The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
A fact from Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 April 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Several IP editors have been edit warring over this page, including repeatedly adding and removing a {{COI}} template. Possible conflicts of interest and content disputes should be discussed on the talk page, and not in edit summaries. Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:SPI. Wrackingtalk!01:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted the full protection. It seems pretty clear that COI editing and sockpuppetry is the source of all of the recent issues on this page. The consistent theme is attempts to add the travel agency to the article as you can see in these edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. @John Yunshire: Thanks for providing me with more information. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Yunshire, you are seeming involved in a slow-burn edit war that includes reverting valid information from reliable sources. Could you please explain why this is the case? We can have the conversation here or at ANI - your call. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone please stop edit warring? This page has not been stable in months without a clear reason. I don't think anyone can actually tell what the point of contention is. King Lobclaw, what was the reason for your recent revert exactly? Keivan.fTalk03:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redflag - I'm not seeing any valid reason for the revert, as it is not an improvement to the article. It appears to me there is a concerted effort to prevent this article from being updated. And removing references and archive links from an article, as seen in this diff, is detrimental to our core policy on verifiability. Furthermore, reverting the image back to a photo that is 16 years old is not an improvement either, when there is a more recent one from 2023, as seen here. I also agree that King Lobclaw needs to explain their revert. I will leave a message on their talk page.Isaidnoway(talk)04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source and the article is written by a named journalist. If you have proof of anything else, show it, but otherwise, it stays in the article. All magazines advertise, but that does not mean all content is an advertisement. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to follow the argument and reverted what I thought was against consensus. I clearly got the wrong end of the stick. Feel free to revert my revert. King Lobclaw (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't understand why this page was being made to be outdated on purpose and with no valid reason given. It's obviously better to use a newer image when one is available, plus the guy's current profession seems to be travel-related (see another example here). This version of the page looks updated now, so well done, everyone involved Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redflag - I'm not seeing any valid reason for the revert, as it is not an improvement to the article. It appears to me there is a concerted effort to prevent this article from being updated. And removing references and archive links from an article, as seen in this diff, is detrimental to our core policy on verifiability. Furthermore, reverting the image back to a photo that is 16 years old is not an improvement either, when there is a more recent one from 2023, as seen here. I also agree that King Lobclaw needs to explain their revert. I will leave a message on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
