User talk:Philip Cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] duplicate content in articles

Hi - I've been trying to chase down exactly how a problem occurs that seems to have affected you. This edit you made to the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy page a few days ago ended up replicating the entire article although you were only editing a section. Do you happen to remember what happened? My guess is that you encountered an error, perhaps an "edit conflict", but I'd like to find out exactly what you did in response (for example, do you remember copying and pasting?). If you remember anything about this please let me know. Thanks. -- Rick Block 22:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Articles on UK Politicians

You put in requests for articles on Leo Abse, one of the most interesting MPs of the 20th century, and David Penhaligon, one of those whose careers were cut tragically short. I've written them up though I don't doubt they could do with some revision. However your request for Henry Crookshanks appears to be based on a typo. There was a Harry Crookshank who served in the post-war Churchill government and I guess this was the man, but he is here already. His first name wasn't an abbreviation for Henry. David | Talk 23:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Human Rights Commission / edit war

Hi, this is quite a nuisance - do you have input here or there? --tickle me 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian typeface

Hello. Can I just ask you about this edit which changed the typeface in the 1988–2005 Guardian logo from "Helvetica" to "News Gothic"? Over the course of the years I have frequently seen that logo described as being Helvetica, and never as News Gothic, so it surprised me. The type seems perfectly consistent with Helvetica Black to me, though I can't find a sample of News Gothic at such a heavy weight to compare it with, and I'm very much an amateur in typography. Do you have a source for this information? --rbrwr± 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piers Morgan

Philip, you've in the past contibuted to the Piers Morgan article, and it's NOV. You might like to contribute to a POV debate recently raised in relation to that article, as it is likely to be rewritten shortly. Likewise you may not...the aim is to improve the quality of the article, regardless of opinion, input appreciated Coil00 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking years

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Dates and numbers: "chronological items such as simple years (for example, 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only where they are particularly relevant to the topic." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 June 2006 London terror raid

Hello. I agree that 250 is the more common estimate, at the time of writing, the figure was unclear, some sources said 250, some just said over 200. I picked the latter, and cited it, as it's true either way :) However, as you've changed it to 250, can you please cite that figure with your reference of choice, because as it stands, the reference attached to that sentence says something different to what's cited. (if you can find one that mentions 250 and the road closures together, you can remove the existing reference completely. I also suggest that "according to media reports" isn't really needed, as it will be clear from the citation where the figure is coming from. Regards, MartinRe 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need contributions to culture article

Hello Philip - I saw your contributions to the page on abstract art. Some of its content overlaps with the nascent Culture of New York City article. It needs lots of revising and fleshing out. If you get a chance, check it out. Your contributions would be welcome. Wv235 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you're going to tag talk pages with {{WPBiography}}, would you mind concentrating on dead persons? (Category:Dead people. I have a bot running on Category:Living people which can do the job you're doing with much less effort. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Or, assess some articles - that's perhaps a better job for a human! :) --kingboyk 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-writing facts

Hi, just a note to say 'nice one' on the re-write to Peter Hitchens family section. It seemed odd when I first wrote down the facts but I couldn't think of a better way at the time - every day is a learning experience! Be well. Miamomimi 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Hitchens

Oh thanks Philip (chuckles and shakes head) you know that when he reads the latest he's going to go nuts, and at me! I was making a perfectly valid point about male hypocrisy in society. Time to gird my loins I think! Miamomimi 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Actually, I've been quite battered by fellow Wikipedians (especially a rather annoying one in Argentina) when every fact, no matter how small, is not backed up with a citation. How do you feel about it? Wiki seems rather clear re requiring citations. And his Brûlé's birth surname does appear to be Brule, according to two published sources, including an interview with him in the Independent. 204.126.251.228 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Littlejohn

Hi Philip, I noticed you reverted the Richard Littlejohn article. I edited the article in the first place primarily because of the large number of unsourced controversial statements which are not permitted for an article about a living person (WP:BLP). The resulting article does come across as a whitewash to a certain extent, but the fact is that any controversial statements about living people need to be backed up with reliable sources.

Please improve the article if you think it's a whitewash, but I'll continue to re-revert any wholesale reverts unless you can state, on the talk page, why I am wrong, and why the old version is in fact acceptable under WP:BLP. It was not my intention to whitewash Littlejohn, and I fully intend to add back controversial stuff once I've found proper sources for it (but not before). In fact it might even be better to do a complete re-write. 217.34.39.123 11:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

..and a happy New Year. Miamomimi 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Lambton, Lord Lambton

You really should have discussed this move as it is disputed. It was not his courtesy title from 1970> and any further use was without any sanction or precedent and was a hotly contested matter in parliament. Alci12 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jade Goody

Hi Philip. Sorry to bother you but I do not agree with your deletion in Jade good. I agree that this is a controversial topic, but that should not stop us from putting the facts in the article. Infact facts are always better than wild rumors. If you do not put these facts in an encyclopedia article, then people will go to the blogs and forums to search for the actual comments and generally in doing so they will read the comments or rumors which are far worse than the facts. Actually most of her forums have now turned into hate forums so it is hard it differentiate fact from fiction from blogs etc. see {http://www.jadegoodyonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=221} and {http://www.jadegoodyonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=186}. Wikipedia has never censored its articles or comments etc if they are verifyable. see [1], Prince Henry of Wales, Lewinsky scandal or Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. so why should we remove it form this article. people should know what was actually said and what was not said so that they would not get biased by the article. I think that it becomes even more important in controversial topics like this. merely stating that Jade Goddy is racist is like doing injustice to her as it can be just ordinary bullying, which is common every where. reader should decide it himself. he does not need our help in that. If you do not think that this is correct then I guess that we should discuss the deletion with other wikipedians in the talk section before deleting it. Preetikapoor0 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip, Thanks a lot. Preetikapoor0 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rosen

I know Michael, who has told me more than once that he "is not, and never has been" a member of the SWP. He has certainly spoken at their Marxism event regularly, and appeared on other platforms. I can't cite any evidence, except a private email; but see for instance his comment on the peacepalestine weblog "I don't belong to any organisation or political party (though I stood for Respect in the elections a year or so ago and support them)". Since I knew that the statement was mistaken, I did not give it a "citation needed" tag, but simply removed it. --RolandR 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citylightsgirl

Thank you for letting me know about your report on this complaint. I think you've behaved very calmly and reasonably.--ElenaZam 12:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Jenkins' infobox

I have reverted your edits to Roy Jenkins. I realise that some of the information in the box was repeated at the bottom of the page, but this is the case for most pages with an infobox, just look at the George W. Bush or Tony Blair pages. The infobox is not there to give unique information that can not be found anywhere else on the page, it is there to instantly tell the reader the office/s the person occupied and when the person occupied it along with other important information relating to the individual. --Philip Stevens 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Orwell

I am sure you did not mean to, but the effect of your edit was to reinstate vandalism. There may be a problem with the edit conflict system, a while ago the same thing happened when I reverted vandalism to George W. Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viewfinder (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Viewfinder, you last comment is probably correct, I thought I was removing something you had added. In any case, checking back a little, the spate of dubious edits all appear to have been removed. Philip Cross 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Israel Shamir Date of Birth query with RolandR

Actually, I believe that he was born on 11 June 1947. That at least is the date on his Swedish passport, in the name of Jöran Jermas (see copy at [2]). I have also removed the reference to 1950 slightly below, since this is not, as claimed, included in Shamir's own account on his home page. RolandR 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Music Magazine

The repeat of "magazine" in the lead is partly to allow it be wikilinked (as wikilinking part of the bolded name is poor style), though it's also the case that not everything that calls itself a magazine need be one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpunch Article

If you want to put this criticism in the article about Atzmon fine. It doesn't belong in a article about counterpunch. This is blatant POV pushing, I don't understand why I'm the only one who see's that. You should see some of the comments by the moron who originally posted this where he calls counterpunch a bunch of "Anti-semitic, Neo-Nazi Rascists", this guy is clearly not being neutral in adding this paragraph. This is some mad zionist going on a tirade against counterpunch. annoynmous 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Cottage

I see you've been adding various details about him into the BNP article. As it's only early in the trial and there's likely to be plenty more details forthcoming, do you think a seperate Cottage article with a quick summary of Cottage in the BNP article would be better? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's appropriate yet to add details from the trial to the BNP page. At most, we have two guys who were members of the BNP doing things that would not have been approved of by the BNP, and that's only if they are actually found guilty. (At time of writing, I assume the case is still going on.) Assuming they are guilty, they will probably deserve no more than a sentence or two as an example of the sort of person the BNP attracts, given that they met in its ranks. Emeraude 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Street-Porter

Hi there. With regards to your edit summary on the Janet Street-Porter article, just incase you aimed your comment at myself, I wasn't the one who reverted her previous name. By "corrected names" I meant changing Gordon Ramsey to Gordon Ramsay. It must have been some other editor who reverted the name before. But just incase you thought I had done it. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see! Thanks for your reply. Regards and happy editing! Eagle Owl 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of British films

Hi. Please please help out with List of British films this should be crammed full with alll the films and details!!!! I am currently only half way through A and even then all the details haven't been added!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Dacre

elements cross-posted

The article was deleted for being an attack piece. Managing to cite others' opinions does not make it neutral; I now have significant NPOV concerns in what is, essentially, your creation. Note that your extensive efforts have sourced 10 of 12 cites from El Grauniad/The Indie - very balanced. How about we work more productively to make a proper article?

I freely admit that the article is 'work in progress', the Independent and Guardian pieces dominate because Google lists them among their 'hits' near the start of the results. I filled out reference to the Lawrence case and the poll result in the introducttion to 'humanize' Paul Dacre. In due course I will doubtless come across others and add them too. Philip Cross 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
JDF, I'm curious as to why you have reformatted my page references on the Paul Dacre article with the use of stops. My recent Oxford Manual of Style describes the practice as "anachronistic", which is why I do not use them. Certainly it still seems to be the practice in the USA (although page references are usually given without a [prefix] at all now), witness the need to use them on Amazon for T.S Eliot, etc, but the WP house style is for American usage to be used on pages revelevant to those countries. Philip Cross 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The OMS is rather reknowned for being, well, "radical", seeing itself as "fighting the good fight" against anything that might derive from a Classical education; their anti-Latinate stance is why they oppose "pp.". I would consel against its use as an authoratative text when writing items for "real" useage. As to the use of dots, well, that's again a stylistic point, because apparently using a dot to denote brevity uses too much time.
James F. (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Monbiot

Sorry to have reverted your edits - i was reverting the former editor, and yours got caught in the edit. --Kim D. Petersen 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clark

I don't see how we can call him a journalist. He seems to be a teacher who sometimes writes, and the writing includes articles about racing horses, which it would be a stretch to call journalism. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clark again

Dear Philip, I'd like to draw your attention to a note I've just put on the user page of SlimVirgin, as it refers to you too. Thanks.OliverKamm 13:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Tallis

I note you worked on the page. I have added some expansion on his life and bibliographical details,(few for the moment). But they do not show, despite my attempts to register them, except on the 'edit page'. I wonder if you could be so kind as to fix up whatever is hiding the full content? Thank you in anticipation RegardsNishidani 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip,

Thanks indeed. That was very gracious of you. Sorry for the bother. I hope in time to work a little more to improve the page, having read several of his books. Best Nishidani 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portillo

I was listening to the programme while making the edit and it hadnt occurred to me that the programme itself sources this material in a way it wasnt sourced before, SqueakBox 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Benn

Please check the talk of Tony Benn's article, There is a telephone interview on Commons which is intended (a) to make an article on Wikinews and (b) as a source for both Wikiquote and his Wikipedia article. He talks at length about his opinions on Tony Blair, the United Nations, and his optimism so far at the early days of Gordon Brown's premiership.

Help transcribing the interview would be appreciated, I have a work deadline and the time I can devote to the Wiki is limited for the next several days. --Brianmc 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Paxman

Why the revert? Jw6aa 20:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You stated that there was no reference on bulletin boards. Here is such a reference: [3]. The main online writer about University Challenge also uses this nickname frequently [4]. The explanation is completely founded in logic. The edit I made was never in bad faith, though it seems it might have been construed as such - it was made as the nickname warrants an explanation. Jw6aa 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Image:LinkFA-star.png Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members
From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue
Complete To Do List

Assessment Progress
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Speedy deletion of Rob Cowen

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)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Anthony Blond

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)

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)

[edit] 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.

89.1.90.144 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes it is: http://imdb.com/title/tt0064757/trivia

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 89.1.90.144 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
For what it is worth Guy/JzG, I am pretty certain Clark knows all about me, and has done for some time. His ally 'Citylightsgirl' is familiar to me in IRL, unless I am in error over her identity. My only suspect is (unfortunately) all too silent in direct emails; she only makes occasional curious edits on other articles I work on to remind me of her existence. Philip Cross (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[Actually] ...as 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)

[edit] Protection

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)

[edit] AHAHAHAHA

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)