Djc Thomson

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:SSC lounge.jpeg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:SSC lounge.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asking me to do. There is no explanation in your message. The photograph was taken by me. I own the copyright, but there seems to be no method for this information to be provided.Djc Thomson (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What you should have done is add an appropriate statement confirming what you've said above to the relevant page ( if it hadn't already been moved over to Wikikmedia Commons.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still assuming a level of knowledge of your procedures that I simply do not possess. asking me to "add an appropriate statement confirming what you've said above to the relevant page" without offering any guidance as to how and where I do it is simply not advice.Djc Thomson (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Djc Thomson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Djc Thomson. This is the template I mentioned at WP:MCQ#Verifying copyright. If you are being asked to edit the article by the SSC Council or are doing so on their behalf, then you probably have a COI. Even adding names to a list could be a problem if doing so is not done in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines (for example, WP:LSC and WP:LISTBIO). Moreover, whatever you add can just as easily be removed by another edit who challenges it, and neither you nor the SSC have any final editorial control over the article content. The article is not considered the SSC's page per se, and they have no ownership rights over its content. This is why it's best to adhere to the guidelines mentioned above as best as you can, which means you should only make the edits referred to in WP:COIADVICE and use the article's talk page to request any other changes you feel are needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the page may be edited. I am fully aware that this is an encyclopaedia not an advertisement. there is no reason to be patronising. All the information is independently verifiable and a matter of public record. Dr Barclay, who wrote the Society's history is now deceased and Mr Brownlie the Society archivist is over eighty years old. Any person wishing to do so may edit any poart of the page, and if it is asserted that anything contained on the page is incorrect (for a random example, was Sheriff Scott Robinson a member) then that can be verified from another online source with effect from next month. I have been legally qualified since 1985 and have written textbooks and encyclopaedia volumes, one of some 96,000 words. I am fully aware of conflict of interest and have confined myself only to verifiable fact noy opinion. I have no commercial interest in the Society's income, and nothing on the page is at all designed to attract or encourage members; to do so would not be proper.Djc Thomson (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland

Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.ssclibrary.co.uk/aboutus. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed, as well as some additional material that has been there for a long time. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Alternatively, if the copyright holder may wish to release the material under a compatible license. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't follow this. The President (Robert Shiels), Secretary (David Lamb) and Librarian (Christine Wilcox) expressly authorised the insertion of these paragraphs> Which of them is now empowerred to re-authorise this?Djc Thomson (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This is covered at WP:DONATETEXT, which says in part, "(the copyright holder) can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org;

(2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received."

While I am not one of the people who directly deals with permission emails, I suggest if the email comes from the President that would be the most appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"The Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland SSC Library, Parliament House, EDINBURGH EH1 1RF

     2 July 2018 

To Whom It May Concern

The SSC Society

By this letter I hereby affirm that I represent the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (otherwise known as “the SSC Society”) the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www.ssclibrary.co.uk/ and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to the publication of some or all of above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Yours faithfully,

Robert S Shiels

Robert S Shiels President of the SSC Society" Djc Thomson (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to post the permission. A letter posted on a user talk page is not what is needed. An email has to be sent by Mr Shiels directly to the OTRS team at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. They will assess whether the release meets our requirements. Has this step been done? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the principal on headed paper has been sent to that address. What more does the Society need to do? The Council meets on Tuesday 10th July.Djc Thomson (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but emails are not made out of paper, and they are not letters, hence the confusion. Regardless of the copyright issue, material that appears on the organization's website is almost invariably unsuitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia because of the stylistic differences, the flowery prose, and the promotional tone, so would likely not be accepted for publication here even with the proper licensing in place. You will probably have noticed that another editor has removed quite a bit of material from the article today for that very reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management in Wikipedia

Hello Djc Thomson. Thanks for disclosing here, that you have been editing pages about SSC "at the request of the SSC Council". This would appear to be the sort of external relationship that creates conflict of interest here in Wikipedia.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how we manage it. You have already been given notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline above. I would like to explain it, plainly. (I have noted your frustration trying to figure out how Wikipedia works... sorry about that. There is a learning curve here...)

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While you sort of disclosed a relationship in the statement to which I linked above, would be more clear about your relationship with SSC? Please also be aware that if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

As the article states, the Society is a voluntary one, and a constituent part of the College of Justice in Scotland, with the privileges and rights that accrue therefrom. My work on the website was voluntary, undertaken in my spare time, and confined itself solely to matters of fact (history, present day operation of the Society, notable past members/Presidents). No payment has been sought by me or offered to me; I have no financial interest in the society, but as a published legal author felt that the Society's entry was rather lacking in references to published works. I do not know Dr Barclay, the independent academic whose book on the Society was published seventeen years before I became a member.

I adopted the same style as that of the Faculty of Advocates (likewise a part of the College of Justice) and the Society of writers to Her Majesty's Signet (ditto). I note that there appears to be no issue regarding the WS Society quoting from its own published history. Indeed, in contrast to the more "neutral" SSC page, the WS Society publishes an online link to its office bearers.

The Council of the Society has long been of the view that its work has been under-reported by comparison to the other two branches; as you will note two current judges are former members. These are all matters of fact, not matters of opinion or publicity. Dr Barclay's text is due to be published in full online this month; I have no intention of making this known on Wikipedia.

The Society has been part of the College of Justice since 1797. Its members have an automatic right to sit in the Supreme Courts of Scotland.

So far aspeer review is concerned, I am happy to address any specific issue raised. However, if the WS Society can link to its own history, should the SSCs not have the same right?Djc Thomson (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. (You appear to have mastered that bit!)

Indenting and signing, are how we know who said what to whom and when, in a somewhat orderly fashion.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is insanely unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

On the conflict of interest matter... here in Wikipedia, your being a member, and being specifically asked by the leadership to update the page, constitutes a conflict of interest. (Being paid, is just one special sort of COI.) This is not really ambiguous, here in Wikipedia. If you wish to contest this, we can take this to the community, but the conclusion is rather foregone.

Please be aware that wanting to work where on a topic where you have a COI is possible, and we have gotten some great contributions that way. There is just a process to be followed.

But please let me know if you wish to contest whether you indeed have a COI with respect to the society. Once that is settled, I will walk you through the process. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Being as neutral as I can be, and recognising the difference between Italic textpotential Italic text and Italic textactualItalic text conflict of interest, :::I suggest a distinction can be drawn. If the piece is objectively factual and based upon independently published work with no attempt to cross the line between information and publicity, then I would suggest the objectivity of the piece trumps any issue that its author is writing from a position of inside knowledge. Let me take an example: in my legal career I did not appear before, or know, the late Sheriff Scott Robinson. He was, however, a respected lawyer, judge and author - http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12296433.Sheriff_Scott_Robinson/. To report that he was an SSC is a matter of fact. Many pages choose to reference notable persons by geography/membership of a professional body. In theory there may be a potential conflict, but does adding his name to the list of notable former members really damage the reputation of the encyclopaedia?

Where I'm struggling is not with the concept of COI, but in the reality.

The concept of the Scottish College of Justice is not widely understood even by lawyers (for example the Advocates in Aberdeen are an older legal society but they were never members of the College); either the entire college and its constituent parts is noteworthy in its entirety or none of it is. The retain the judiciary and the Faculty of Advocates but to excise the WS and SSC Societies presents a wholly misleading picture of the development of modern Scots law. Each society has its own historians. They are the persons best placed to write short pieces on the past and present of their bodies. Yes, that creates the possibility of COI, but is there evidence of actual misuse?Djc Thomson (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed your indenting. Please thread your posts as described above.

I am uninterested in the fine distinctions you are making; they are not relevant.

I am undistracted by your pointing to potential wrong-doings of others.

The only thing we are discussing here, is your conflict of interest. Again, here in Wikipedia, it is not ambiguous that you have a conflict of interest. Your membership and the personal request from the leadership are the external interests that put you in a biased position. COI is about position and relationships, not about intention.

I am looking for you to acknowledge that, in which case I will walk you through Wikipedia's COI management process, or for you to contest it. If you contest it, I can take this to the community. Do let me know.

You also are very early in the learning curve of working in Wikipedia. There are a lot of policies and guidelines to follow (which seem bewildering at first, but make sense once you understand the foundations of Wikipedia - its mission and the strategies the community has developed to realize the mission. Your knowledge of potential references to use (and not your personal knowledge) could be very valuable in improving Wikipedia, once you understand things better, so I look forward to getting past this initial stage. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"I am undistracted by your pointing to potential wrong-doings of others." What potential wrongdoings of others?

"I am uninterested in the fine distinctions you are making". What "fine distinctions"? You raise the issue of conflict of interest as a theoretical, rather than an actual, issue. You ask me if I wish to contest something I do not yet fully understand. Am I seriously being invited to challenge the entire ethos of Wikipedia's COI policy, or merely its application to the SSC Society? You must surely mean the latter. However my post rather makes it clear that I do not "contest" anything. You, though, suggest that external interests objectively put me in a biased position: not potentially but actually. This is a rather radical allegation to make. Do you intend to provide an example of objective bias? I am happy to discuss it if I know the allegation I face.Djc Thomson (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I note that three days has passed without anyone explaining how my "position and relationships" have created an objective and verifiable conflict of interest that might merit action. You offered to explain certain management processes but also stated as fact that I am in a "biased position", as opposed to a a position of access to accurate historical information. The distinction appears clear.

Since then I have heard nothing further. An issue has arisen that clearly does raise a guestion of COI (and of language). Following the death of Baroness Wallace of Campsie it has been noted that her late husband George Wallace, Baron Wallace of Campsie (SSC 1959) is not listed as a notable past member, but two issues arise.

1. His profile appears only in the German version of Wikipedia, so editing seems pointless without translation and insertion into the English version

2. His widow made a generous bequest to the Society's Widows' fund (referred to in the entry) in her will. As a widow since 1997 she accrued around 50,000GBP from the fund but her bequest is likely to be significantly larger. The Society thus receives a financial benefit. This clearly creates a COI. However all I had in mind were the page to be translated into English would be to make factual reference to his membership. This takes me right back to "work[ing]....on a topic where you have a COI is possible, and we have gotten (sic) some great contributions that way. There is just a process to be followed." The process still remains a closely guarded secret. What happens next?

Regards Djc Thomson (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very aware that you are new to Wikipedia and that you do not understand how Wikipedia works yet. I understand that it may be difficult for someone as experienced as you to realize that yourself.

Because you do not understand the foundations of this place - its mission, its common law and regulations as it were, etc - what you are writing has no relevance to the question.

If you want to understand the foundations of this place, have a read of User:Jytdog/How and the somewhat different elaboration on my user page, starting at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources and down from there.

The COI guideline, to which you have already been provided a link, explains the criteria by which we determine if someone has a COI, which makes perfect sense, here in Wikipedia.

I will ask you a last time - do you acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia with regard to the society, or not? I am looking for a simple yes or no. If the answer is yes, I will instruct you as to what you should do. If not, I will bring this to the community. Please reply with a simple yes or no. If you have an actual question, then please pose it, simply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

From memory my first contribution (a correction to an error in a piece about Jamaican singer/producer Keith Hudson) was in 2012 or 2013. I therefore find your assertion that I "do not understand how Wikipedia works yet" offensive. I wonder whether the following sentence contains an error.

I have now stated three times that I accept there is a COI. I do not accept that what I wrote created evidence of an actual COI, merely the possibility of a COI. Despite this you have persistently refused to offer guidance or instruction. The SSC President granted permission to use copyrighted text some time ago. It will be a matter for the SSC council to determine, but it may be that the Council no longer sees any benefit in Wikipedia as a source of information on the Society. There is nothing I can add. Djc Thomson (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the first time I have heard you say that. Thanks for doing so. I will start a new subsection on the "what to do" bit. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"So far as peer review is concerned, I am happy to address any specific issue raised." D J C Thomson, 2nd July 2018Djc Thomson (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nuts and bolts

Thanks again for acknowledging that you have COI with respect to the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page which is User:Djc Thomson. Just something simple like: "I am a member of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland and was asked by its council to update content in Wikipedia. I have a conflict of interest with regard to that organization and related topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the organization or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

Another editor added a tag disclosing your COI at Talk:Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review or perhaps better, prior review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (already done at the society page); and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk, put the proposed content there (in the same form you would have added it to the article), and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general the proposal should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. (I created a sandbox for you -- see User:Djc Thomson/sandbox -- this is a place for you to experiment and draft for work in Wikipedia; it is not any other purpose) It is OK to present a whole draft in your sandbox, but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the organization has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the disclosure and prior review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the piece as currently drafted (including the parts for which the Society President authorised copyright a week ago) is submitted for peer review? The only issue that occurs to me relates to the Society's links with the Society of Solicitor Advocates. The reference for that is in the "News" section of the Scots Law Times, which is not yet published online. The only other current issue appears to be that Lord Wallace of Campsie's entry is currently online only in German. Adding his details to the "notable former members" section would in my view be of assistance, although the Society Widows' Fund is a beneficiary in his widow's will so that creates a manifest issue of conflict, albeit the bequest will not be received this year. Djc Thomson (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You can propose whatever you like on the article talk page. The procedure is explained above; if something there doesn't make sense please let me know. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)