Jump to content

User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Yes Sirey

Thanks for your edit, but I've long been aware of an inconsistency in our presentation of British people with honours. On the same page, neither Thatcher nor Major are presented as they should be formally styled. Is this just a WP:COMMONNAME thing? I remain, as ever, etc... :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gareth. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Changed names for an answer to your point: "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." In the case of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, the two politicians did not possess a peerage or knighthood at the time Penny Junor wrote her respective biography of them. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello Philip Cross/Archive 16! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Criticism of the BBC

Why did you mess up my punctuation fixes? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, an accident. Philip Cross (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Amusing that you dismiss Doctor Who as a minor part of the BBC's output in 1976 when it was actually at the height of its ratings, regularly attracting 11-13 million viewers on a Saturday evening and Tom Baker was one of the most recognizable actors on TV. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was then a minor part of BBC Drama, and the resources allocated to it were much lower than for more critically prestigious BBC productions of the time. The Saturday teatime slot was not peak-time scheduling, and for this era, the ratings of Doctor Who were lower than say, Coronation Street or This is Your Life. Philip Cross (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I quote: "These stories also benefited from the fact that they were made during a period now widely regarded as a golden age of BBC drama, with extremely high production values being achieved across the entire range of series, serials and plays. Having reached an almost unprecedented level of popularity, Doctor Who was at this time regarded as one of the BBC's flagship programmes, and the production team were able to call upon not only the highest real-terms budget the series had ever had but also some of the cream of the Corporation's considerable creative talent to help bring it to the screen." (Howe-Stammers- Walker "Doctor Who - The Seventies") Rodericksilly (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Inevitably, in a book written for, and presumably written by, Doctor Who fans you are going to find a quote like that. It won't be typical of many general surveys of television drama. Michael Grade's rather clichéd comment about "clunky Daleks that couldn't go up and down stairs" is rather more typical. Philip Cross (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Michal Grade wasn't involved until eight years later (1984), and he was speaking about that era, the early/mid-1980s, not the mid-1970s. Its bizarre to claim that Tom Baker was not one of the most recognizable actors on British TV at the time; he built a 30-year career from his work on the show. Production values for it in 1976 would, of course, look ridiculous to anyone watching today -- that was consistent with other TV series in 1976 generally, and it compares quite favorably with other BBC series of the time period.
I remember the show in the 1970s. Its was quite popular. You'd walk into a bar, or a hotel room lobby, and if there was a tv on in the background (as was common then), it wasn't rare that the show on would be Dr. Who.
At the time, sci-fi, and really anything that was popular, tended to be looked-down upon by those who cared about "serious drama." That was the critical standard of the era. See, for example, the NY Times review of Star Wars -- I think the quote was "legs as rickety as C3PO." Djcheburashka (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Coronation street was (is) ITV and This Is Your Life not drama, so to compare ratings with Doctor Who to ascertain whether Doctor Who was a minor or major part of BBC Drama seems bizarre. Better to compare with I, CLAVDIVS or The Duchess of Duke Street.--Mongreilf (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant Shapps

Hi Philip, this has been one of the more controversial political bios I've seen and it took a long time to get it straightened out. The problem is with a living politician the temptation is to list every story written and it's difficult to prevent the wiki becoming ludicrously long. I haven't undone your edit back, instead I propose that we try to shorten the section which is already disproportionately long to other current day sections which could do with a bit of updating anyway. By all means come back to me. But I'll wait a couple of days and if I've not heard back edit it down in length without losing meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contribsx (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just removed the alleged false names, which is what I was referring to in my edit summary. In an article now running to 32k, I don't see how the handful of lines on this claim and the "political smear" counter-claim (both properly cited) could be reduced any further without, as you put it, "losing meaning." Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting info

The info you added is quite interesting. I found a reference to the film while going over some old papers, and I looked it up. All of this is quite fascinating, is it? :) --Katafore (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jens Jørgen Thorsen's The Return of Jesus (1992) is not a good film, despite what is suggested in the NYT/AMG piece I cited in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Dasha Zuhukova

You edited the Dasha Zhukova piece to restore a prior version that had been changed in several ways after the topics were brought up on the talk page. In particular, you restored a large body of material that had either no source, or where the sources referred only to each other -- i.e., which were created for Zhukova's P.R. In addition, you restored some material that had been removed because of copyright problems.

The reason we bring these things up on the talk page is so that people can object before hand. And if they want to object later, they can continue the discussion.

When you ignore the talk page and revert a whole set of edits, that undermines the process of consensus.

It is worse, here, because the descriptions you put for your edits were incorrect -- you had not made just small changes or removed honorifics, you actually reverted weeks worth of changes be several different people whose purpose was to take out unsourced, hagiographic, and copyrighted material.

Please don't do that again.

Thank you.

Djcheburashka (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My principal change was the inclusion of quotes from the Viv Groskop interview published in August 2008 which was properly cited, and is nothing to do with the copyvio issue from last May mentioned on the talk page. Zuhukova does not come over well in the quotes I used. That Viv Groskop is fairly sympathetic to her interviewee is no reason to desist from including Groskop's article as a source.
I'm not an "affiliate" of the subject, by the way. Philip Cross (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Sheridan

Sigh, why do you keep removing this? The fact his career was in the lower-echelons of Scottish football is irrelevant when it is covered by RS. GiantSnowman 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Only the BBC source you added really counts as a reliable source and that article's brief mention lists his football playing as a "hobby", rather than a career. You will find the Mirror newspaper has a very low reputation on this site as a source. There is very limited evidence for notability concerning this passage, quite apart from the failure to distinguish between Sheridan's playing as an adolescent, when it might have fleetingly have seemed like a real career option, and as an adult playing essentially as an amateur. Philip Cross (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

... for having briefly listed Robert Maxwell as an unsolved death. I had thought there was still some credible dispute regarding the facts of the case and whether any of them directly conflicted with the official conclusion, but after looking around I haven't found that any exist in reliable sources. So you were right.

(Of course, only the idea that he was pushed seems to have been ruled out, or at least no evidence of that was found on the body. But a lot still turned on the question of whether he jumped or just fell ... Whatever). Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Julien Blanc edits

Hey I'm trying hard to make Julien Blanc more neutral, I would really appreciate it if you didn't revert my major changes for small reasons such as not citing a term. You can instead change the term or cite it yourself.

No you are not. You are introducing your point of view, like describing Jenn Li as a "self styled activist." That term has not been used in any source I have read. The extended passage you added on Julien Blanc's apologies on CNN replicated what had already been added. Third party sources about his appearance on the network have been negative, so making too much of the brief item makes it more likely that someone will add some of them. In any case, WP:UNDUE potentially applies to all articles, so I am not the only editor who is likely to remove the passage. Philip Cross (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Request for your opinion in Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

Early last year, you had provide your view on the relevance of Polly Toynbee's article to be put into her wiki page. May I request that you look in the talk page to see if Polly Toynbee's article should be maintain in Daisaku Ikeda wiki page.

There is now a very deep and heated discussion on his talk page. Kelvintjy (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Journalism award winners

Hi Philip -- The edit on Paul Foot was not about one award or another; it's because the Category:Journalism award winners, and indeed all "X award winners" categories, are not for individuals who have won awards. Those categories are for collecting the subcategories of named award winners (which are supposed to be rare and "defining", actually, but that's another issue); they're not for just containing individuals for have won awards in a particular subject. If you look at Category:Journalism award winners there's a hatnote there to that effect; there's also more information on Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Awards on the general topic. --Lquilter (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your revision to Tony Garnett (in 2013)

Hi Philip

You edited the Tony Garnett page, with a paragraph that reads:


At the end of the 1970s Garnett relocated to the United States. Garnett's later film credits include Prostitute (1980), his directorial debut, Earth Girls Are Easy (1989) and Beautiful Thing (1996). In his American period Gasrnett lived by the principle "a movie should never be about what its about" meaning that, although the former film is disguised as a Sesame Street style children's film and the latter as a space comedy, these real theme of these motion pictures is racial prejudice.

I'm a bit confused with former and latter there, as three films are listed and I'm really not sure that it reads correctly. Can you have a look and check you think it's right? It could just be my misunderstanding (and I've only seen the first two of the three films) but it might benefit from better phrasing.

I fixed the 'Gasrnett' typo

Thanks

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's correct now. The citation was to a broken link, which I have updated. Cheers. Philip Cross (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to come back to you again but the citation says
Thus, for example, he produced in Follow That Bird and Earth Girls are Easy, two films about racial prejudice disguised as, respectively, a Sesame Street adventure and a comedy about space aliens.
whereas the revised wiki article seems to refer to Earth Girls Are Easy and Beautiful Thing as the films in question. Again, I haven't seen Follow That Bird so I'm not convinced I know the best way to fix this and hope you can do so
NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It now matches what the source says. Philip Cross (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Sizer

Hi Philip Thanks for the sterling job you are doing on the Sizer page.
Not having the available time this week myself, and given my mediocre editing skills, I thought that that rather than attempting to update the article myself you might find the "Statement on the Revd Stephen Sizer by the Bishop of Guildford" link useful. Clivel 0 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks/ As it counts as WP:PRIMARY, it isn't possible to directly cite the document from the Guildford diocese. Philip Cross (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with obnoxious edits from User_talk:192.43.227.18

I just added yet another edit-war warning on 192.43.227.18’s page for their reversion of your revert. They have a tendency to make a lot of edits without much concern for their truthfulness (the pattern of edits makes me think it’s mostly a single person, with interests in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, human rights issues including the death penalty, and a certain animus against Singapore) but they’ve also made useful contributions. In fact, they constantly make useful contributions, mixed in with the flamebait and edit-warring. I’d like to encourage them to become a positive net contributor to Wikipedia, but I’m not sure how (and I don’t think I’m doing a good job so far.) Can you help? Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any suggestion, but one can hope the individuals responsible become useful contributors. Philip Cross (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope so, but for right now I’m reverting most of their edits and templating them several times a day. Does that seem like a good idea? If not, what? Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian McEwan

Hi Philip, you have changed screenplays back to plays for Ian McEwan, can't say I particularly understand, but as long as you do ! Do you want to check/corrct the Ian McEwan navbox also ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for tidying Jack Flea's Birthday Celebration...
(Response) I have a pre-occupation with this issue. I try to explain my opinions concerning a better distinction between TV and film terminology in article titles and text which might be made on Wikipedia here. Philip Cross (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you able to check the Ian McEwan navbox ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Now modified. Philip Cross (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Alan Howard

Hello PC. This actor (a favorite of mine) passed away the same day as Louis Jourdan. You always do great work on cleaning up and improving articles when this has occurred. If you have the time and the inclination I would appreciate your using those same skills on this article. If not no worries. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you have been busy working on the article. Thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_Cross/Archive_16&oldid=1048353388"