Talk:Philip Gould, Baron Gould of Brookwood

message: There is a pic of his arms at http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/publications/gazette/2007-Sep.pdf but I was wondering if someone could produce a licenced pic of them for inclusion in this article based on the blazon (Arms: Azure on a Bend nowy lozengy per bend Argent and Or a Bendlet Azure
Crest: A Badger sejant erect Azure head and chest Argent eyes striped Azure gorged
with a plain Collar studded Or and grasping in the dexter forepaw a Quill palewise
Argent spined Or
Supporters: On either side a Badger Azure the head and chest Argent eyes striped Azure
gorged with a plain Collar studded Or and holding in the mouth a Rose Gules barbed
seeded slipped and leaved Or.)  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of arms

message: I have added Gould's education history before he went to the LSE, which is of some interest. I have also tidied up some of the writing. Zythophile (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Early education

message: I have been asked about adding the following text to the page.  The content seems fine to me although the reference style needs to be fixed.  I am not sure about reliable sources for this year, but as Lord Gould was quite prominent in the UK, there will be plenty.  (There was already an excerpt from the book published lask weekend in the Sunday Times.)  I would make the edit myself, but I have a potential conflict of interest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you need to use the  to draw people here, but also need to provide proper reliably sourced content for someone to add. :Category:Requested edits is backlogged mainly for this reason. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, wow.  There's the problem.  Could we maybe take what Jimmy wrote and improve it?  That's rather the whole point of the thing.  He followed the rules and disclosed a potential COI and got treated like this... and this man is our founder... how are other people treated when they do the same thing?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both  and  work btw. I am sure the above can be improved, but I'm trying to act in the way that most editors would to anyone else - as the template documentation states "It should be followed by a description of the requested edit and a justification for the change. Where appropriate, please provide a reliable independent reference for the change, per WP:RELIABLE" (my emphasis). As reviewers of a request it should be simple for us to implement, not just a "can someone find sources and write about this please?" SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is, whether this is a way to act that is how "most editors would to anyone else", it seems a shame, because it's actually wrong.  Usage of templates like that is never mandatory.  You acted as if I did something wrong by posting on the talk page.  I didn't.  Suppose I were a new editor, a conscientious good person trying to improve Wikipedia but who has no idea about templates.  And imagine I get a message like yours.  I'd go away thinking that Wikipedians are hostile and angry.  In this case, I explicitly chose not to use the template for the simple reason that I know :Category:Requested edits is backlogged.  Therefore, I didn't want to pester general editors who monitor things there.  I wanted to address the people who work mainly in this area (members of the House of Lords) as I do.  Had nothing been done here, my next step would have been to contact WP:PEER.  That would have been the right thing to do, because it is asking the right people.  So, as I say, not only was your advice rude, I'd actually go so far as to say that it was wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text: My read of Jimbo's comment was that he was sharing on someone else's behalf under the explicit request for others to improve. I think he's setting a great example. There's no need for us to be overly prescriptive about the exact process. In any case, I was going to chip in, but it looks like the content has already been added. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It was obvious from your post that someone who knew Philip personally asked you to add material to the article, which created the conflict. You did the right thing and were treated harshly. I added the material to the article because, after watching the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2eUw0CUuMc&feature=youtu.be, I saw a very kind, sweet, gentle person trying to do something great for his family and others in the face of his impending death. The people who knew Philip and had him in their lives were very lucky. What a great human being. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit