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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philip_Cross.
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).