Talk:Nicholas Coleridge

Untitled
Hello, this is Nicholas Coleridge here - I have only just discovered this Talk section, and can see there has been a discussion below about an old photo that was once posted on the site. I am fairly sure this was a screengrab from when I appeared on a latenight talkshow in Battersea in the early Eighties, so almost 30 years old. Nothing wrong with it, but a weird choice! Surely the thing about Wikipedia is that people use it as a proper reference these days, so it is important to keep it accurate. At one point, the entry about me contained several inaccuracies, including the names of magazines we publish (or actually dont publish) etc. So these have been corrected. Not much point in Wiki if the facts are wrong. I see that a new photo has now been posted, which at least has the advantage of being recent! NC

Image deletion?
An anonymous editor has twice removed an image showing the subject of this article, which I included since there wasn't one before and I am in the position to source a picture with the necessary permissions.

Both times no reason was given for removal. I am puzzled as the image conforms to the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and improves this short article. I will revert (again) and try and send a message to the editor to ask what is going on and ask them to explain here. AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is noticeable that the same editor has made several biographical edits, often reacting rapidly to announcements of Mr Coleridge's promotions etc. Given the noted high level of amendments by or on behalf of the subject himself, it may not be unreasonable to assume that Mr Coleridge himself is unhappy with this image, which depicts him as a much younger man with an unfortunate appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.210.57 (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. I notice the same editor has since come in and removed the image for a third time, again with no explanation (not quite WP:3RR but still, this is getting a bit silly). And he or she hasn't even bothered to come here to add a comment.


 * I suspect that whether or not User:Jambuck is also the subject of the article (WP:COI?) they feel strongly about this image but don't know much about how Wikipedia editing works. But I certainly don't want to pick a fight with anyone, it's just that I am in a position to add pictures from our files to articles which can benefit (and I try and stick firmly to the Wikiguidelines while doing so). Don't mean any harm.


 * As I have never met Nicholas Coleridge I can't comment on the picture (never mind any "unfortunate appearance" which as it happens I don't agree with). I think both people in the picture look perfectly nice (and note WP:AUTO and indeed the tags on the article, added some time ago by someone else). The main problem is that the picture is so old, I agree with you there, but given the history so far it may be too much to hope that User:Jambuck will get it together to source a more recent picture and upload it. But hey, let's hope he/she does: WP:AGF
 * AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas Coleridge’s appearance on TV show “Loose Talk”
Over recent weeks a number of anon editors have repeatedly removed a legitimate reference to the life and work of the subject of this article. Here is the disputed line:
 * In 1983 he appeared on an episode of the tv chat show Loose Talk, which can be viewed here

Sometimes this has been removed without explanation but sometimes reasons for removal have been given, i.e.: -        Removed link to corrupted external website in the text [yet the external website is not corrupted] -        Not relevant for main body [but no explanation for the claimed irrelevance is given] -        The link is to a malicious website [whereas in fact the two websites included in the removed line are Wikipedia itself and the commercial website of one of the best-known UK TV networks, Channel 4 - not only Channel 4 but the commercial website itself features in a number of other Wikipedia articles] As each explanation is different (contradictory?) yet all seem to be spurious, it is hard not to form the view that Sir Nicholas and/or some of his friends do not wish this reference to be included.

That is in and of itself insufficient reason for removal so I will revert the line and invite Team Sir Nicholas (or whoever) to discuss the issue here. Perhaps a RFC might be the appropriate next stage?

31.124.106.72 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)