User talk:JorisEnter

Postnominals

Hi JorisEnter. I have noticed that you have been removing the size parameter and commas from the postnominals template on a large number of articles. May I ask why this is so? Postnominals should be rendered as full size and interspaced with commas, as is standard practice outside of WP, so I am a little puzzled by your edits. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Abraham. While edititing Wikipedia, I came across several cases of postnominals. As I there appeared to be no single standard for using them (some pages, such as the one on Lord Mountbatten, use the notation you appear to prefer; others, like Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester or the Lord Patten of Barnes, use mine; still others simply use a piped link), I picked the one I liked most and which looked the most professional (full size and commas gives the postnominals a rather weird look, in my opinion; the version I used tend to, so as to speak, 'set them apart' from the rest of the text) and used it on all other pages which I edited. Yesterday, I felt the irresistible urge to apply this to more pages, so that's what I did. My apologies for the inconvenience my actions may have caused.

Also, is there a specific Wikipedia policy for using postnominals? You said that 'full size and commas' is standard practice outside of WP, but if there is no clear guideline here, it may be wise to create one to avoid further confusion on which style to use. If there is a guideline, I'd be grateful if you could send me the link to the page, so that I can read it and avoid any more mistakes.

Furthermore, I noticed that you and Dormskirk have been reverting several of my edits that added honorific_prefix and honorific_suffix to infoboxes. What is wrong with adding their styles and postnominals to the infobox? I realise that their postnominals (and orders and decorations in full as well) can be found elsewhere on the page, just like their military rank (if they have one), but what use do the _prefix and _suffix have if you can't use them for this? Quite some pages, such as the aforementioned Lord Mountbatten and Lord Patten, as well as, for example, Margaret Thatcher, use the pre- and suffixes, so why not apply them to the other pages? Yours sincerely, JorisEnter (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please

You recently made this edit which may have caused a lot of anguish as it shows the death of a living person. I can find no reference to this happening and other editors have caught your error. Can you explain here what happened? An aplogy at Stoker Cavendish's page might also be in order. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Victuallers. I believe that there is something of a misunderstanding here. I have not made the edit you were referring to - my only edit in the history of this particular page was one concerning the post-nominals letters of the Duke. As far as I can see, the information claiming the Duke had died was originally added by a user named Coyne&asso. Devonshirelives has recently removed most of the death_date parameter from the infobox as well, but apparently missed a bracket (so I removed it a moment ago). I hope that this has cleared away the confusion. JorisEnter (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry of Bath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Bigod. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford

added a link pointing to Lord High Admiral

William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester

added a link pointing to Basing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Paulet, 2nd Duke of Bolton may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| spouse = Margaret Coventry 10 July 1679-7 February 1682) Frances Ramsden (8 February 1683-22 November 1696) Henrietta Crofts (1697-27 February 1730)
Charles Powlett, 3rd Duke of Bolton]] [[Harry Powlett, 4th Duke of Bolton]] Lady Mary Powlett<br'''With Henrietta Crofts:''' [[Lord Nassau Powlett]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Paulet, 2nd Duke of Bolton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Holt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Postnominals

Hi - I notice that you are adding honorific prefixes and suffixes to military infoboxes. We generally do not do this for military people on the basis that both the ranks and awards already appear in the article lead and also lower down in the infobox. I appreciate you have a different view but do your realise that you are going to have to amend tens of thousands of articles to achieve a consistent presentation when we had a consistent presentation (no prefixes and suffixes) in the first place? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Paulet, 1st Duke of Bolton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Capell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Adrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Robinson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cherie Blair may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| office2 =[Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University
EWHC/Admin/2003/445.html |title=Purja & Ors, R (on the application of) v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 445 (Admin) (21 February 2003) |publisher=Bailii.org |date= |accessdate=19

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|spouse = Aileen Robertson) (1926–1970, his death)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| monarch3 = [Edward VII]] [[George V]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:50, 21 November 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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Hobhouse, 1st Baron Broughton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postnoms

Pls ensure that if you use a postnom template you maintain the original appearance of the postnoms -- other editors shouldn't have to clean up after you. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisEnter: ah somebody has already commented about postnoms on your page. I have just been talking about postnoms on another Talk page & it is high time Wiki establishes some order to the representation of postnominal honorific letters. At the moment there is no order as far as I can tell, just people doing what they like (in apparent accordance with self-devised rules which seem increasingly divergent from reality). I don't yet know quite your level of interest in this matter but I trust that you will take note that, a} postnoms are honorifics & do not have to be used (being honorary) & b) precisely because they are honorifics they should be treated with the respect they deserve and not bandied around by Wikipedians as if they own them...

So, in the case of the postnominal use of PC, this refers in this context to someone who has been appointed a Privy Counsellor (in British & Commonwealth usage) - there remains a longstanding protocol that members of the Privy Council are accorded the honorary prefix of Rt Hon (aka The Right Honourable) and that when Rt Hon is used PC as a postnom is not, otherwise it would be akin to writing Dr Rowan Williams DD or "Parliamentarian John Smith MP" - this is how base some Wikipedians' familiarity with the subject appears to be becoming. So let's be clear: PC duplicates Rt Hon (& is therefore utterly unrequired). Let me revert your edit & please respond with your thoughts - meantime all best wishes for the New Year. Best M Mabelina (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. just in case of any doubt, please note that at the beginning of his entry Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford, KG KB PC reads absolutely correctly because the honorific prefix isn't used (& therefore there no tautology appears here!).

If I may note, PC postnoms are used by peers. They are already styled The Rt Hon, so you can't infer their Privy Counsellorship from their style. Therefore, peers do use PC in their postnominals. Non-peers indeed don't use them where their style (The Rt Hon) is used. Happy new year to you as well. JorisEnter (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have put your finger on the problem - Wikipedians seem to have presumed because there is no obvious distinction between The Rt Hon & PC (at whichever end of the name) it is correct to deploy it at both ends. This is incorrect & to give you a bit of historical background (social history inasmuch as it touches upon class structures) The Rt Hon has never been formally granted in the title but accorded as a customary social stylistic privilege; this of course did not matter much in the 18&19&20c when many Peers of the Realm were PCs and also deference prevailed. So nowadays these old structures are being/have been broken down (which is good in my book - hopefully yours too?) but this somehow has opened up a vacuum of unknowledge which some choose to fill - because good modern practice is evolving/has evolved not to style all Peers of the Realm as Rt Hon, although somewhat perplexingly Wiki chooses to pursue even promote the notion that all peerage title holders (whether or not they are among the 90 hereditary peers elected to the HoL) are Rt Hon (whilst conversely ignoring other traditional marks of respect, such as Dr. to name just one). The whole Wiki approach to this needs to be given due consideration to come up with a rationale suitable for the modern day (& one which accords with current practice in the real world too). In a nutshell, Peers who are not PCs aren't styled Rt Hon in written form. Please advise your thoughts. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Debrett's says that "In official documents the style of The Right Hon should still be used for both an earl and countess" and gives the correct style in legal documents for an earl as "The Right Honourable Myles Earl of Aldford, The Right Honourable Alison Countess of Aldford" [1]. It also states that "an earl by courtesy is never accorded the formal style of 'The Right Hone' unless he also happens to be a privy counsellor" but this only applies to an earl by courtesy, that is, someone who holds the title of earl because their father happens to have this earldom as a subsidiary title (e.g., the Earl of Arundel, son of the Duke of Norfolk, is not The Rt Hon). Who's Who apparently disagrees, but that source is thirteen or fourteen years old. Also, since when is KB not a correct postnominal for Walpole? He was a Knight Companion of the Order of the Bath, so he should use those postnominals, just like KG. JorisEnter (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good - I'm glad you're using Debrett's and of course, as if you don't already know, Burke's prevails when it comes to seeking genealogical info, but & it is a big BUT ......the style of The Right Hon should still be used..... YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE POSTNOM!

Your point was that peers actually don't use The Rt Hon, and that it is something of a Wikipedian invention. We appear to have established that peers do use The Rt Hon, and as we need to differentiate between those who are PCs and those who are not, we use the postnominals. I still wonder what's wrong with using KB in the infobox, as you gave no answer to that. JorisEnter (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is one & only - that of accuracy. Wiki is falling betwixt & between - so either you carry all the titles all along the way or you use customary accepted form to indicate which titles are accorded to & used by whom. At the moment it is chaos. On the one hand there is a Wiki brigade deleting all handles, titles etc & on the other with regard to British noble titles, through no individual's fault but rather a lack of guidance, we are expanding the list of postnoms to a degree never seen before! My point - but it is NOT ACTUALLY MY POINT (if you know what I mean?) - is that the British Establishment is doing its level best to try to be PC! Politically correct that is! And, somehow Wiki has gone off at almost the opposite tangent to include prefixes & postnoms in conjunction as were never used before... How to fix this? It is so so simple - when you see Rt Hon as a prefix DO NOT use PC as a postnom. The second and lesser point is that Peers should no longer be described as Rt Hon - it is unnecessary. And NO it is not a Wikipedian invention, but a bit like calling everyone Sir out of politeness or sycophancy when they are not real "Sirs"... (although the more Wikipedians persist with this anomaly it will begin to look like a Wiki, albeit unknown, agenda!). M Mabelina (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay.

I had another look at Debrett's, which also says that "In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name." [2] I still wonder why KB would be wrong to use in the infobox, as you have not given any answer to that question. JorisEnter (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisEnter: good to be acquainted with one who is interested in matters of correct form - appreciated! There is nothing per se wrong with using KB after KG as a postnom, but generally it has always been & still is regarded that being a Knight of the Garter trumps everything so why bother listing any other honours at all when you've got the best one? and unless I'm utterly mistaken this perceived aura which is entirely what it is still holds firm throughout Western Europe & in Russia too because of its recent reversal in thinking towards affection for its Tsarist past. So KG, KB - there is nothing wrong with it - it is just that these postnoms would not appear like this (& when used in more formal documents normally the titles would be spelled out in full, namely Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter and Knight of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, etc (since 1815 the Order of the Bath has two extra grades that of GCB & CB whilst KB is roughly equiv to KCB)....

PS. other Orders of roughly similar standing as the Garter are the Danish Order of the Elephant (extant) and the extinct Bourbon Ordre du Saint-Esprit & the revived Borbón Orden del Toisón de Oro (more caché in the time of the Holy Roman Emperor).

WP has a tendency to just list all postnominals a person has except for (a) academic degrees (DCL, DLitt, ScD and so on; no pre-nominal Dr is used either) or (b) royalty with too many postnominals (like in the case of Charles, Prince of Wales). See WP:HONORIFIC for more information. And IMO the amount of postnominals does matter, in my opinion: it helps you distinguish between someone who is KG just because they're a peer, and someone along the lines of Horatio Kitchener or Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts.

KB actually isn't equivalent to KCB but more like GCB - both are sash/breast star combinations and when the one-to-three (no pun intended) class change occurred (in 1815, I believe) all KBs were upgraded to GCBs. JorisEnter (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisEnter: Three-two-one (Ted Rogers) - Dusty Bin! From what you say above it isn't looking likely that Wiki is as evolutionary as it perhaps first seemed. No matter - but this should not obstruct the correct representation of facts?? Whether or not the postnom count helps you discern whatever you can discern from such an exercise, please advise how you think Wiki can move forward on historical matters!

If Wiki is to be properly encyclopaedic let's work together to ensure the veracity of its content.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to let me know why Rt Hon as an honorific prefix in conjunction with PC as postnoms are repeatedly displayed on Wiki's pages? Looking forward to hearing your response soonest. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guideline for use of postnominals, especially PC, would be as follows:

List all postnominals except for academic degrees (as stated at WP:CREDENTIAL)
Use PC postnominals only when the Privy Counsellorship cannot be inferred from the person's Right Honourableness

JorisEnter (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and perhaps the following would be tighter & even more informative:

List all postnominals except for academic degrees (as stated at WP:CREDENTIAL)
Use PC postnominals only in the main body of the text (where honorary prefixes are discouraged), but use Right Honourable in infoboxes, where applicable...

Mabelina (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with that would be that you can't tell from the infobox postnominals if somebody happens to be Right Honourable for another reason (in the case of Robert Walpole this would be his peerage). JorisEnter (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was Rt Hon both by courtesy of noble title & being a PC. Have a think about it, but I would recommend that Wiki drops the archaic courtesy style of Rt Hon for nobles (after all, we don't state Most Noble for Dukes or Most Hon. for Marquesses - so why this fixation with Rt Hon for Earls, Viscounts and Barons, and especially why so for Life Peers).. Just an idea - let me know... Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... We do use The Most Hon for marquesses and His Grace for dukes. Debrett's also recommends using PC postnominals for dukes ("When a duke is also a privy counsellor or has received a knighthood he may use the appropriate post-nominal letters" [3]) and marquesses ([4]). Other peers are also styled The Right Hon, including Life Peers ([5]). JorisEnter (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes yes - I'm all for going with Debrett's - so please ensure nobody deletes my edits should it happen to contravene Wiki "MOS". This is way better than I thought it could turn out. Is this what you mean though? M Mabelina (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "this". And I'd be careful in doing things that do not correspond to the MOS - other editors aren't particularly eager to see such edits. JorisEnter (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is my whole point - finally we're getting there - most fortunately you clearly have a very good grasp of formal protocol styles, whereas naturally others may well not. Wiki MOS is in a mess on this & I suggest that some strictures be laid down for all to see (& follow). Right now it is basically make it up as you go along time, which "don't please me much"! If you have some clout or even if not let's just propose a very simple code of practice (& if it follows Debrett's that would be fab - rather than this pick 'n' mix job which is happening now).... M Mabelina (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion the current MOS is pretty accurate. It should perhaps be stated more clearly that PC postnominals are only to be used when the PCship cannot be inferred from Right Honourableness, but the rest of them seems to be a good guideline. JorisEnter (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

were you one of the architects of MOS?

No. I've been around here for less than a year. JorisEnter (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, so I guess one has to keep pampering the egos of those who did devise it...

I should imagine what would interest you is how foreign Wikis style peerage holders... Anyway I've put forward a solution above - let's see if any Admin grabs the bullet. Sorrry (error)

Sorry, what? JorisEnter (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisEnter: to continue to our discussions above (enjoyable until an unwelcome disruption (glitch by leaving another window open became apparent, for which my apologies)), please see the following Wiki notice re. The Lord Lansley's page: . This template, I trust you will agree, should be amended to read: NOTE: please refrain from appending the post-nominals "PC" after his name, 'The Right Honourable' before his name is enough to prove he is a Privy Counsellor. Looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
qv. Governor-General Lord Bessborough etc

is it just me [my imagination, that is!], or do some people on Wiki have the ability to edit what I'm typing (for the sake of good order)?

@JorisEnter:yes is the answer to the above & I should like to alert you to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies regarding the rights & wrongs of Rt Hon. + PC etc. Perhaps you might like to comment? M Mabelina (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisEnter: Hi there just did some cleaning up back to where we started a couple of weeks ago. Important to note if "cleaning up" postnoms to get them in the right order - for this, unless it is second nature, refer to the Order of Precedence. Also made consistent edits such as that of Lord Malloch-Brown and Lord Athlone, ie. with a capital "T". Your efforts in cleaning up peerage & other related article are much appreciated, so let's work together to do a good job. The more one looks into the more mistakes one encounters! No doubt you spotted my comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies about Wiki making out that Life Peers aren't Peers of the Realm? If Life Peers aren't Peers of the Realm then what are they Peers of (apart from us all)!!?? Much to be done, 'twould seem... Looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies for latest discussion on the matter of honorific prefixes and postnoms..

@JorisEnter: not sure why you replied on another Talk page when you haven't responded to the above, but as Jimmy Wales strongly urged when talking to the BBC on Friday we should relax. I have no wish to engage in perpetual argument. I simply make the point that Rt Hon & PC do not and never have gone together in the same style (until Wiki Infoboxes came along that is). So, I am merely putting forward a way to remedy the matter. It's amazing how much kerfuffle can be caused by merely trying get things correct. Anyway let's pull together if poss. Best M Mabelina (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina, the reason - I suspect - that JorisEnter replied on my page was that you mentioned them, so they were perfectly entitled to contribute there. It was certainly not compulsory for them to reply to the post above before replying elsewhere. Frinton100 (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (of course I realised that but was just trying to avoid discussions spilling over on to your page M Mabelina (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Just noticed your edit on the 2nd Duke of Buckingham and the edit summary "stop editing this" - this is now moot since Mabelina has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia - see his talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed it shortly afterwards. --JorisEnter (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| monarch1 = [[[George VI]]
| monarch2 = [[[George VI]] [[[Elizabeth II]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Hardinge, 1st Baron Hardinge of Penshurst may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Excellency]] The Right Honourable Sir Charles Hardinge {{postnominals|country=GBR|KCMG|CB|CVO|PC}}}}<ref>{{London Gazette |issue=27674 |startpage=2923 |date=6 May 1904}}</ref>
* Zara S. Steiner, ''The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy 1898–1914'' )Cambridge, 1969)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Fane, 3rd Earl of Westmorland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convention Parliament. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing re Hugh Fraser (British politician)

Hi, I appreciate your point here but I believe you are inaccurate as regards the Kt. issue. As a baron, he would automatically be entitled to "Sir"; as a Knight Bachelor, however, it is an earned, substantive honour (see [6]). I don't dispute the other issue you mentioned (the Right Honourabel). Please check it out. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he were a baron, he might indeed use Kt in his postnominals, but I can't find any information on him being a baron in the article. He was the son of a baron (which means he was entitled to the style "The Hon", although this is superseded by his being "The Rt Hon" due to being a Privy Counsellor), but as far as I can see he didn't inherit the barony.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turin

Please, dont delete my text. I improved grammar.

With best wishes, --Inal31 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Dutch/Netherlands Lion

User:JorisEnter, you might be interested in this RfC. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping edit warrior on knighthoods

Hello and thanks for your vigilance. See here, for the complaint I've made. Problem is that only one of his aliases is blocked at the moment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JorisEnter. 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]

European Communities Act 1972 (UK)

Legislation in the UK usually commenced on the same date as it received Royal Assent, and the Team behind Legislation.Gov.UK at the National Archives (TNA) are expected to leave something called a "marginal footnote" when a piece of legislation was somehow delayed at Royal Assent from "coming into force"...can you actually produce evidence that the whole of the ECA 1972 was somehow deliberately put on hold until 1 January 1973, other than that one particular source?! ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look here, your edit was nothing more than "dry-by" nonsense...and just plain nonsense! The ECA 1972 allowed the British Government (and gave them the legal authority) to make all sorts of preparations BEFORE the UK finally legally joined the then EC/EEC on 1.1.1973...how do you suppose the Government could have done all that when the law was "suspended" until 1.1.1973, you really are clever as well as funny...have you ever thought of Edinburgh Fringe?! Don't get your P45 on my advice though! ------ 87.102.116.36 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Format of Royal Family succession boxes

You may wish to comment on Talk:Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom#Format_of_Royal_Family_succession_boxes. Alekksandr (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JorisEnter. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JorisEnter. 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 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Journal of Political Philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff McMahan. 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) 06:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Fane

Hi, I don't think that portrait is of him. How can I make that clear (you deleted my questioning of their claim)? Rodolph (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes on ECJ judges

Hello JorisEnter. I noticed your edits to the infoboxes of several Dutch ECJ judges. Thanks for contributing. I noticed however that part of the edits were not backed up by material in the body of text. This included info on the title of disserations, names of supervisors, successors in office for Jos Kapteyn. I already managed to add the necessarry information on the article of Sacha Prechal. But it is still lacking on that of Christiaan Timmermans and Paul Joan George Kapteyn. Would you please add the information to the remaining articles? Crispulop (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crispulop, thanks for pointing that out. I wrote Kapteyn's and Timmermans's pages on the Dutch Wikipedia so the sources should be there at least. A quick check: for Timmermans most of the information can be found in his Album Academicum entry at the UvA as well as this CV from his time as a Commission official; for Kapteyn my main source was this interview by Rick Lawson in Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis from 2018 (unfortunately it is not available in open access). I'll add some proper sourcing in the coming days. JorisEnter (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions! I also managed to find some more material which I've added.Crispulop (talk) 12:02, 18 November 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]