Hello, 45ossington, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Henrik 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to hunt down topics like this one for inclusion in Wikipedia. As far as stub rating goes, I tend to rate most newly established articles as stubs. That goes double for articles that are pulled from a single public domain reference without inline citations. I think that's just in the spirit of the classification. I'm not married to that rating, though -- if you think the article is better described as Start or B class, please feel free to reclassify it. Erechtheus 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 45ossington! This is perhaps an unusaul request, but i wonder if you would like to help to change the name of one article to a more correct one? The article of the Swedish actor Sara Fredrica Strömstedt-Torsslow have an unessecary long title. In Sweden, she is known simply as Sara Torsslow. While the other names are indeed correct, she did not use them all; Fredrica was never used, and Strömstedt and Torsslow was not used the same time. This can be seen at the Swedish wikipedia-version of this article, and in the linkes cited. The letter "ö" is also somewhat troublesome, which is a nother reason for a change. This has ben pointed out on the articles discussion-page. I turn to you because i noticed your earlier careful editing and appreciation of this article. Best wishes! --85.226.235.206 13:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for the edits to the clubs - I was going to get around to it at some point. Relata refero (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up after me at Hugo Williams ... sorry about the typos. Stumps (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you like the DNB & dead judges. I give you Salathiel Lovell, recently arrived to wikipedia, who could probably do with some more work from the ODNB article, but upon whom I can spend no more time right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good headings; many thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know... that Sir John Maynard (picture) created The Maynard School for girls in 1658 as the trustee of a will and not the other Sir John Maynard who attended Charles I's trial? by 45ossington I added some additional refs etc and a pic. OK? Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I had based it on the birth and death dates.... but I could be adding to others mistakes If you find extra sources then do add them too as a DYK relies on having well referenced kook facts. Maybe we need a stub for the other one ... Victuallers (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC). Your "other" John Maynard appears to be involved with the trial of Charles 1st .... and there is a pic! I was impressed by the speed of the article. With your permission we could change the hook to include both JMs if we can get the other one up to 1500 characters plus. Victuallers (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Victuallers (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final is

• ... that it was Sir John Maynard (pictured) who created The Maynard School for girls in 1658 and not, Henry's son, the other Sir John Maynard who attended Charles I's trial? Victuallers (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced your Henry Vane the Elder ... normal terms: revert on dislike.

Meanwhile, FYI, User:Dsp13, who originated the missing DNB list, has done another analysis, on his home page, of under-represented people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles John Maynard (MP), John Maynard (KB), and Henry Maynard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Could you tell me if Ranulph Crewe is the same person as Sir Randulph ( or Randle) Crewe Lord of the Manor, Sandbach. Many thanks 安東尼 TALKies 16:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm a Brit. Judges at that time were referred to as justices, hence the change; as for removing the titles it was because the article basically read "Hervey de Stanton was a justice, and two particular types of justice". I thought it was better to leave them until the main text. Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literally translated it would be "Duncan of the Pieces" but the meaning would be better conveyed by something along the lines of "Duncan of the Poems" (Nam Pios referring to his writing/pieces of poetry, presumably). You should certainly put his silver cup nicknames back in if it came from a good source - my only problem with it was the way it was placed to suggest it was the english meaning of "Donnchadh nam Pios". regards, siarach (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might "nam Piosan", rather than "nam Pios" have some connection with Donnchadh's tableware? Or was Sorley Maclean simply using the opportunity (in English and Gaelic) to use two different heroic epithets?

A good question and one im unable to answer. If "Duncan of the Silver Cups" was good enough for Somhairle Mhòr then it's certainly good enough for wikipedia! Just revert my deletion but you should stick the reference in for it as well because i think most other Gaelic speakers would have the same reaction i had if they saw "... the silver cups" stuck in there (unexplained) as the english equivalent of "..nam pios" - it's certainly not an obvious translation taken out of context. siarach (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early gazette entries hyphenate it as a double-barrelled surname, though other sources are contradictory I see - there's no need to bracket it though. I'm just looking through the recommendations for his decorations - seems to have been quite a remarkable chap. I'll try to expand somewhat. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, its great to see another editor contributing to Scottish clan articles. I have noted your work in Kenneth Mackenzie, 7th of Kintail. As you can see I moved all the info about the chiefs to a new page: Chiefs of Clan Mackenzie as has been done with a few other clans where the main article has got too long. I hope you can improve it further. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And very well done on shifting the chiefs - much better off where they are now. I am interested in clan history, though I find it all a bit of a minefield, given:

1. the deep embedding of unreliable Victorian sources (repeated again and again and lovingly embellished with additional errors)
2. the violently passionate feelings of some about clan history and what a clan is for (and as for clan chiefs...!)
3. the hundred different ways in which any Scottish place name or personal name can be spelled in historical documents

45ossington (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Victorian sources are often unreliable. One example is a Mackenzie: Alexander Mackenzie (historian), I could tell you lots about his work which is inaccurate. Clan battles seem to make up alot of the clans' history and there seems to be alot of them. However some clans are said to have had so many battles (Clan Cameron and Clan Mackintosh) that I think it must be impossable for them to have fought so often, because if they did their clans would not have survived, they would have been wiped out. It is rather sad really but it does make the history exciting. Spelling variations are really because historicaly there has not always been one strict way of spelling a name, people often wrote things down based on how the word sounded. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I edited the academic performance copy as per your suggestion to make it less POV. The edit war continues, however, with the initial problem that my nemesis had with the copy (that it didn't include the Academy's performance in the 'A'-level exams - so I put them in as well) being supplanted by the new accusation that the source is inaccurate and unreliable. No reasoning is given for this standpoint so I have reverted and asked for discussion in the appropriate place that we might reach concensus. I do not see how this informaiton could fail to be relevant when discussing a school and I have no problem with the veracity of the source. Can you help me stop this tit-for-tat deletion/re-insertion please? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for creating the article Donald Monro (Dean). I have been meaning to do an article for him but have never been able to find any good sources. He was quite an important figure in the history of the highlands.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Donald Gregory would be excellent. I am mostly concerntrating on the Clan Munro Chiefs for the time being. There are quite a few still left to do. I have some good sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the Gregory article, nice job 45ossington. Here's a modern source that could be used [1]; it's really about Skene, but goes into Gregory as well. Apparently Skene and Gregory were quite close.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you haven't really been making any contributions anywhere, and simply going after me. This happens on users' talk pages and is usually fine in moderation, but now you've taken it to Talk:Clan MacLeod. I have removed your interesting attempt at I'm not sure what, which would have succeeded better if you actually knew anything about the humble origins of the Stuarts versus the immemorial nobles who replaced them, from there. Also please do not return to my talk page. You are now unwelcome and any comments you make will be removed. I expect this message will embarrass you a little and you are of course free to remove it. DinDraithou (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that the conversation appears to have run its course. (It was reductio ad absurdum, by the way - a method of argument which fails if one's interlocutor is willing to embrace the absurd.) Not having ever fallen out with anyone on Wikipedia before, I shall not myself adopt the approach of attempting to delete the record of the debtate. Good luck with the Sinclairs, the O'Neills and the other forgetful nobles.45ossington (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked back to the above article which I contributed to some time ago and found that there was some controversy about William Miller's descendants.

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin is a direct descendant of William Miller and his second wife Susannah Chapman (daughter Ellen Miller married William E Crowfoot; their son John H Crowfoot married Mary Bayly; their son John Winter Crowfoot married Grace Mary Hood and these were Dorothy's parents).

The Ernest Hemingway connection, I believe, descends from the musician and composer Edward Miller (1730-1807) who was William Miller's brother. The line goes through his son William Edward Miller (1766-1839) (hence, I think, the confusion and the erronious belief that he was descended from William Miller the publisher) and then his daughter Mary Miller (b 1798) who married Ernest Hall (1840-1905) then their daughter Grace Hall who was Ernest's mother.

Your correspondent who stated that Crowfoots were not interested in family history is, I'm afraid, far off the mark. Many of my in-laws are indeed very interested and were happy to receive a copy of the results of my year-long investigation of their ancestor William Miller. Through a stroke of serendipity I was given a copy of William Miller's unpublished memoire and it was a fascinating reflection on his life. They were much amused to discover the Ernest Hemingway connection even though Dorothy's generation were only his fifth cousins.

Hope this helps the debates rather than hinders! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.253.61 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The A.C. Benson quotation is a very nice addition to the Arnold page. Thank you. Mddietz (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear 45ossington,

     i will re-add the alumni as you suggested and create a wiki-link (but not today).  I've listed below three link for your records. The first is for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who give out the Oscars. The second shows a trailer of the film. The third (ABC 20/20 News) references why the Groton School and one faculty member and the head of the board may be somewhat vindictive. The faculty member, John Tulp, was specifically brought to the attention of the Middlesex DA, now the AG of Massachusetts. 
     The school tried unsuccessfully to fight the case in court, as well as unsuccessfully in the news with their press agent. The school also wound up publishing an official apology to the students and families involved. 
     From my perspective, this is not simply about the inclusion of one name, a red-link or the elimination of a couple of names. It is about fairness and truth, which I believe is at the heart of Wikipedia.  I don't pretend to be entirely computer/link literate, but I try. 

Sincerely, Peter

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2010/20100506a.html http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/student-academy-awards-2010-finalists-announced/ http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124035&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterpa69 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your diligent and tireless contributions on Scottish History, Scotland, and Scottish clans. User:asteuartw (talk) 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The Battle of Blar Na Pairce and the Raid on Ross certainly are related in that they were fought largely between the MacDonalds and Mackenzies. However the date for the Battle of Blar Na Pairce cannot be confirmed. They are also connected in that they are related to the fact that the chief of Clan Donald had forfeited or resigned the title of Earl of Ross to the crown. As the Clan Donald chief was no longer Earl of Ross, he no longer held power, in an official capacity, over the clans of Ross, and those clans no longer had to pledge allegiance to the MacDonald chief. The Mackenzies, at the time being based in Wester-Ross came into close conflict to the MacDonalds who were also based in the West. At the Raid on Ross in 1491 MacDonald of Lochalsh was fighting in support of the Clan Donald chief who was Domhnall Dubh, who was the grandson of the last MacDonald Earl of Ross and so claimed that and the Lord of the Isles title for himself. (The Lord of the Isles title was also revoked/forfeited). You could say that the Raid on Ross was more of a clan conflict between the Mackenzies and MacDonalds over power in Ross but it was all due to Domhnall Dubh's claim of power over Ross and in 1491 he was in rebellion against the king. The Battle of Drumchatt again was MacDonald of Lochalsh rising against the clans of Ross who supported the King. Again MacDonald was attacking clans who supported the king/crown. The Battle of Achnashellach again part of the same conflict was fought by the Clan Cameron, who in turn supported the MacDonalds. The king's forces at this battle included the Munros, whose chief William Munro, along with the Earl of Huntly and others had been given a commission to repress the rebellion. All these battles are different and separate events but they were all part of the same feud/conflict between the MacDonalds who claimed the the Earldom of Ross and Lordship of the Isles and the King of Scotland, and the clans who supported him. I'll add the Battle of Blar Na Pairce to the campaign box. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two minds with one thought, hmm? I really need to learn to type faster. Damn edit conflicts. ClaretAsh 08:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 45ossington. I left a comment on the page. I see it the same way as you, and have the article on my watchlist. Hopefully I'll track down Sellar's book one day.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Nikos Fokas, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Academy of Athens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your interest in this page; I hope you will not mind that I have temporarily reverted your edit. May I ask: Did you intend to delete the reference to Ian Garbh and, if so, was there any particular reason? Do you have a published source for the assertion that it was not both co-heiresses but "Julia" who resigned "her" rights? The usual genealogical works suggest that both sisters effected the resignation, but I appreciate that there may well be better sources available. When you suggest that Julia resigned "her" rights, to whose rights exactly do you refer: Janet's, Julia's, or both sisters' rights?

I feel that there is a great deal more to be said on Wikipedia about the person and family of the remarkable Duncan Macrae, but am not sure how to get hold of the material! With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Iain Garbh was an uncle of Janet and Julia, not their brother see here: http://www.archive.org/stream/genealogicalhera04burk#page/590/mode/2up Iain Garbh drowned in 1671(see Chronicles of the Frasers/Wardlaw MS), his son Iain Og succeeded(see Book of Dunvegan Vol 1 pg 65) under the tutelage of his uncle Murdo(Iain Garbh's only brother who sat in his seat, see Gaelic Songs of Mary Macleod pg 31). The pipe tune Macleod of Raasay's Salute was originally titled Lament for John son of John Garbh(see Donald Macdonald Collection here: http://www.piobaireachd.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=101 Front Matter including Index to the Tunes. Janet and Julia were the only children of Iain Garbh's elder brother Alexander(6th chief). Alexander, who bought Julia's rights was a son of Malcolm, Iain Garbh's younger brother. Malcolm also drowned in 1671. There are many descendants of Iain Garbh alive today, the current chiefly family of Lewis/Raasay have either forgotten this or choose to ignore it - in any event they are not the senior male line.

I don't have a published source for the assertion that it was Julia(Geills,Sile) who sold her rights, I have a transcribed sasine RS38/5 f.584v – 583r, the original of which is in the National Records in Edinburgh. In it Geills(Julia) sells her rights of half the lands of Raasay, to Alexander Macleod, her "father's brother's sone". I have been unable to find a record that Janet(wife of Duncan) sold or resigned her rights, if she did, it was not in 1692 as most references claim. Raasay, from 1610, was held under the Mackenzies, until James 11th of Raasay got the lands once more under the crown. Perhaps Janet's MacRae descendants had a claim to an equal half of Raasay up to that point, it may be the reason the Macleods moved their seat from Brochel in the north to Clachan in the south. Some, at least, of Iain Og's descendant's lived in Skye, where MacLeod of MacLeod gave them lands.

All the best GMacleod(GMac78) 12:59, 28 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmac78 (talk • contribs)

Hello, 45ossington. You have new messages at Talk:Clan MacNeacail.
Message added 00:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, 45ossington. You have new messages at Talk:Langdon Abbey.
Message added 21:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ClaretAsh 00:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please follow this up as, without seeing the book, I have no idea which pages in particular will be needed. Thank you. ClaretAsh 00:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We commonly include material such as this, so I've raised the issue at WP:NPOVN#Edinburgh Academy. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your addition re the Nicolsons. The article just made FA and is expected to make a main page appearance on 23rd Jan.

FA references need page numbers - if you can provide that here I'm happy to fix the formatting.

Does said reference provide a more specific location e.g. Trotternish?

Ta, Ben MacDui 18:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Trotternish; I think the page numbers are 3-4 (I don't have the book here, but that is what is recorded in the Clan Nicolson article, to which I contributed), but I am not 100% sure. By all means feel free to remove the whole sentence for the time being if that would be more in keeping with FA requirements - the last thing I want to do is to create difficulties for a very fine article.45ossington (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Monckton Milnes, 1st Baron Houghton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chartist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Great to see material being added to Richard Chenevix Trench. I've recently expanded the article on his great grandson (I believe), Anthony Chenevix-Trench, who was headmaster of Fettes College, amongst other places, last century. You may want to take a look and see if there's anything that can be improved (I made a few blunders with the details of the line of descent originally, but I hope it's correct now). I do also wonder if some of the other Chenevix-Trench's in between (or elsewhere in the family tree) were notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I fear I have no special expertise on the Chenevix Trench family, but the article on the headmaster looks very thorough and reads well. They seem a distinguished lot, on the whole, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were others who deserve articles. With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 45ossington. I came across another paper on the MacKenzies by Aonghas MacCoinnich that you might be interested in: Strathconon, Scatwell and the Mackenzies in the Written Record c.1463-c.1700. You can get it from here: [2].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much again. I am away from the UK and look forward to reading it properly when I get back. Interesting how much worthwhile history results from the genealogical impulse.45ossington (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Newcastle Scholarship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very few sources; Notability Issues; Good-faith search online reveals little information elsewhere online

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Knowto (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting prod and working on the article. I was keen for it to stay in some format. It's looking better with all your references. Rayman60 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 45ossington. 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]

Thanks. Garageland66 reminds me very much of Woodseats44 who had a campaign to denote every English church of pre-reformation date as of Roman Catholic origin. Whilst true, it was indicative of a very POV agenda! I fear this one will run for a while yet. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 45ossington. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastleach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Good Wikipid-etonian
	Hey, just wanted to thank you for standing up for the Newcastle with such respect. I certainly disagree with you about its relevance to the Wikipedia community, but you're doing a good job. Knowto (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My latest addition to the debate verges on the personal, but I hope not offensively so. I am resisting the temptation to start a new article on the Huxley Prize...45ossington (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunspel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 45ossington. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

Hello, 45ossington. 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]

Thanks for uploading File:Kate Rock, Baroness Rock.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. I have today forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail from the owner of the uploaded image, so hopefully all will shortly be in order.45ossington (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should also add {{subst:OP}} to the file description to identify that permission email has been sent and is pending permission verification. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! 45ossington (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded the permission e-mail as you suggested, but have received an e-mail telling me, "We are unable to accept forwarded permission statements for legal reasons". Is that right? As a technique of discouraging the addition of photographs to articles, these tortuous complexities would be hard to improve upon. 45ossington (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS emails are accessible only to OTRS members so I don't know why the permission is deemed insufficient. You will need to contact OTRS for further clarification. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a general policy, as I was told "We are unable to accept emails that were forwarded as they are able to be altered when sent. We are not implying in anyway that is what you did, however for legal reasons we need an email directly from someone that is associated with the copyright whether it be the holders themselves or an agent that is appointed by them." If that's the general policy, I wonder whether it might be worthwhile re-visiting your standard template advice. Anyway, it's all resolved now, so thank you again for your help. 45ossington (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It does indeed appear that the advice provided in the notice is at odds with the actual practice. I've posted a note at Template talk:Db-notice pointing to this conversation about the file you uploaded. Feel free to participate and help improve the wording. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I enjoyed seeing the achievements of my brother David Bostock very much. Thanks for giving him recognition, and your thoroughness in collecting the facts. Roland Bostock Roland Bostock (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the edits to William_Mackenzie,_5th_Earl_of_Seaforth. I still find it a bit unfair that the Countess of Seaforth continues to not be acknowledged as a Stuart relation. I do not like to speculate but I am confident to have the British relation of the Borgias. I think all this might have had to do with the Jacobite wars and the conflicting denominations. I'm outside Britain but Catholics here are quite confident of what I wrote on the Earl of Seaforth's page. I don't see what reason they would have to speculate. A pity we never seem to succeed at acknowledging this relation. My claim is that Mary Kennet was another natural daughter of King James II of England and Catherine Sedley. Then there would be the Saville relations in the tree as well. I was even thinking of listing Mary Kennet on the James II page under Catherine Sedley as well. I'm not the kind of person that likes to speculate, but at my age am confident enough that I would want to disclose this. You even have to realise how the Kennets would have been given the hand of an Earl in marriage in the first place. I would be willing to seek the registers myself in order to clarity these claims. I don't think I should be wrong by today Jccoelho99 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]