Talk:David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet

message: Is he a Canadian citizen? Or did he renounced his Canadian citizenship, like Black, to become a Lord?
:Forbes lists his citizenship as Canadian. --Georgeryp 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't accept the title from the British government, he inherited it.  So, no, he didn't have to. fishhead64 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Canadian citizens can not use British hereditary titles anymore, since Canada and the UK are now two separate countries. Please check whether the title is still valid under Canadian laws.70.55.82.127 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't remember correctly. Proteus (Talk) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citizenship

message: Additions I recently made to this article were later deleted. I've restored them for these reasons: David Thomson is one of the wealthiest people in Canada, and the family interests he now leads own the Globe and Mail in Toronto. In addition he is influential as a patron of the Art Gallery of Ontario. Therefore some details of his private life, especially as they impinge upon public affairs in Canada, are important to this article. The fact that his only son, born after his recent divorce, is next in line to run the Thomson family interests (again, which currently include the Globe & Mail) is something that needs to be in this article. The quote from him, said to be from one of his only extensive interviews in public, also may give some insight into him. This information really should remain in the article.Noroton 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Details of his life

message: Explain reverts
Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face — "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.
Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of e.g. "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars.
If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version
Noroton 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Wikipedia help section on "reverting"

message: :Image:David Thomson31.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:David Thomson31.jpg

message: what's with all the quotes, as in ""s?  TastyCakes (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: quotes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214085457/http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/ to http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified