User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Derek Martinus

Something I noticed regarding the Hollywood Reporter and BBC News articles about the death of Derek Martinus. Hollywood Reporter stated that "His family told the BBC the director had suffered from Alzheimer's for years and died from complications related to the disease."[1] But the BBC article, featuring comments from his family,[2] makes no direct link between Alzheimer's and his cause of death, merely stating that he had "suffered from Alzheimer's for many years". Given that the writer of the HR article is not likely to be a medical expert, I'm concerned that the Wikipedia article on Derek Martinus is going too far in stating that he definitely died as a result of Alzheimer's (an uncle of mine died recently; he'd suffered from Alzheimer's for a couple of years, but his final illness was not related). --VeryCrocker (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry about you loss and you have made fair points above. I changed the article to match the Hollywood Reporter item on the assumption that the writer of the BBC, who is also likely to be a generalist, choose to miss out relaying a direct connection between Alzheimer's and Derek Martinus' cause of death. Perhaps s/he thought readers would automatically make a connection. On the other hand, it could be simple human error by either writer, but this is impossible to establish from the sources I have seen. It is possible the BBC News article is the only source the Hollywood Reporter had to hand, their resume reads like a precis of the BBC piece, and falsely attributes the issue at hand directly to the Beeb. Again we don't know, but the material and some of language used by the BBC writer suggests s/he used an earlier version of Martinus' Wikipedia article as a source. Which is a potential problem on its own. Philip Cross (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. But the Wikipedia article still states something that is not reliably sourced. The BBC article does not say the statement that we, as Wikipedia, are saying. And the Hollywood Reporter is not reliable for sourcing the statement we're making. Instead of writing "from complications arising from Alzheimer's disease", wouldn't it be more correct to put "after having suffered from Alzheimer's disease"? That way, we note his illness but do not appoint ourselves as coroners. --VeryCrocker (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is a long standing serious publication, not just a website or a 'tabloid', and thus surely meets the RS requirement. Despite this, I have no substantial objection to what you propose, and will not enter into an edit war. Philip Cross (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Kate O'Mara

Thanks for clarifying the reasons for unconventional ref position. In the table of Film credits are all those titles unlinked just to allow sort? Seems a bit counter-productive. Is there any way round that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not worked on the credit sections of O'Mara's article. Whether or not one adds red links to titles is a matter of precedence. As red links can irritate other editors, it always seems to me best to follow practices established by earlier editors to avoid potential clashes. Philip Cross (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

e.g. The Main Chance etc. it's not red, just unlinked. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I had not come across the template used for some of the credits in the past. Anyway, its removed now. I found one or two other absent links as well as the one you indicate. Philip Cross (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Philip. I added a red link for The Avengers (1971 play), but just to steer away from the dab page. It's probably a bit unlikely for a new article, but you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Joseph

Hi, I see your edit Michael Joseph as I depart late -04-10. Feel free to do more, or even take over with enthusiasm, but FYI the LCCatalogue links remain in the Books list because I don't have time to check WorldCat library records, which are likely to resolve much --especially finding UK publisher/year where LCCat holds only the US edition. Perhaps I should have tagged it {{underconstruction}} as I plan to check that source soon. Actually plan to expand and re-layout the prose some more too.

I must run--distracted at Dolores Hitchens four hours ago and now starving.

Thanks for your time. --P64 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thames

Thank you for revising Thames Television page. For your information, Since the user made the point in 2011, I original overhauled the page to improve the content, refs etc. I did not deal with his main concerns ie layout. Thank you for fine polishing the page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Newark by-election Infobox

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence and Wishart

Hi Philip, New to editing wikipedia, apologies if I'm not using correct protocols. There is an incorrect sentence in the section about the copyright of MECW that it was just about the first 10 volumes, this is an inaccurate claim made by MIA in their statement. They did in fact host content from all 50 volumes on their site as can be seen from the various mirrors. How can I change content in such a way to reflect this accurately while meeting Wikipedia standards?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.155.18 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. For the reason I mention in the edit summary I should not really have added it. Philip Cross (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Congratulations, the 100,000th notification made by BracketBot was to you! 930913(Congratulate) 08:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Dystel

Sorry! We edit conflicted there! I was going to use reflinks to fill in the references later, so your reference tweaks and some text got zapped by my last edit. It's well past my UTC+10 bed time so I'll leave it to you. I added a section on Dystel to Bantam Books too, as he was not even mentioned there. Regards, --220 of ^Borg 19:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This 2006 interview may be useful as a source. [3], esp. personal details like date of marriage. October 2, 1938 to "Marion". ZzZ time for me! --220 of ^Borg 20:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help. Philip Cross (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regimes

Hello Philip. Do me the kindest of favours, hang fire for about half an hour! I've seen the comments on the Galloway talk page and we might be able to come to an amicable solution. It's just I am rushing around at this precise minute. I don't want you to think I have made a 'hit and run' tendentious edit and abandoned it. I want every contribution I make (unless in error) to be warmly greeted by the entire community and I know this means compromise. So, I am onto it I promise you. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. Mary Miller

I see that you have contributed to the actress, Mary Miller's Wikipedia profile. Are you in contact with Mary by any chance? jameschurch @hotmail.co.uk 46.208.75.248 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I have never had any contact with Mary Miller whatsoever. Philip Cross (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Oscar Dystel

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Morris Levy

Did you happen to read the full article and notice that there are places that actually would be a perfect fit for the information you added to the intro? The specificity of the information you added, included bits of chronological information, might be better fitting in the sections of the article that already pertain to his arrest, etc. 842U (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow. The first three edits I made today are the only ones affecting the summary (+17, +14, +6 bytes). They are are actually comparatively minor], and merely rearrange the content rather than add new information. Philip Cross (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Horace Silver

Why did you revert my edits with the summary revert vandalism? Wikipedia policy is first mention is linked, then subsequent mentions (Blue Note) are not. Blue Note is literally dozens of times on this page. Only the first mention should be linked. Cosprings (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, but the label name is not "Blute" Note as it now says in the article once again. Philip Cross (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed manually. Philip Cross (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Prisoner

Good day, from what I've seen on the history page of The Prisoner you have made some small, but decent contributions to it in the past, which led me to conclude that perhaps you might be interested in helping me improve the article and articles related to it (schedule). I have also suggested creating a taskforce in order to achieve this goal (if you have an opinion on this, I'd love to hear it, proposal page), and would value your opinion. Cheers.--Music26/11 19:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Producer / Production

I've undone your edit at Meet the Jazztet, as 'production' and 'engineering' are correct. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Personnel: "Note that the format used here is "[Name] – [instrument]". Do not use the format "[Name] – [role]" (such as "Johnny Bee – guitarist".) This means that you should employ "guitar" rather than "guitarist" and "production" rather than "producer"." EddieHugh (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Birth name is fully referenced. Twitter response from the subject herself confirming it to be her name, and ref with article confirming her father was Ray Barnett. Stop removing referenced information. And the Islington birth place isn't referenced, unless you also believe she was born in a skip and grew up wild.

Wopper786 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Twitter and findmypast are not admissible sources because they have not been through the editorial process. While Laurie Penny's birth name is confirmed as Laura Barnett by her tweet you will find that verification, rather than truth, is the test for the acceptability of content in Wikipedia if you read the articles on reliable sources and Verifiability. Philip Cross (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sexist?

Moved to Talk:Star Trek Continues

OK, that's fine Jbarta. Philip Cross (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved it not because I was giving up on you. I moved it for posterity because at some point in the future others may consider the same question and a record of our discussion might be more useful to others there than here. If you have a response to my latest comment, I hope you'll answer there. – JBarta (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Criado-Perez New Statesman correction

I see you undid a revision to the page on Caroline Criado-Perez, noting that the correction of a New Statesman article was not supported by any citation. There is no argument that the person who made that particular edit failed to provide any citation, but I'm hoping we can quickly agree what would be an appropriate citation, so this content can be reinstated now or in future. I know something about this topic because I made the relevant complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

The primary source for this content would be my personal website, where I have documented the complaint made to the Press Complaints Commission and the edits made thus far by the New Statesman (in short, they have already deleted the original misrepresentation about the statistics contained in the WHO report). I suppose this raises all sorts of questions about whether I might supply the missing citation, or whether my website is a reliable source. The person who made this edit probably learned of the correction from Breitbart.com, who used my website as source material. This raises the bar in terms of reliability, though you may feel Breitbart.com is still not reliable enough. I'd like to know your views on that; if Breitbart.com is sufficient then perhaps we can add that website as a citation and reinstate the content immediately. Also, the New Statesman's article does now state it has been amended, though it does not specify why, so that might be another kind of relevant citation. Finally, the Press Complaints Commission are currently reviewing the complaint. Nothing from them has been published yet, but they will inevitably publish their adjudication. Can we at least agree that, when the PCC publishes its adjudication, that would be an adequate citation? Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A statement in the identifying reliable sources article asserts: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (my emphasis) clearly applies to attack pieces like James Delingpole's "The World needs Whingeing, Neo-Feminist Harpies like Fish Need Bicycles" on the Breibart website. The incident has gained negligible coverage elsewhere, except for a handful of blogs which are unaffiliated to any publication. Such blogs are not admissible. There is no evidence that the Press Complaints Commission has chosen to investigate the issue, let alone adjudicated. That fact makes any inclusion premature and does not establish notability. Philip Cross (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note the final question I asked, which you didn't answer. "There is no evidence that the Press Complaints Commission has chosen to investigate the issue"... well, there isn't yet. Except that I've just told you that they're currently reviewing it, so I was seeking to clarify your opinion before they publish their decision. Do you agree that, if the PCC upholds the complaint, then that is worthy of citation, or do you intend to find a new reason to object to updating the article at that point in time? Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You know full well that the presence of reliable sources is the test, and that anything else risks being original research. I wrote that inclusion would be "premature" at the moment given the absence of usable citations. Philip Cross (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. So we're agreed that if the PCC upholds the complaint, then this page can be updated in line with the previous edit. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Koss

Blimey, you didn't give me much of a chance at Stephen Koss, did you? By the time I'd fixed something up, you'd already jumped in and done your own version. Nothing wrong with your version but maybe waiting a few minutes would be better in future, in the spirit of collaboration and not appearing to own the article? - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

CfD

Hi. Under the circumstances I think it might be best to simply delete. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_14#Category:Documentaries_of_John_Pilger, thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. Philip Cross (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)