User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Dacre


why on earth did you undo my edit? I was under the impression that Wikipedia encourages everyone to edit entries to ensure that subject and subject matter get the broadest possible treatment. That is what I was trying to do when I edited the bio of Paul Dacre. You note that I should source my edit, but that would be patently impossible and that impossibility is reflected in my edit.

I have worked under Dacre at both the Daily Mail and when he edited the Evening Standard. I not a friend but an employee, and as is the nature of working for newspapers, I have had personal contact with him. But in the pecking order at the Mail, I am nowhere and I have no other interest in editing the bio than to try to give a rounder picture of the man. Furthermore, and quite crucially, what I write is not my view alone: over the years I have spoken to several people who know the man far better and that is the base of my amending edit.

Yes, he can be ill-mannered and foul-tongued and, yes, he can have a heavy touch in many small social situations, but from my own experience and that of others (who, as I say, know him far better) that is be no means the whole story, and it is very odd that my edit which, to some extent, mitigates a rather hostile piece, should be deleted.

Elsewhere on this page it has been noted that the vast majority of comments are sourced from the Guardian and the Independent, neither of which is known to feel particularly favourable to Dacre. That is worthy of note, as the general tone of the edit is vaguely hostile to the man. I was extremely careful how I worded my edit, which is accurate and truthful, and there can be no reason whatsoever for it not to stand side by side with the other comments in order to give a broader, rounder picture of the man. Pfgpowell (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC) patrick powell (pfgpowell)Reply[reply]

Your experience of dealing with Dacre directly, for the purposes of Wikipedia, counts as original research. I did check The Times and The Daily Telegraph for usable material, but found only the citations I added. By my calculation citations from The Guardian, the Independent titles and The Observer account for 19 out of 47 references. Other editors are perfectly free to add citations from conservative publications if they should come across them. Philip Cross (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philip, you've done it again. Why? Why should you be more qualified to make edits on these pages than I? What I say if wholly innocuous and most certainly does give a rounder and more truthful portrayal of Dacre, although one which those who dislike him for whatever reason might not care to have included. As I pointed out earlier, given the more complimentary nature of the edit, it is difficult for those who do feel Dacre gets a rough ride to say so publicly for fear of being lambasted as - in the language of the trade - arselickers. I repeat, what makes you more qualified? For example this excerpt is taken from the bio of Kelvin Mackenzie:

"During MacKenzie's tenure as editor, the stereotype of the typical "Sun reader" entered the national consciousness: supposedly a working-class conservative, frequently from the south of England, always of low intelligence, and more interested in looking at page 3 girls and reading sensationalist and implausible reports of celebrity scandals (that he is likely to unquestioningly believe) than serious news, and in any case too unintelligent to read the more 'serious' conservative newspapers such as The Times, the The Daily Telegraph, or even the Daily Mail. Frequently it was implied that the typical Sun reader would often, though not invariably, also hold bigoted, sexist, racist, and homophobic views, and would probably believe and approve of any attack on a left-wing political figure or minority group printed in the paper, no matter how outrageous and factually dubious.

By the mid-1980s, British comedians would frequently bring up the subject of the stereotypical Sun reader, feeling it was guaranteed to get laughs from any audience, Jasper Carrott was a notable exponent of this. Like most stereotypes, the image of the "average Sun reader" may be somewhat unfair and misleading to at least some extent - polls have consistently shown that a majority of Sun readers claim not to take what they read in the paper seriously, and approximately the same number of Sun readers voted Labour in 1992 as voted Conservative - but the concept of the Sun reader stereotype is perhaps just as prevalent in British culture and society as it was when it first emerged under MacKenzie."

All of this far more controversial and opinionated, yet none of it is sourced and as far as I can see it would also seem to risk disqualification under the rules regarding original research. Yet is allowed to stand. (I'm not suggesting you have any link with it, by the way.) But why is it allowed whereas you feel my far more innocent contribution should be taken out? Pfgpowell (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you need to raise all this with an administrator. 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


I have yet again re-instated my contribution. I feel very strongly about this indeed and shall get in touch with the administrator if you will tell me how to do so. I repeat, my contribution is utterly uncontentious, and I feel that for you to get technical and feel you are justified in deleting it because of the rules of governing original research doesn't quite wash. I know full well that Dacre is, in some circles, almost something of a hate figure, and I feel that that has something to do with the matter. Incidentally, I am also rather puzzled as to why you didn't reply to my personal email to you. P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talkcontribs) 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done so, see above. Philip Cross (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have been keeping an eye on this entry for several weeks now, and you will have noticed that I have been undoing your deletions every time you delete my addition. Despite Wikipedia's reputation for often being a touch slanted and rather embarrassingly often giving duff information, I do use it quite a lot as a source of first resort on all manner of topics and people. And while I have been doing do, I have kept an eye out for how much info is actually sourced. I have to tell you that it is rather less than you seem fondly to imagine.

For example, tonight, after hearing a radio obit of Mitch Mitchell and hearing Georgie Fame's contribution to that obit, I looked up Georgie Fame's Wikipedia entry. Here is an excerpt:

"Fame's greatest success was "The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde" in 1968, which was a number one hit in the United Kingdom, and No.7 in the United States; Fame also had UK number one hits with "Yeh Yeh" (1965) and "Get Away" (1966).

Although he enjoyed regular chart success with singles in the late 1960s, it was a peculiar quirk of chart statistics that his only three Top 10 hits all made number one.

Fame continued playing into the 1970s, having a hit, "Rosetta", in 1971. He suffered from some bad publicity, as a result of being convicted of possessing drugs and then being named as co-respondent in the divorce case of the Marquess of Londonderry.

Georgie Fame recorded "Rosetta" with a close friend, Alan Price, ex-keyboard player of The Animals, and they worked together extensively for a time. He has also toured as one of the Rhythm Kings, with his friend, Bill Wyman, playing bass.

From the late 1980s, until the 1997 album The Healing Game, Fame was a core member of Van Morrison's band, as well as his musical producer, playing keyboards and singing harmony vocals on tracks like "In the Days before Rock 'n' Roll", whilst still recording and touring as an artist in his own right. Morrison refers to Fame in a line: "I don't run into Mr. Clive" on his song, "Don't Go to Nightclubs Anymore" featured on his 2008 album, Keep It Simple. Fame appears as a special guest on Morrison's television concert show presented by BBC Four series on 25 April, and 27 April 2008.

Fame frequently plays residences at jazz clubs, such as Ronnie Scott's. He has also played organ on Starclub's album.

Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames were the only act from the UK to be invited to perform with the first Motown Review when it hit London in the mid-1960s."

Very, very little of this is sourced e.g. that Alan Price was a close friend, that Fame suffered from bad publicity, even "facts" given in the last par. I am not suggesting that these assertions are untrue, I am merely pointing out that they are wholly unsourced and that, according to you, they should not be allowed to stand. Another example: The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde, Yeh Yeh and Get Away were all No 1 hits. So how can the writer claim that The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde was "Fame's greatest success"? How can one No 1 hit be "greater" than another? Is this sourced or is it merely a matter of opinion?

Yet no Wikipedia zealot such as you has so far seen fit to delete these entries on the grounds that hey are "unsourced". Your claim - and your justification deleting my entry about Dacre being a shy man etc - are simply cobblers. These are just three examples from the latest Wikipedia entry I have consulted. There are many, many more in other entries I have come across over these past few weeks.

I'll say it again: the very nature of what I say in my entry about Dacre - that several people who have come into contact with Dacre feel quite strongly that he is a shy man - means they simply cannot be sourced. Of course I understand that Wikipedia might feel it must insist (or, as I suspect, be seen to insist) that opinion cannot be always be allowed willy-nilly. Yet that policy can, and in this case does, give a rather biased and unbalanced portrayal and in that sense is pretty much an unsubtle blunderbuss approach to "establishing the truth".

There is one final point: Dacre is something of a bete noir to the chattering classes (and the would-be chattering classes) and it is seen as rather admirable to diss Dacre and the paper he edits. And I do feel there is an element of that attitude in you reluctance to admit that Dacre can't be all bad, and that you are using the technical argument about the strict rules on sourcing to as something of a smokescreen. Do you have a background in print journalism, or even journalism of any stripe, and just why do you feel qualified to write Wikipedia entries on a long list of personalities?

PP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talkcontribs) 21:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick, you will also have noted that I am not alone in reverting your edit. Quite so, as far as citations are concerned, but the issue here is really Verifiability. On the other hand, the attention Paul Dacre gained at the turn of the week, the WP page gained 966 hits last Monday - usually the number attained in a month, did result in the 'shyness theory' gaining a brief airing in The Guardian here. Dacre's recently stated views on privacy probably could do with adding to the article, but I have not got round to it. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philip, I take your point about verifiability and, in theory, it should at least partly guard against punters posting whatever nonsense they liked. However, as I point out above in these past few weeks, I have come across many entries in which verifiability is ignored. As for the Guardian piece, I think it is extremely unlikely that the writer based his claims of shyness purely on my addition to Dacre's Wikipedia entry. He will have talked to several people before writing his piece. As for his reference to Dacre's bad language, it is no worse than the norm in any newsroom and a rather less offensive than other hacks I have heard in action. I used to do shifts on the Sun and know the Kelvin Mcakenzie's language is just as bad, yet no one comments on it. (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC) pfgpowellReply[reply]

"I think it is extremely unlikely that the writer based his claims of shyness purely on my addition to Dacre's Wikipedia entry."
I did not say that, I used "the" rather than "your". I was suggesting the Guardian article as possible evidence which could be cited by yourself.
"Kelvin Mcakenzie's language is just as bad, yet no one comments on it."
MacKenzie's behaviour is also well known and gains regular comment too, albeit in the 'unpopulars' and Private Eye, but he does not have Dacre's contemporary profile. Philip Cross (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This morning I added some well-sourced info about Dacre, but by this evening around two-thirds of it had been edited out, by you and others. Any good committee man who has made a detailed study of the rule book, the constitution, the protocol etc, will always be able to quote chapter and verse as to why his actions are right justified and another's are misguided and not justified, but - perhaps I'm being overly cynical, or perhaps I'm not - but there does seem to be an implicit sentiment among many of the contributors to Dacre's entry that the man is, in my earlier description, something of a right-wing ogre and that therefore any editorial additions which might humanise him and paint a more rounded portrait of the man are to be avoided.

It is pertinent, for example, that Polly Toynbee (who, incidentally, loathes Dacre with a deep, deep loathing, is widely regarded by many on both the left and the right as a champagne socialist of the most offensive kind - extremely generous salary, self-regarding bien pensant type with cottage in the country, that kind of thing - but none of this is cited in her entry, even though well-sourced references are two a penny. The point is, of course, that our Polly is regarded be right-thinking people, for all her faults, as being on the side of the angels and that any such criticism along the lines of her being an inconsistent, two-faced harridan would thus be inappropriate.

Dacre, on the other hand, is regarded by many contributors here as most certainly not being on the side of the angels, is seen as fair game and there seems to be a general reluctance to concede that quite possibly the man doesn't eat young children for breakfast. Pfgpowell (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC) pfgpowellReply[reply]

PS How "would prefer to spend time working in his garden" contradicts "never afraid to speak out" baffles me completely. Just how do you work that one out? Do you really think that amateur gardeners are to a man and woman shy retiring types, or, conversely that those unafraid to speak out wouldn't be seen dead with a trowel in their hand? If you've got the time, I would be interested to hear how you square that one. Pfgpowell (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC) pfgpowellReply[reply]

According to reports in Private Eye and elsewhere, Polly Toynbee is on £140,000 from The Guardian per annum and Dacre is on more than a million from DMGT, yet it is Toynbee who is described as having a 'champagne lifestyle'. Ofcause, I do not disagree that the citations are "well-sourced", I gave them to you, apart from Toynbee's, and I used the BJR quotes from MacKenzie in the section on Dacre's status in the newspaper industry. The reference to Brown is also repetitive of material already included since you are complaining about Wikipedia editors cutting your additions. You are perfectly free to add "well sourced" citations to the article on Polly Toynbee if you wish.
Your comment "unpopular among his left-wing critics, for whom Dacre is something of a bête noir and who often exhibit a personal loathing for the man" is a point unavoidably established in the article, but invites readers to dismiss them, and thus contravenes NPOV.
My point about Dacre "never being afraid to speak out", is that compared to any equivalent figure, he seldom does so. The Select Committee appearance was in March 2004; the Cudlipp lecture was given in January 2007 and the Society of Editors speech in November 2008; gaps of two to three years for someone whose newspaper sells the second largest number of copies in the UK. Philip Cross (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion of Rob Cowen

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Rob Cowen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion of Anthony Blond

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Anthony Blond requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ozgod (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

obviously, i removed the tag & declined the speedy. Just don't be surprised if it shows up in Afd, regardless of the obvious justification for notability.DGG (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carol Barnes

Why do you keep removing removing the triva about Ms. Barnes role in On Her Majesty's Secret Service? It's taken directly from IMDB, a traditionally unimpeachable source. I added the attribution and everything! Please help me to understand what I'm doing wrong, thanks. (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not included on the page cited. Philip Cross (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is:

Quote: "Former ITN newsreader Carol Barnes filmed scenes with the Angels of Death after showing up to the set with her friend Jenny Hanley. She can be briefly seen serving drinks at the first meal Bond attends."

It's no big deal, but I don't like being called a fibber. I just thought it was interesting!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my comments on the Carol Barnes talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neil Clark

Hi Philip. Neil Clark has come to the conclusion that you harbour a grudge against him, due to your edits of his article. I don't see it myself, although maybe some better sources would be preferable in places. However, to avoid causing him offence I'd ask you please if you would leave his article alone now. This is not endorsing his view, just a courtesy request to avoid further distress to an article subject. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two edits by myself to the Neil Clark article a month ago, and a clarification on the talk page, after several months when the article was (sadly) absent. Nothing to do with Wikipedia really, but I did post two responses on his blog earlier this afternoon as "anonymous" merely because I have difficulties signing into my Google account. I had not added a comment to Clark's blog for a month or two.
Gosh, Neil Clark is sensitive! Or perhaps his unfortunate experience with the Thames Valley Constabulary (see Oliver Kamm's blog) have meant a change in his tactics... Philip Cross (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, no doubt about it. Hence the request, I think you probably don't want to get involved on this one. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And after that you still edited it again on 2 April? Please don't edit that article again, I think that if you do the subject will be onto you IRL. He is not happy, best to leave him alone. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I should point out that I would have been banned from editing on this site, if I had vandalised the biography of Neil Clark. Philip Cross (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert on abortion

It appears you have been looking through the recent changes page and reverting blindly any edit that removed a large amount of content (i.e. the bold red edits). However, your revert at abortion reinstated non-neutral, copyrighted material. I'm assuming this was an honest mistake, so I am writing you know to ask you to please be a bit more careful in the future when reverting. If there was another reason for your revert, then please explain your position at Talk:abortion to avoid further edit warring. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Valparaiso Crusaders

Sorry for not putting an edit summary in my original edit to that page, but did you read the section at all when you reverted it? A three-paragraph section, with much superfluous language, was not warranted for that section, especially when other sports have almost no coverage in that article. All I did was get rid of the superfluous language and other non-notable items. Spell4yr (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RED ken

I dont see how I would get be a pov related problem. I mean i mentioned gerry adams conviction, but im saying that the bombing would piss off londoners as ken livingston was ment to be representing london.. Paddytheceltic (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2008

Radio Times and plagiarism?

In 2006, you stated that Mr Winnert had been sacked by the BBC as the result of a plagiarism lawsuit. May I ask what was the source of your information? This is important; Mr Winnert has written in to m:OTRS to complain. DS (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My source was Alan Coren on The News Quiz at the time of the incident (obviously still covered by libel), but this thread, all I can find online, although started by someone who has read the WP, would seem to suggest that I have not imagined the incident. Philip Cross (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got a source: a report in The Times for March 30, 1995 (available on the Infotrac Newsbank archive), written by Dalya Alberge and headed "Film guide pulped after Halliwell family protests". It comments that "unsold copies of Hodder & Stoughton's new Radio Times Film and Video Guide are to be destroyed because parts were found to be similar to Halliwell's Film Guide, the film buff's bible. Even errors in Leslie Halliwell's guide were reproduced in the new publication.

John Walker, editor of Halliwell's, said some of the wording in the reviews and production details were virtually identical. Halliwell's review of Sunstruck, a 1972 film starring Harry Secombe, said: 'A shy Welsh schoolmaster emigrates to the Australian outback. Simple-minded, uninspired, predictable family comedy for star fans.'

The Radio Times guide said: 'Secombe finds the perfect role as a shy Welsh schoolmaster emigrating to the Australian outback in this simple family comedy film, mainly for his fans'.

For Walkabout, Halliwell's 7th edition misspelt the name of the Aborigine actor David Gulpilil as Gulmilil. That spelling appears in the Radio Times guide.

Action was taken by HarperCollins, publisher of Halliwell's, and Ruth Halliwell and Mr Walker, the copyright owners.

In settling a High Court copyright infringement action, Hodder & Stoughton, publishers of the Radio Times Film and Video Guide, paid "a substantial sum" in damages and costs. They pledged that booksellers would be asked to return remaining copies of the publication, priced at £14.99, and they will be pulped.

The book was written by Derek Winnert, film review for the Radio Times until three weeks ago. The Radio Times was not implicated in the copyright infringement.

Mr Walker said: "I find it extraordinary. Leslie Halliwell spent 20 years writing his renowned film guide. It is most unfair that competing film guides should benefit from all this painstaking and time-consuming work."

Hope this helps! RobinCarmody (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That does very much help, thank you. I've left it commented out of the article until some minor issues of wording can be settled, but its factual nature is no longer a problem. DS (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Actually] it turns out, the original article from the Times was, shall we say, less than accurate (plus it didn't even mention that he had been sacked). Plus, it's not really relevant to the article on the Radio Times. So it's coming out, and it really shouldn't go back in. DS (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


have requested wp:semi-protection of livingstone and johnson articles for a week until after the election - wp:requests for page protection. sorry i should have asked you before Tom (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


HAHAHAHAHA...... [Comment added by Paddytheceltic|talk) 01:06, 3 May 2008]

Raymond Williams - Finland pamphlet

You removed the statememt that no copies of the work survived. Do you have details? If so, please add them.--GwydionM (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philip, just FYI, the pamphlet has indeed survived. I have a copy of it. Nick Cohen wrote about it in his book What's Left?; I've also sent the pamphlet quite recently to a leading British historian of Russia and the Soviet Union, who had expressed interest in it for a forthcoming book, so I expect it will be (rightly) back in the public domain shortly.OliverKamm (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what ur problem

your obbsessed with ken livingstone... he lost i cbf to make those changes anymore because i dont have to look at his ugly face.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddytheceltic (talkcontribs) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fielding's year of birth

Hi, Philip. I noticed that you recently added another reference related to Fenella Fielding's date of birth. What you may not have known is that this subject has a bit of a history, and I've been trying to keep things a little more under control since I became aware of the issue. You can find the discussion (or, perhaps more accurately, monologue) at Fielding's year of birth. To help flag the issue better in future, I've also left an invisible comment in the article itself. I hope my notes adequately explain my partial reversion, but if you feel strongly about the matter, feel free to add your comments. Thanks. --Error -128 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to remove the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise.

In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change, such as those involving unprintworthy redirects, the better option is to edit the visible text rather than change where the link is pointing. If the linked term is printworthy and presents no other problems to the prose, there is no reason not to just link the term as is. There should almost never be a reason to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This kind of change is almost never an improvement, and it can actually be detrimental.

-- copied from WP:REDIRECT. -- Magioladitis 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I think the full name is better for an encyclopedia. Secondly, either way piping is not good. Even if the entry is with the abbreviation. This is not "dab" that you are correcting. You are just replacing [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. And this is nonconstructive. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same for Margaret Postgate. Since it's a proper redirect, there is not reason to force pipe it, unless there is some reason. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Divorce Reform in the UK

You removed the reference to divorce reform from the article on Harold Wilson, arguing that divorce reform was carried out during the Heath administration instead. My understanding, though, is that, while there was further legislation in 1973, parliament did pass the Divorce Reform Act in 1969 (i.e., under Wilson). I could of course be misinformed?? Nandt1 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I was the misinformed party. The act coming in to force under Heath misled me to assume it was an act of his government. Philip Cross (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neil Clark

I took the name out in response to an OTRS complaint about the article that has been running along for some time. I strongly feel that the sentence of the case as now written is unfair against the defendant as there is no outcome and the outcome cannot be included because there was no third party publication of the end of the case and the actual outcome is disputed. This leaves us a BLP problem and I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your last edit to the page in the context of a compromise I'm trying to broker that removes BLP problems against both parties and, hopefully, ends this dispute completely. Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oliver Kamm clearly does not object from his comments on the Neil Clark talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This comment on the Neil Clark talk page was not useful or constructively phrased. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second incarnation of the Neil Clark talk page cited above has been removed. In my defence, it should be pointed out that Clark was also warned there, rather than on his user talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tedious pedantry (mine)

Ar risk of being tediously pedantic, I think we now have Caroline and Brian having at least one affair in 1985 - ie maybe 2 affairs in 1985 or >2 affairs in 1985. Is that what you intend? Do we have to choose between pinning down the year and hinting at more than one affair? Or else making a more cumbersome sentence to try and incorporate both 1985 and the hint of more than one affair between the two of them but not necessarily all in 1985? (I confess I don't have in my head the dates of Caroline's or Brian's romantic - and other - attachments over the years, so if you tell me they had one or more affairs with one another all in 1985 I shall be in no position to argue with you. Besides, surely I ought to have more important things to worry about.) RegardsCharles01 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simon Hoggart's affair with Kimberley Quinn

You may wish to comment on the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart SilkTork *YES! 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polly Toynbee

I see that the reference to that blog Factchecking Pollyanna is some sort of a cronic problem. But it seems to come from different IPs, like it's not just some guy who wants publicity for his blog. I reverted some edits, and I see you did to, but shouldn't we have to come up with a more definitive solution? --PeterCantropus (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"glass houses and Denis MacShane"

What is the explanation for this? Doesn't seem to have any relevence with the change made. - Phildav76 (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neil Clark persistently refers to MacShane as Denis Matyajaszek. Philip Cross (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that was his name at birth. A woman changing her name after marriage is not exactly unusual whereas your employer asking you to change your name is. Phildav76 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice


As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Herbie Nichols date of birth

Hi Philip Cross, may I ask why you reverted this edit? This website suggests that his birthday is December 3, not January 3. Best regards, -- Hey Teacher (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the other sources I have come across indicate 3 January 1919. Philip Cross (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Richard Cook's Jazz Encyclopedia, the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz and Germany's reputable Reclams Jazzführer all say he was born in December. May I ask for your sources? Best regards, -- Hey Teacher (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carr, Fairweather & Priestley Jazz the Rough Guide (1995), Chilton Who's Who of Jazz (1989) and Feather & Gitler The Biographical Dictionary of Jazz (1999) all give 3 January 1919, as do the majority of web sources and The Complete Blue Note Recordings set of 1997. I had not noticed the two sources you cite disagree with this, though Cook's volume is littered with errors. Will have to check the second edition of the Grove when I next have access to it. Philip Cross (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your detailed answer. Best regards, -- Hey Teacher (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Curiously, the second edition of Grove still gives Herbie Nichols' date of birth as 3 December 1919, despite a much improved article by Frank Kimborough. Philip Cross (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I inform you that I requested move for the article at J. M. G. Le Clézio to go back to the original title, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio. Since you has shown interest in the article, I would appreciate your input in the discussion. The discussion for move has very a few participants so far, so more people's opinion on this matter would be really necessary. Regards.--Caspian blue 14:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Year in film" links

Please don't delete wikilinks to "year in film" articles for film release dates and the birth and death dates of major actors, since these are legitimate links per discussion on WT:FILM. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reference. I merely followed the policy outlined on the page I referred to in my edit summary because I could not find anything more specific. Philip Cross (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edmond Hall

Philip, I found it - that's how it works - Great!!

First thank you very much for helping me here. Really like the structuring you added.

I took everything solely from Selchows Biography - please, if you could let me know the ares we might have to redo or change (maybe even erase). I have talked to Selchow and he's given me the okay to use everything in his book, which he as the copyright for. Which brings up another point: There are many beautiful pictures, most of them he received from Halls wife, when he visited her during the time when he went through the US to collect all the information, to get this book together. How can we do that, add picture(s) to the specific paragraph(s) in a way that they belong there rather just random placements to the side of the paragraphs?

I read that you are specializing in Jazz music, I am a terrible reader and going through the Hall Biography I could only do, because the man himself is a major influence in my own music, yet Selchow wrote another huge Biography about Trombonist Vic Dickenson (over 900 pages), he said he still has many copies of Dickenson's Biography (Hall's has been sold out a long time ago) maybe we can do something on Dickenson as well (I'd have to count on your help, but let's first get Hall finished and good for the future) Jens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx7 3rotors (talkcontribs) 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed some and erased some of the "subjective" sentences not sure if I found them all. Adding more images would really be great as well, but I am not quite sure how and if we need to put a copyright verification in there as well - as mentioned before, Selchow owns the copyrights to the images, and we have his full permission to use any of them.

All the references in the article are related to the subject which doesn't instill me with confidence about her notability. Since you said she's the top in her field, perhaps you could go back to the AFD and expand on that thought so other people can make a more informed decision. - Mgm|(talk) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My comment was based on the institutions van Deurzen has been affiliated with. The COI point was derived from the knowledge that the article on the journalist Peter Hitchens was largely written by the subject who posts as 'Clockback' and the article on Cristina Odone has also been edited by the subject and her husband, Edward Lucas. Obviously, no problem in establishing their notability. Philip Cross (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mae West

A couple comments. Since you entered a qualifier to the sentence "Vidal later called the film "an awful joke", and noted that the film's director, Michael Sarne, never directed another film", the qualification needs to be referenced with a reliable source. "clarity, imdb and WP entry on Sarne dispute this" doesn't do that. In checking IMDB, Sarne shows directing credit on 4 films, none of which appears to have had commercial release. Intimidada, on which he was co-director, was not released; onGlastonbury the Movie, he was one of five directors on a documentary which shows no wide release or box office; on The Rise and Fall of Ivor Dickie, he directed some additional sequences, but the film doesn't seem to have had wide release either; and finally, The Punk (not The Punk and the Princess as his article states) also had no wide release. The Sarne Wikipedia article has errors regarding his directing prominence and facts on the films, and is unsourced. This seems to more support the idea that Vidal implied, that Myra Breckinridge sank his directing career. I'd suggest you either change the "inaccurately" to something more definitional, such as saying "claimed" or provide references that support your insertion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Punk and the Princess (1993) is listed as such in both the Halliwell and Time Out guides. So up to 1991 (the year the souce containing the quote was published) Vidal was right to point out Sarne never directed another film, but incorrect since at least 1993. I have chosen to delete Vidal's comment since an explanation would be an unnecessary diversion from an article on Mae West. None of the comments in the cited books suggest Sarne is any kind of 'lost' talent, btw. Philip Cross (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with removing the passage, but I did reinstate the reference so that Vidal's quote has a source. I suspect that The Punk and the Princess is perhaps the DVD release title. Certainly, Sarne's career activity has continued, but he's been a more active actor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Philip. Didn't have the heart to excise when I came across it earlier the edit by Mitchell's grandson, Arthur, but I see you did. My first reaction was to cut it. My reasons, on balance, for not doing so were not merely that, in the circumstances, considerations of mere human decency might outweigh WP rules ("Ignore all rules.") but that leaving this (touching) human touch in the very final sentence for a few days might actually serve the long-term interests of WP in some small way rather than pose some threat.

I don't know the family, and I don't know how old the boy is; but if he's young, the thrill of being able to make his mark on his grandfather's Wikipedia entry might well affect him, positively, for life and, indeed, spur a real editor in the making. To stamp on this (admitted) aberration would have the converse effect. At the very least, his visibly evident edit would serve for sure to promote WP across the extended family in the immediate wake of AM's death. Word of mouth is always the cheapest and most effective form of advertising. In its negative form it can do corresponding damage.

WP delivers, as we know, multiple enhancements of human experience of which the likes of Britannica is utterly incapable. This seems to me one such. Can we not make an exception for just a few days?

P.S. In any event, it's quite inappropriate that the paragraph should carry its current exhaustive name-check. It's had the incidental effect, as far as I can see, of assigning to AM's marriage one daughter from the first. Which she is, I'm unable to identify. Most embarrassing.

Regards Wingspeed (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]