User talk:Philip Cross
|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philip_Cross.
- 1 Books and Bytes - Issue 10
- 2 Reverts to Sylvia Stolz page
- 3 Talk:Elevator to the Gallows
- 4 Play of the Day
- 5 A new reference tool
- 6 "Pedantry can lead to cognitive dissonance"
- 7 Thanks
- 8 Katie Hopkins
- 9 Lord Greville Janner
- 10 Margaret Hodge
- 11 Books and Bytes - Issue 11
- 12 Jean Seaton
- 13 Militant tendency change of name of article
- 14 The Wikipedia Library needs you!
- 15 George Galloway
- 16 Star Trek titles
- 17 Stray "]"
- 18 Paedophile claims involving Leon Brittan
- 19 Lord Janner and Leon Brittan
- 20 The Wikipedia Library needs you!
- 21 Books and Bytes - Issue 12
- 22 Regarding My Edit
Books and Bytes - Issue 10
Reverts to Sylvia Stolz page
It would be helpful if you could respond to my questions on the Sylvia Stolz talk page regarding your reverts of my edits on the Sylvia Stolz page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjtucker (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Play of the Day
What's with the tense changes? Play of the Month hasn't run for years. Might as well say Louis XIV "is a king", because his bones are in existence somewhere.-MacRùsgail (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have tried to explain in my edit summaries, and am following standard Wikipedia practice. It is also now clear in the opening that Play of the Month has not been broadcast since 1983. There is a clear distinction between the remains of a person who once lived, and an artefact created by humans which has no substantial qualitative difference from the time it was made until today. I have not seen your point about old regal bones being made in any Wikipedia policy document. Philip Cross (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"Pedantry can lead to cognitive dissonance"
I think that might be the most verbose thing I've read on Wikipedia so far. Do you speak to your friends like that? It's not "pedantry" to correct a blatant error, and if readers can't distinguish between the meaning of "a scene" (singular) and "scenes" (plural) and suffer from cognitive dissonance as a result, perhaps they shouldn't be reading such an in-depth article because they haven't got a basic grasp of English? Changing from "scenes in" "led to her claiming" to "she found fault with" "about which she commented", while a perfectly acceptable edit as it stands, is the height of "pedantry" if I may say so. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, I really meant "confusion". It was you, Rodericksilly, who made a point about "scenes" over "scene". Philip Cross (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I did, because I thought it important to correct an error. She must have registered her complaint after the transmission of the fifth episode, since she was making reference in her quote to two separate scenes, contained in episodes one and five of a six-part serial. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I know this from your earlier edit summary. You must have noticed at some point that it is quite common for professional writers to make a small error, admittedly not necessarily deliberately, for the sake of cohesive prose. Anyway the passage seems to have now reached a state which we can both live with. Philip Cross (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for correcting my edits to newspapers with the reference to Yes Prime Minister. Yes - it could be regarded as trivia by some. I will accept your point on this.
As an aside, though, how important does a trivia need to be before it disqualifies from beign a trivial could be topic for an... ummm... trivial discussion
Lord Greville Janner
Dear Philip, it's only my opinion but I think that this should still be in. The irony is there for anyone to see anyway; it's quite a strong quotation; and the article is about Janner, including his current situation and all the possible ironies and potential contradictions that that includes, not about war crimes. I won't nag or start a fight, but please consider putting it back in or maybe seeking others' views on the Talk page. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still think my second thoughts were correct. The issue of Janner's alleged hypocrisy is likely to come up at some point in discussions as to what should be included in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC).
Hi, the edit you just reverted from Margaret Hodge was not "intemperate". The Daily Express is a respected national daily newspaper which has been in circulation for nearly a hundred years in the UK. The content you removed was a statement of fact and not a criticism. You should look up the definition of "intemperate"; if you need any help it means "lack of self control" or "characterized by self indulgence, especially in alcohol" (COED 12th ed. 2011). In what way is a statement of fact intemperate? You took just ten minutes to notice the new contribution and revert it, probably without a second thought (an excess of zeal?) I think you should revert your revert. Jodosma (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since Richard Desmond's holding company acquired it, the Daily Express has long been considered something of a joke in the UK owing to its obsessive rehashing of conspiracy theories concerning the death of the Princess of Wales and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It most certainly does not count as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. The issue of Mrs Hodge's finances are already mentioned in the article, and entirely credible sources like the Financial Times have covered this issue in the last few days. While Stephen Pollard is normally a reputable journalist, this Express article is over-the-top. Philip Cross (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) [minor edit made on 3 May: "conspiracies" => "conspiracy", PC]
Books and Bytes - Issue 11
Thank you, Philip, for your advice regarding my edit on the page; I can assure you that there is no conflict of interest. I'm a new user and am not yet familiar with all the terminology. Reading the page it struck me that it focused disproportionately on negative reviews of the book when a quick search shows more than half a dozen favourable ones, hence my brief edit -- the idea being that all can edit Wikipedia to try to improve its pages. To my mind, the balance is still skewed; I defer to your experience, however, on whether or not to change it further. I add a final edit, which notes Seaton's response to Elstein. -buckmulligan55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckmulligan55 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Militant tendency change of name of article
Hi Philip, I'm appealing to you as someone with more hands-on experience of these things than me, for a bit of help.
I'd like to dispute the change of name of the article 'Militant tendency' to 'Militant (Trotskyist group)' by HalDraper. The change is marked as Minor! Why was the change not flagged up on the discussion page? I think it is a mistake.
I don't know how to change it back.
I can't see any discussion on the change of name of this article and wondered what you thought. My own feeling is changing 'Militant tendency' to 'Militant (Trotskyist group)' is mistaken, since it is widely known as Militant tendency, and there is at least one other Trotskyist group which calls itself Militant (in the USA).
- I agree it should have been discussed on the talk page, but I think the change is valid. These days, references to Militant are probably more common than to the Militant tendency, which is obviously informal usage. The Militant disambiguation page does not indicate Wikipedia has an article on any other group called Militant active since the 1930s, and for that reason Militant (British Trotskyist group), say, would not be standard practice. Sorry I cannot be of more help. Philip Cross (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
I'm sorry about our difference of opinion over at George Galloway regarding the wording "-born". I hope the new wording is okay with you. Cheers and have a great weekend. — 06:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your changes will confuse or irritate no one. As the American "native of" usage is probably more common among English speakers than "-born", but unusable here, it is a legitimate compromise. Philip Cross (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC),
- Great. Thanks, Philip. — 06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Star Trek titles
Hi Philip, just for me to understand... why is there "quotation marks" in every article of television series in bold such as "The One with the Sonogram at the End" (Friends) or "The Lost Ones" (Land of the Giants), but they're not part of the title itself ? Thank you, Krenakarore TK 21:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if you are citing specific actual examples, as I have not been able to find the use of the titles you give, but bold type is not used in the way you suggest. There is an article about the episode of Friends you mention and can only assume that the series title once formed part of the article title and another editor did not cut "(Friends)" when piping a link. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, although you have to scroll down to find the information you need. Philip Cross (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the title The One with the Sonogram at the End is written normally, but when the article begins, it is written "The One with the Sonogram at the End", in bold and between quotations. This happens in every article about episodes of television series such as The Time Tunnel or The Persuaders!, but not in other articles like Barack Obama or The Revolution (newspaper), which come in bold but without quotation marks. The same happens in every list like List of Land of the Giants episodes or List of Lost in Space episodes. I noticed that when you edited Elizabeth Rogers. Krenakarore TK 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is normal to render episode titles in quotation marks and series in quotation marks, and in bold at the beginning of articles. Unfortunately, some editors use italics for both within articles, and sometimes in bold as well. Rendering birth names in bold is normal, as with Elizabeth Rogers, Philip Cross (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Problem solved!
- Gareth, I don't know if you ever read Private Eye, but for the additions I made yesterday I used a very helpful review of Desmond's autobiography in the current issue (#1395) to locate sources which could used on the various controversies involving the Northern and Shell owner. Still more to come, if I can sustain an interest in the subject. One is proving elusive, though. The license to publish the UK Penthouse ended badly with a court case involving Bob Guccione and Richard Desmond. It cannot be mentioned in the article because the available evidence is incomplete. At the moment, I can only find "Penthouse publishers battle over UK rights" from The Independent dated 24 October 1994. Frustrating. Philip Cross (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Paedophile claims involving Leon Brittan
The source IS reliable and one of many newspaper articles confirming Brittan is under investigation by Scotland Yard with accusations from 5 men. The police also confirmed the allegations were true, along with those of former Prime Minister Edward Heath. If you keep deleting the comment, it will become apparent you are obviously part of the Paedo Ring cover up and I will put your name forward to the police for questioning. Igetwet (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am not disputing the police investigation into Leon Brittan, only the source you choose to use. Read the article on reliable sources I added to the edit summary, which specifically mentions that publications which have a poor reputation for fact checking should not be used. This clearly includes the Express. Do a bit of research if you think otherwise. You should also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Philip Cross (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Lord Janner and Leon Brittan
I find it highly suspicipus that you are defending and editing the profiles of 2 known paedophiles. I am reporting you to Wikipedia and the police, demanding your wikipedia history is thoroughly investigated. Igetwet (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- No doubt Wikipedia administrators and the police will notice that I have made over 200 edits to the Lord Janner article mostly about the CPS decision in April and its aftermath. Philip Cross (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Philip, you might like to know that Igetwet has now been indefinitely blocked for threatening you and me. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#threats_by_another_editor -- Alarics (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Books and Bytes - Issue 12
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding My Edit
I was wondering about your undoing of my Edit to Michael Rosen, for one thing, in the edit summery you said that Mr. Rosen Did not support and/or indorse YTP`s in any way, and also that YTP`s are not offical, however, this edit summery brings up some questions. For one thing, Just because Mr. Rosen does not endorse YTP`s does not mean that they should be excluded from the article. Your other point of YTP`s not being official raises another question. For one thing, what do you mean by "official?" I hope you get to responding to this comment, and please do not take to this as a personal attack or disrespecting you, I was just vague on you reasoning.
- Above all, the article needs third-party reliable sources to establish the notanilty of the YTPs. Last time I checked online, a few months ago, these were entirely lacking. Philip Cross (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)