User Talk: Csexton345

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hi Csexton345! I noticed your contributions ↗ to :Winchester College ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Block.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 148.252.140.128/25. My block says it may have something to do with having a VPN, and if this is the case then i may be able to offer a, in my opinion, suitable reason. Due to having Wi-Fi issues recently, I have been made to use data, which is proving very slow, and, in an attempt to remedy this, I turned on a VPN to see if this would speed things up (it did not). for this reason, I am requesting an unblock for my IP address, having learnt from my mistake. I hope to be able to continue to make improvements where I can when coming across articles I feel could do with additions, and so an unblock for my IP address would be very useful. Thank you in advance. Csexton345 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC) |decline = Procedural decline only, user is free to refile this exact request if they wish. User plans to wait the full 24 hours, after which they should be able to edit. :) Yamla (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

That IP address is a confirmed VPN. Once you disable your VPN, you need to wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Will do, thank you :). Csexton345 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Candace Owens

You need multiple reliable sources showing her being called the honorable. <span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span> talk 14:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

:While she may not be commonly known as such, as the wife of an Honourable she is entitled to share her husband's style. Perhaps it should be changed to reflect her entitlement to that style, rather than simply saying she IS known as The Honourable Mrs George Farmer, as is the custom in the United Kingdom. There are a number of cases where the wife does not use her marital style, see Emily Thornberry ↗, not Lady Nugee in The Gazette, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/64607/supplement/N8, however the style remains. For further information, see the Government's guide to recording styles: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible#bookmark11. Csexton345 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::If you have several reliable sources discussing her entitlement, fine. But they should discuss her. <span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span> talk 15:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Her marriage to the son of a peer is enough to show her entitlement, just as with every wife of a man in Britain with a style or title. Again, I draw attention to Emily Thornberry ↗, who has never used her style, yet has still been referred to as Lady Nugee by others, simply due to her marriage to Sir Christopher Nugee. Whether or not Owens has used the feminine form of her husband's name is irrelevant, she is still entitled to do so if she wishes in the future. I am happy to give sources regarding the tradition of wives taking their husbands names in Britain, however if a source for each wife of a titled man taking his name is needed then the same should be done for every article discussing these wives. A Yahoo article does mention her eligibility for taking his style, however gets it wrong by calling her The Hon. Candace Farmer, instead of The Hon. Mrs George Farmer, but the idea is implied: https://www.yahoo.com/news/candace-owens-husband-george-farmer-155606654.html. Another example of a wife of a titled man who doesn't use her husband's title is Jamie Lee Curtis ↗, whose eligibility to do so is discussed in her article, with the only sources given being, again, Yahoo, and Architectural Digest. At the end of the day, the inclusion of her style is not overly important for the article itself, but it is still an interesting aspect of her personal life, linking her to the British establishment. Csexton345 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Renaming of Prince Andrew

Why are you changing his name in multiple articles without providing a reliable source to support your changes? The current news is only that a process has been started, the ''Times'' article you cite says "Andrew is to lose his title of ‘prince’", not that he has been renamed. Please stop, and it'd be a good idea to self-revert your edits in this respect as this is a serious violation of WP:BLP ↗. -- <span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span> (talk ↗). 19:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

:Apologies for not originally providing a reliable source, I have now started to do so, and will provide others at the end of this, all of which say the same thing, which is that he will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, with the use of 'now' implying this is immediate. The process of removing his dukedom was not completed when references to him being Duke of York were removed, so I do not see this as being any different. I'll stop editing for now, but this is what the press is reporting, as well as what is implied by the Palace's official statement. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957dt?post=asset%3A97fd7fc9-3787-4ae7-b696-8224c94f9697#post Csexton345 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
::That says "His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.", we should wait until that process is confirmed to have been completed. -- <span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span> (talk ↗). 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:::It also says "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." As I said previously we did not wait until the formal process of removing his dukedom was complete to stop calling him the Duke of York, indeed if I remember correctly it was almost instantaneous, with articles quickly updated to reflect this change, despite this process only beginning today. Csexton345 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

March 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia ↗. I noticed that your recent edit to :Meghan, Duchess of Sussex ↗ did not have an edit summary ↗. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary ↗, or by discussion on the talk page ↗. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief ↗.

The edit summary field looks like this:
{{Edit summary field/OOUI}}

or in the visual editor:
{{Edit summary field/VisualEditor}}

{{strong|Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make.}} When logged in to your Wikipedia account ↗, you can give yourself a reminder by setting {{myprefs|3|check={{int:tog-forceeditsummary}}}}, and then click the "{{int:saveprefs}}" button.
Thanks!{{sp}} <sup>S</sup>Mason<sub>Garrison</sub> 02:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks, have rectified this, although not sure a revert was necessary on your side, none of my edit itself was incorrect, as I was correcting the name of an article and removing unnecessary piping, but always happy to learn. Csexton345 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commission of Review ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page His Majesty ↗ was added. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Piping

Hi, I see you are adding a lot of pipes to existing links.

Policy states that pipes are only to be added (or changed) if the links are going to the wrong article. When a current link redirects correctly, editors are asked to leave it alone, i.e. if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Redirects are efficient and cause no trouble.

Many thanks for your attention and compliance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, sorry for this and thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'm still getting my head around everything here even after two years, so always happy to improve and learn more! Csexton345 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Peerages

Hi I like what you have done for Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde ↗ but could you do the format for all the peers who have currently got a lifetime peerage as some are messed up.~2026-30058-63 ↗ (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Those are:
#Thomas Lyttelton, 3rd Viscount Chandos ↗
#Frederick Ponsonby, 4th Baron Ponsonby of Shulbrede ↗
#Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale ↗
#Anthony Gueterbock, 18th Baron Berkeley ↗

And those who received an honour from 2026 political peerages ↗ <small class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by ~2026-30058-63 ↗ (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)</small> 

:Hello, sorry, I'm not quite sure what you would like me to do, I don't think my edit to Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde ↗ quite relates to the others given the fact they received their life peerages in slightly different circumstances. Csexton345 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::If you look at the format of Lord Strathclyde that should be the same as the four mentioned. ~2026-30058-63 ↗ (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I hope I've understood what you meant when I removed the incumbent box just now from Lord Strathclyde's article, otherwise I'm not sure what else there is to add given he is not a life peer yet, whereas the others are. If there's something I'm missing then please do say, but I don't think my original edit to Strathclyde's article has any relevance to the other peers you've mentioned as they were all given life peerages separately from the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, even if in reality it was a major factor, whereas his will be created specifically due to the House of Lords Act 2026. I hope that makes sense, and please let me know if there's anything more that can be done. Csexton345 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Thats OK, here is the correct format for the Lords I mentioned and others
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Lyttelton,_3rd_Viscount_Chandos&oldid=1354842149
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Ponsonby,_4th_Baron_Ponsonby_of_Shulbrede&oldid=1354842234
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Mitford,_6th_Baron_Redesdale&oldid=1354842531
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Gueterbock,_18th_Baron_Berkeley&oldid=1354842604
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Russell,_7th_Earl_Russell&oldid=1354843068
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominic_Hubbard,_6th_Baron_Addington&oldid=1354842945
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Hay,_16th_Earl_of_Kinnoull&oldid=1354842727
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Carington,_7th_Baron_Carrington&oldid=1354455601
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Bridgeman,_3rd_Viscount_Bridgeman&oldid=1354471833
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hacking,_3rd_Baron_Hacking&oldid=1354845023

~2026-30058-63 ↗ (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

FYI: Moving articles

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, and thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of :Surveyor of the Queen's Works of Art ↗ by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into :Surveyor of the King's Works of Art ↗. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move ↗", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history ↗, which is legally required for attribution ↗. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits ↗, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab ↗ at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu ↗ for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect ↗ from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves ↗ to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge ↗. Thank you.  Christian75 (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, I apologise for this, and thank you for letting me know about my error. Has this been rectified or is there anything I need to do? As far as I am aware this is the only time I've done this. Csexton345 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)