User talk:Philg88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the talk page of Philg88 - Please click here to leave a new message...

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE THAT YOU CREATED OR WORKED ON: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

Martin Pring and the East India Company[edit]

Hi, I am working on the wikiproject Bristol cleanup listing and started looking at the "dubious-discuss" tag on Martin Pring. I note you added the tag and a comment on the talk page back in Sept 2016. No one has argued with your comment that it should be the English East India Company, rather than the Dutch East Indies Company. You suggest you have sources to support it - could you just change it?— Rod talk 20:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw:  Done  Philg88 talk 05:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Clement Delves Hill[edit]

There is a monument erected in honour of Colonel Hill in Honnavar, India. This column is 171 years old.

Pictures can be found here:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Colonel-Hills-171-year-old-column-faces-grave-threat-from-NHAI-project/articleshow/54355390.cms

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/634291/colonel-hill-monument-hc-orders.html

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/karavali/honavar/chill.htm

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g1819922-d4022857-Reviews-Colonel_Pillar-Honnavar_Uttar_Kannada_District_Karnataka.html

Thanks for the info Anand.Hegde. I see you have added these sources to the article. Best,  Philg88 talk 05:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC).
(p.s. Don't forget to sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes like this ~~~~. This will automatically include your signature.)

CE[edit]

Hey Phil, could you help me with some copyedits here. Thanks! Jim Carter 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Anthropocentric}}?[edit]

Hi, Phil, it seems you were the person who was handled to relocation of this template from {{Human-centric}} to {{Anthropocentric}} following a request from an IP editor to do so. I wanted to ask that this be reverted back to "Human-centric" (even though this is kind of a weird and maybe clumsy way of saying the same thing)... This is because although I completely agree that "anthropocentric" is the scientifically correct term be be using here, a sizable proportion of Wikipedia's readership just ain't gonna know what big long words like that which they have never seen before actually mean. "Human-centric", which makes me cringe a bit even to type it, strikes me as the word we really need to be using here: it isn't in any sense truly incorrect, it is just more "pedestrian" and I think that "anthropocentric" is overly recondite for template use. And yes, I know there is a link to the word "anthropocentric", but the odds of a casual reader not recognizing the tern & bothering to clink on that link I think you will agree are next to zero, and so the tag will be ignored. I have witnessed other editors actually type "human-centric" more than once when referring to this kind of problem, and have never yet seen anyone type "anthropocentric" on a talk page anywhere to express the sentiment summarized by this template. Could we get it turned back to "human-centric" again, even if it sounds wrong to the ears of scientists and other professionals? Our audience is not us, and we need to accommodate them as often as possible when it is reasonable to do so. I think this is probably one of those times. Thanks for considering my request! KDS4444 (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444 and thanks for the message. My suggestion would be that you post a {{Requested move}} at the Template talk:Anthropocentric page echoing the above rationale. There seems to have been some discussion of which term to use and other editors may have different opinions on whether such a move should take place. If no one else comments after the requisite 7 day period, give me a shout and I will do the move. Best,  Philg88 talk 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I just checked on this— it looks like the request got one !vote of support not long after it was made 8 days ago, but nothing (either for or against) since. It was recently relisted, but I am not sure that even that is necessary, as there is no minimum amount of participation necessary for RM discussions and there has been no opposition at all since I first made the request. Do you think this is enough cause to perform the relocation back to Human-centric? (because it looks to me like it is, but I would be glad to know if you feel otherwise). Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi again KDS4444. I agree no one seems opposed to the move but I suggest that you wait another 7 days as a courtesy to the editor who relisted it yesterday. Best,  Philg88 talk 06:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Section header at WP:RM/TR[edit]

Did you intend to remove the subsection heading that I added? It's there to make it easier to edit the section from the WP:RM page. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Dicklyon. Sorry - it wasn't deliberate. I used the "Clear all requests" button so it appears to be a side effect of that.  Philg88 talk 17:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was some such semi-automated undoing of my attempt. Where is this button and who would know how to fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The button sits above the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section. Alas, I have no idea of the technical wizardry behind it.  Philg88 talk 19:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it. Perhaps it requires admin status, or some special javascript installed. I'll ask on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It's behind some "display only on the actual page" code in the Instructions page. Updated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks SarekOfVulcan, mystery resolved!  Philg88 talk 22:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry[edit]

Hi Philg88,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pseud 14 and thanks for the message. It's been a long time since I carried out a peer review and there are no doubt others much better qualified than I to do it. Good luck though!  Philg88 talk 15:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Resquest[edit]

Hello. Requesting c/e extending article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you much.Nolp (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nolp:  Done ... although there wasn't much to do.  Philg88 talk 10:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi, could you please join in these two move discussions – Bhavana (actress) and Robin Hood (2009 film). Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lilian Shelley[edit]

Thanks for your addition. Is there any more about her in the book? Is there perchance a photograph? I have never found one. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: You're welcome. There is a b&w photo of a 1912 portrait of her by Adrian Allinson from a private collection. I suspect it would be copyright the author and thus (sadly) unusable.  Philg88 talk 17:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
... and a fair bit about her affair with Dick Innes and the Mary Bryant book.
Thanks, you mean the photo by Allinson is in the book? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: Yes, a (small) b&w photo of the portrait painted by Allinson is in the book.  Philg88 talk 19:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)