User talk:Csexton345

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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Csexton345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

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 reason:

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)

You need multiple reliable sources showing her being called the honorable. Doug Weller 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. Doug Weller 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)

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. -- DeFacto (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. -- DeFacto (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)

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:

or in the visual editor:

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 Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! ^SMason_Garrison 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)