here. Was it the 2nd or 3rd viscount Wenman who sat in parliament for Oxfordshire in 1660? Was the 3rd viscount an MP at all? And how were the 2nd and 3rd viscounts related - brothers? Regards, Tryde (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're invited

Based on your contributions to wikipedia related to history, genealogy, and nobility, you may find these 2 articles and debates interesting. Both articles are related, need to be improved, and might benefit from your insight.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Martin_O'Donnell

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland

ReidarM (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Latymer and Baron Latimer

You made this comment on Talk:Baron Latimer please could you expand on your reply here? -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury heir

The recent addition made to the Earl of Shaftesbury needs a full citation. At this time, the content referring to an heir is unverifiable. While the birth may be true, it needs appropriate sourcing. I have asked Dinah to make a notation to the estate website. At that time, we can add use that source. Can you add a full citation from The Times to support the addition to the article? Cind.amuse 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You provided an edit summary to the Earl of Shaftesbury article that states that "there isn't a fuller citation". Everything can be appropriately cited. To that end, I have provided the citation format within the article. Can you provide the name of the editor along with the page number of the Announcement? Simply add this information as indicated in the template. Your assistance is appreciated. Best regards, Cind.amuse 11:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proteus! Thank you for correcting my lapsus calami in the infobox in the article about Jamila M'Barek. I was wondering, isn't she still "The Right Honourable the Countess of Shaftesbury" (since neither of her stepsons is/was married)? If she is, should we omit her name from the infobox? Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marquess of Halifax/Savile Baronets

You were involved in this page being moved a while ago;
It has been moved again, and the discussion is here if you wish to comment. Swanny18 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Cambridge

If you look at the citation for Balfour Paul Vol IV, p383, it leads one to an online Scots Peerage, dating from 1907. P383 clearly stipulates that the 4th Duke's mother, Anne Duchess of Hamilton surrendered her titles to the crown to be regranted to her son. This happened prior to the political union of 1707, and the creation of the peerage of GB. Therefore the Earldom of Cambridge and the Barony of Innerdale stand in the peerage of England. The Duke also was also granted his Great-Uncle's title of Earl of Lanark in the peerage of Scotland. Hope this clears things up? Brendandh (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Balfour Paul was one of the longest standing Lord Lyons of Scotland, and I would be more inclined to follow him than Cokayne.(that with respect to Clarenceaux) Brendandh (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Shaftesbury

You restored the inclusion of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley (1900-1947) to the list of earls in the above referenced article, stating "usual to list heirs who never succeeded amongst holders". However, this is not standard practice, in accordance with either WP:MOS or WP:PEER. In fact, if they were heirs, they would have inherited the title. For example, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley (1900-1947) was not an heir. I've reverted your addition to the list of Earls of Shaftesbury, since he was not in fact, either an earl or an heir. I'm puzzled why you would add him to the list. It's like that old Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the other one." If you seriously thought it was appropriate to add him to the list, why did you limit yourself to only adding the one individual? In all things, if you want to include the lords in the article, I would suggest either creating a separate list, or renaming the section to reflect the appropriate content within the list, i.e., Earls and Lords. To include the lords, establishes the current section heading as misleading. It would also be appropriate if you were going in this direction, to include all apparent heirs, rather than just the one. At the end of it all, the inclusion in the list of earls is not in compliance with either WP:MOS or WP:PEER. Best regards, Cind.amuse 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) D B D 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPT

Hey, why did you just revert this? [1] Thanks, [stwalkerster|talk] 21:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have asked this to be changed because it is the incorrect spelling.

You have changed this back to the original which spells 'Ramsay MacDonald' please not that this is wrong and it should read 'Ramsey Macdonald' Thank You Jam.lawson (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources seem to suggest that "MacDonald" is correct. Do you have a source that says "Macdonald" is? Proteus (Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)"

He is a descendant of my family, and in my family tree it is spelt as Macdonald. Some places spell it as MacDonald but other Macdonald, people in my family spell it Macdonald, this might be the same in his case.

Thanks Jam.lawson (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[2]. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn

Hello, Proteus. An edit war seems to be developing over whether the lead should refer to her as 'Lady Mary Boleyn', I was interested in your opinion? Thanks,Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian

"Gardstein" is a Latvian name, according to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.127.7 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earls of Desmond: numbering

Hi Proteus, I see a few years back (6 years ago this month, gasp) you were involved in a debate (at Talk:Gerald FitzGerald, 15th Earl of Desmond) on renumbering some of the Earls of Desmond according to the published sources available. I've gone through some of the public domain sources that have become available since and created a proposal (or three) on how the numbering might be changed, it'd be great if you could take a look and see what your preferred option would be.

The discussion is on Talk:Earl_of_Desmond. KerryMuso (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denning

See the exceptions to the common naming rule; given that this is the third time you've tried to move it to the incorrect title, could you perhaps take the hint? ;p Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo wants to delete your work

Hi Proteus. I see that you originally added this material a year ago. Now Jimbo himself suggests it be deleted as unsourced. I have to say that I cannot easily find support for this material in the reference you cited, and for all I can tell it may be WP:SYNTH at best. But I want to make sure you know about this so that you can provide a clear source if one exists. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Proteus,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets of first creation

A baronet of first creation must swear an oath of allegiance under the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 s 14(5). Is this still the case? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lloyd Webber

Please can you have a look at the talk page? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article moving

Why did you revert my movings of the Kathleen Kennedy and William Cavendish articles? They had rather long titles and I was making them more concise and easier for people. The whole "___ of Hartington" really isn't needed in their article titles. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell 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. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Proteus! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Lovelace

Hello, Proteus. I note your recent edit to Ada Lovelace. There is a debate on its talk page that might interest you. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

City of London …city of London?

Completely agree with your edit and left a note on the editor's talk (trying) to explain why the distinctions are necessary.Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on the use of The Rt. Hon.

Hello. I have created a straw poll on whether The Right Honourable should be used in infoboxes for all Barons, Viscounts and Earls or just for Privy Counsellors. The poll is here. I wish that you could give your opinion there and maybe comment. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Proteus. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Proteus.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Proteus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Proteus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Proteus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding consensus while refusing to engage

The funny thing is, I now have two editors haranguing me to obtain consensus, yet neither of them is actually willing to engage in the discussion. I just keep looking at WP:V for the part that says material doesn't have to be verifiable, as long as nobody responds to the attempts at discussion made by the person challenging it. Perhaps you could show me where that bit is? Agricolae (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Field

... but surely not Middlesex ? ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 08:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baron's Heir Apparent

Hello Proteus!

I was hoping you might be able to help me with this scenario: a Baron holds two baronies, X and Y, which were inherited separately and were not created together (such as in a barony such as Baron X and Y). Baron X is considerably older than the other, thus takes precedence. Can the eldest son of the Baron hold Baron Y as a curtesy title since his father is not a single-title peer? If not, why? His father will not use this other title, so is it simply because he is a lower noble that he is not allowed to give his son a courtesy title? Otherwise, is it possibly a choice that the son can make whether or not it is proper to take the barony Y instead of The Right Honorable Mr. Z?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8600:1AC0:64A6:89AB:9678:A8B6 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Proteus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Connery's name.

Here's the support for the appearance of Sean Connery's name as "Sir Sean Thomas Connery."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Connery#Proper_appearance_of_name_%28Sean_Connery_is_neither_KBE_nor_CBE%29

In short, although he was born "Thomas Sean Connery," his own webpage refers to him as "Sir Sean," and his name appeared in the London Gazette as "Sir Sean Thomas Connery."

City of London Police Ranks

Hi Proteus. You reverted changes to new vector images for these ranks with the comment that the collar numbers were wrong. Would you be able to elaborate what is wrong with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.206.255 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Most Noble

The article The Most Noble has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No citations.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava

Dear Proteus. I see you have a lot of experience with aristocratic biographies and you seem to be one of the editors from whom I picked up the habit of bolding the subject's titles when they first appear in the body of the biography. I have submitted Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty for an A-Class review and have been told by a reviewer to unbolden these titles. I thought such styling was prescribed somewhere in WP:BIOGRAPHY but I cannot find where (if it exists), or perhaps it was once there but has been changed? I found you use such boldings in Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava (where you added the bolding of Baron Dufferin on 12:42 9 Oct 2004), Charles FitzGerald, 1st Baron Lecale, and Charles FitzGerald, 1st Baron Lecale]. Could you please enlighten me. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 2#Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Leofbrj (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Met Police

Hi Proteus

Do you have any thougths on where I could include the information I added to the Met Police article? I agree its not as high profile as the others. I think maybe expanding this section out into its own article would be suitable but I'm not sure what to call it, any ideas?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Lineage

Hope I’m in the right spot. Think I may have direct lineage to this person. Can anyone help. Very new here. A little green one might say. XasonRiley (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maurice Fitzgerald

Can you explain what is factually incorrect about my reasons for proposing this deletion. Can you explain how the Dukedom of Leinster exists when the peerage of Ireland does not anymore (not to be confused with Northern Ireland, Ulster is in fact only recognised as an Earldom). Even then Northern Ireland does not have its own peerage. Or the notability of the individual concerned who claoms a title that no longer exists on Ireland or the United Kingdom. Tyrsóg (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Order of Merit has been nominated for discussion

Category:Members of the Order of Merit has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Baronnet (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brian Gill (rugby league)

The article Brian Gill (rugby league) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals for sole holders of hereditary peerages

In this edit (from almost a year ago), you stated in the edit summary: "we use numerals even for sole holders of hereditary peerages." I've been looking for a source of that rule. Can you help me? —GoldRingChip 20:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Ranking Theresa May

Hi there, a few months ago i tried to edit Theresa May's lead section to add how she is historically ranked and you reversed it because at the time, it was only journalistic opinion in the rankings page. However, now that i have visited that page again it appears that May has now been ranked (extremely low) in the academics section. Therefore, i would like to ask if May's historical ranking could be added to her lead section now (as it is pretty important to have on there). Something like "May's ineffective leadership has been widely criticized, and historians rank her as one of the worst prime ministers in British history". Noahop3000 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]