User talk:Edward Jocob Philip Smith

February 2024

Hello, Edward Jocob Philip Smith. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Tonbridge School, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Shadow311 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bob Thian (February 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Broc was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bob Thian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Broc (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Edward Jocob Philip Smith! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Broc (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes

Thank you for all your contributions! Please also note when adding images to infobox, you don't need the filename, not the whole File: template, as per WP:IBI. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

Please stop your disruptive actions at David Lloyd George. The use of his name in the infobox has already been discussed on the article talk page. If you do not agree with the consensus there you need to start a new discussion on the talk page, and not keep changing the article. I suggest you also read bold, revert, discuss. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Tony Blair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello ^(music) 13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Per my earlier comments, please see the hidden comment next to your edit: Do NOT insert a paragraph break; and do not link per MOS:SOB — Czello ^(music) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Government of the United Kingdom, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Please do not delete relevant info on pages without any explanation. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Edits to George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston

Could you please explain the rationale for your edits to the above page? Wikipedia policies on names are fairly clear, to quote MOS:SURNAME:

'A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, may become the Earl of Leicester, the Earl, or just Leicester (if the context is clear enough) in subsequent mentions. For modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title...'

When in list form as the edits you changed were, this would seem to suggest that using 'The Earl of' is inappropriate as it is too vague. Additionally piping the link to 'The Earl of' violates WP:NOPIPE. Is there a consensus on using 'The Earl of' in tables and lists? If not the lists should be left as they were. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but if you look at any other wikipedia page it is styled simply "title" and you only require basic knowledge to distinguish peers in government. Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Any other wikipedia page, such as? Please define 'it', given that what you're saying flies in the face of all the cited guidelines. I would also say that you're making a pretty massive leap by saying basic knowledge is needed to distinguish peers. For example you might have a father and son holding the same office separated by a couple of decades, based on what you're saying they would both be labelled 'The Earl of Yarmouth' (for example) with nothing to distinguish them. That argument also isn't supported under MOS:SURNAME, which mandates full name at first usage. I have not been able to find anything in Wikipedia policies on lists to the contrary. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

William Ewart Gladstone, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury can't be asked to put more Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether any of those articles fit wikipedia policies, but have created a discussion about this on the MOS talk page to find out what the consensus is. Ecrm87 (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)