User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 12

Daily Mail external links
Regarding this revert, I thought it was a little harsh and have reverted it. They appear to be official accounts (Google+ is certainly verified) and appropriate per WP:ELOFFICIAL. shellac (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Philip Cross (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Jack Klugman
Hi. Can I ask why you changed date formats from MDY to DMY at Jack Klugman (e.g. here and here) against the Use mdy dates declaration at the top, WP:STRONGNAT, and WP:DATERET? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 18:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you were quite right to point out my error. Philip Cross (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Abrams
Hi,

I have reverted you at Stephen Abrams. However I have rewritten the content to what I hope is acceptable form. Thanks for your attention to the article. The new source (Luke) appears pretty reliable and has plenty of useful material about Abrams early life. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Cats in New Zealand
Thanks for the edits to Cats in New Zealand. I have been expanding it and will do some more soon. Can you keep on eye on my edits? I like cats but I don't like their impact on our wildlife. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Konstantin Shayne
I just want to thank you immensely for your major editing job. It's delight to see so many talented people who volunteer their time to the Wikipedia and your one of them. Pjt48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

LWT
It's good to see someone actually copy editing on wiki. Alas I'm only good at getting details and refs, which are badly needed. I be honest and say I'm a bit mifft as to why certain details were taken out, I will put them back in refs over The weekend.

Keep up the good work, I shall be given you a barnstar if I can get Tue button to work.--Crazyseiko (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Which details do you think should still be in the article? Philip Cross (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * evening, point about john freeman not being able to come to lwt first time around. Other point about how it companies refused to take lot shows in 1968. --Crazyseiko (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Their was no clear reasoning behind the inclusion of David Frost's visit to John Freeman in New Delhi. Why is it notable? It might be relevant to Frost's own article, as it demonstrates his commitment to a goal, but it seemed like a loose end in the narrative for the LWT article. I removed "A number of ITV companies such as ATV refused to take most of LWT's new programmes in peak time" because the point had already been made in the previous paragraph. Philip Cross (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah right I see, with John Freemand, it was more to do with the fact he was suppose to be part of the LWT from 1968 in the first place but had to turn it down, since he was in India. I will be moving the TVS details today.  I would not copyedit the page just yet since it still require new details and refs.   If you can, could you please take a look at Sky1 ITV Border and BBC which all need some work on it. Im hopeful if adding in refs etc to TVS, BSKY and BBC one soon.  --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup
You are invited to the first Brighton Wiki Meetup which will take place at The West Quay, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton BN2 5UT on Sunday 28 April 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Brighton topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I won't be able to make it. Philip Cross (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Coren
Hi Philip, I see you removed two cites from Victoria Coren regarding her age, changed her age and added no new references. You write "cite no longer applicable for new information". What new info? There has been extensive discussion about different sources for her date of birth on the talk page. If you have a new source please add it. If not, we'll stick with the refs we have. Thanks. Span (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that there had been a discussion on this point at the time of posting. I had thought 18 August 1973, which is given on numerous websites after using the '"Victoria Coren" 1973' string. Another day in that year does not come up, so I assumed removing the cites would be uncontentious. Obviously not posting the evidence for a couple of stages in my reasoning for other editors benefit amounts to a misjudgement, and I have now added a source. Philip Cross (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Re the talk page discussions, yours is the date I had originally argued for, with The BBC,  JC sources. Other editors said they had checked the birth records and were convinced the 1973 date was wrong. We can't use public documents as sources, but it might suggest there is a conflict of data somewhere. Celebrities very often fudge their birth dates. Who knows in this case? WP:BLP says no info is prefereable to dodgy info. I don't suppose this issue is going to go away. What's your thought on this? Span (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I had thought The Jewish Chronicle and BBC sources, that she was 38 when her engagement to David Mitchell was announced, would be an accurate basis to ascertain whether she was born in 1973 or 1974. Following the lead of the primary sources which suggest 1972, and using it in the string, brings up usable sources like IMDb (the problem about the reliability of the site applies to the comments of users) which suggest she is exactly a year older than the date now given in this article. When I decided to use the Poker pages website as a source, it seemed likely that the DoB came from Victoria Coren herself, and thus verifiable as entirely accurate. It may well be a "fudge", but it is an unproven observation so far. Philip Cross (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Have just changed the year of Victoria Coren's birth, added the IMDb source, but retained the source giving 1973 in the reference. Philip Cross (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken the discussion over to the article talk page and continued there. 22:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Bryan Forbes
Thanks for helping out with Bryan Forbes. I've suggested the article for the recent deaths ticker at ITN, so it needs to be as fully referenced as possible -- could you add your source for The L-Shaped Room material? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Second City Firsts
Hi! I had never heard of Second City Firsts until you added it the 30 Minute Theatre page. I was wondering - are they plays all Birmingham based, do you know, or does the Second City preuly reflect the location of Pebble Mill? I must admit I'm keen to see some of these now. Avidreader79 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The only detailed source about the series I know of is in in Re-viewing Television History: Critical Issues in Television Historiography ed. Helen Wheatley, Routledge, 2007. See "Chapter 6 BBC English Regions Drama: Second City Firsts" by Lez Cooke from page 82. Philip Cross (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mehdi Hasan's article
All Wikipedia articles of public figures (including journalists and broadcasters) who have made controversial remarks in public have a section entitled "Controversy," so removing it after 30 seconds without providing a valid explanation is unjustified. If we remove the this heading, then we should remove the "Controversy" section for ALL public figures who have made controversial and offensive remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combating Ignorance (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The common occurrence of 'Controversies' sections does not mean they are legitimate according to Wikipedia guidelines. You should read the page on neutral point of view. Philip Cross (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to whitewash Alex Jones?
What's up with the wholesale delete in piers morgan section on Alex Jones' talk page? Is this some sort of white wash? Seems to me you are suppressing critical material on Alex Jones from appearing on the talk page. You are trying to white wash Alex Jones. This is not acceptable. If you continue to suppress critical material from appearing on Alex Jones Talk page, I will take it as you having an agenda of whitewashing and distorting the record of Alex Jones and manipulate the Alex Jones wiki to favour Alex Jones.116.14.141.33 (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

American Form
I agree with you, it is an american form, and I have retained the content accordingly, in last para, this time If u abuse me again, will take this issue to administrators notice Murrallli (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen
Hi, There is a discussion about Reliable Sources related to Wayne Madsen [|here] if you'd like to participate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Antivirus
If this is your personal computer then i recommend going with another brand or even a free antivirus as there are some good products out there that put McAffee, Kaspersky and Norton to shame in every possible way. Avira, Avast!, AVG, and Microsoft Security Essentials are all reliable and free, although differ in resource usage and results (See here). These user reviews are pretty amusing to read though if you want to stick with Norton or are forced to because it's a work computer (or someone elses). If your product is so poor that you have to force people to have it preinstalled on their new computer then it can't be that good and the company knows it. Good luck ツ Jenova  20  (email) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK
I nominated an article that you started for DYK. Feel free to propose another hook. - Template:Did you know nominations/Kirsty Milne. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kirsty Milne
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Media Lens
You seem to be deleting large volumes of material cited to high quality sources citing nothing but your own opinion. For instance, here: You delete material cited to an academic source discussing the topic of the article. Your only explanation is your own opinion.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of how we write articles in Wikipedia, especially contentious articles where we must be scrupulous about WP:NPOV. The process is identify the best sources and accurately reflect what they say. If this is a topic that you are unable to objectively and accurately reflect what sources say on the topic without asserting your own beliefs and judgements about the topic you need to consider editing in another topic. Massive deletion of well sourced material citing only your own beliefs and opinions is not acceptable. Dlv999 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to add some more references to Edward S. Herman. It will help the uncommitted decide about Media Lens. Philip Cross (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Massive deletion of well sourced material citing only your own beliefs and opinions is not acceptable." I added several citations to a recent article by Neil Clark, for whom I have no time at all, as can be easily established. If you check, you will see I deleted only a few references without adding any, negative or otherwise; your reversion has 78 citations, my last edit has 76. You are exaggerating. There is no obligation to include quotes which basically replicate what has already been included or excessive material by minor academics by Oliver Boyd-Barrett. Don't you know how low his affiliation, Bowling Green State University is in University rankings? On Wikipedia we call this undue weight.


 * You object to me cutting the following:
 * "Swapna Mukhopadhyay in the The Mathematics Enthusiast journal, concluded the discussion facilitated by Media Lens was notable in that 'an extended and logical debate led to some reasonable consensus.'"
 * There is no consensus on this issue, or rather Media Lens is against a consensus. While verifiability, rather then truth, is the necessary test this does not mean sources which convey obviously false claims have to be included.in an article. Philip Cross (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Glenda Jackson
There is one 'Dan' mentioned and one 'Dan' wikilinked - where's the confusion? GiantSnowman 21:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Daniel Hodges has an evident internal link, we cannot assume readers will know there isn't a hndis issue on the name, or that they will automatically pass their cursor over his name. Daniel for Dan is misinformation. After all, there are two journalists named Thomas Sutcliffe (both 'arts' commentators) and Duncan Campbell (who have both worked in the crime field) and a couple of politicians named John Taylor, plus two current Conservative MPs named David Davis/Davies. Philip Cross (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then change it to 'Jackson has one son called Dan who is a political commentator.' GiantSnowman 08:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Criado-Perez
Hey, great job on this article! That's just what we'd all like to see from a new BLP: lengthy, well-written and well-sourced, and making evident claims to notability. I see from your userpage it's not the first you've done. Here, have a barnstar:

I've made a few edits to the article - the categories should be uncontroversial, but I made a couple of other changes which might not be, and marked one section as potentially off-topic. Take a look and see what you think. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Robofish.. I have responded to you in the article's talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Benn photos
I agree that the photo donated by Hilary Benn (at my request) is considerably better than any of those I got yesterday. It is, however, amongst the most-current images of the man, and shows him - at 88 - as still being sharp-minded. That was what drove my decision to 'take a chance' on it going there.

If you can see any that are useable from there (yes, some post-prod work may be required), please add them elsewhere in his article. I expect to be speaking to the team who worked on his 'autobiographical documentary' throughout this week, with a view to getting the trailer for the film gifted to Commons. --Brian McNeil /talk 06:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is dominated by recent photographs of Tony Benn. There do not seem to be any freely available from earlier in his life. Philip Cross (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect to be chatting with the documentary team later on, and I will put that question to them. Donating images to Commons is completely in-line with Tony's principles, so I think I'll get some traction on that request. Thanks for highlighting the 'deficiency'; let me see what I can do about it. --Brian McNeil /talk 07:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rohauer
Very good edits over all &mdash; I'm making them at Keaton now, following your lead &mdash; but I'm not sure why you deleted the cited passage about MGM having saved the films? Without this, it may give the misimpression Rohauer and Keaton had the last known copies. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see that it follows. The article is about Raymond Rohauer, where the detail is not relevant, but is included in the Buster Keaton article where it is. Obviously, Rohauer would have been had no connection with MGM, except perhaps via litigation. While Keaton may be the most important film-maker with whom Rohauer had a direct connection (the Kevin Brownlow article I cite suggests Charlie Chaplin was in conflict with him), the passage may be over extended at present. Philip Cross (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)