User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 13

Kitty Muggeridge

Thanks for the new article. I had followed a dead link from David Frost since she seemed interesting, but was disappointed to find very little about her even on her husband's page. So wonderful to see an article so soon. Enginear (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom

Greetings Philip. Whilst I didn't regard the info about a slaughter house of the slightest interest, Company House seems a perfectly good source of relatively cheap (under £3 when I last used it) public domain information. Has there been any ruling on this? JRPG (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No not about Companies House as far as I'm aware, but WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly applies here:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

The article is about Godfrey Bloom, not his wife. Only the barest mention of her life and career is really needed. As it stands, even the mailonline source,about Mrs Bloom being am equine physiotherapist, is far from ideal, because non-RS tabloid sources are not supposed to used unless a more credible reliable source exists. Unless the Bloom's private life has been covered in, for example, The Times (a possible RS, the newspaper's content is difficult to confirm without a subscription), and her already stated career mentioned, strictly speaking, this too should probably be cut too. Philip Cross (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Total agreement. I was concerned as I used a company house document on Wikipedia some years ago. JRPG (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Burchill

Thanks for fixing my screw up with the article. Not sure what I did there! Atshal (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Query

Is this the place to leave a message for Philip? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. Is it about Radio 3 or Friends of Radio 3 perhaps? Philip Cross (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactement :-) We have two problems over the Radio 3 page. The first is a disgruntled banned member of the Radio 3 Forum. He joined to dredge up that old 2005 Guardian article and post the link, in which the BBC was, erm, less than polite :-) . Claiming to find it 'funny' that we were being ridiculed, he was denounced as a 'troll' by the community (forum members, not actually FoR3 supporters) and was banned. He came back under another name, posted the link again and was banned again. Next thing I noticed was that he'd posted it on the Wiki page (his username is the same as one of his email usernames). I was being very discreet in claiming that it was 'unsupported' and I left the main claims as just that: we were a 'lobby group' and 'not representative of the Radio 3 audience'. You reinstated some of it saying it would be a story 'if the comments were untrue'. They were untrue. Second problem. Although I can prove that to you by showing you an exchange of emails (I was one of the two who met Wright, back in March 2003), there is no published source to support it.

One point is that he didn't meet FoR3 - we hadn't been founded until a few months later (May or June) when we set up our website. We were representing the old BBC messageboard community, scattered all over the UK and unable by the BBC rules to exchange contact details. We didn't even know everyone's true identity (pseudonyms!), still less where people lived. Three of us emailed him and asked for a meeting which he agreed to. He asked how many of us would attend and was told 'No more than three, probably two' (I still have the emails). Before the meeting we emailed in the names of the two people who would attend, as representatives of the whole group, so that our Visitor Passes could be made out and collected at BBC reception. The story of him 'expecting 100' was total garbage. He made it sound as if two was the total number who cared enough to turn up. Problem is that he doesn't say the date when he met us (or we could show that FoR3 didn't exist at that time). There were other inaccuracies: we certainly didn't disagree about jazz - it's always been part of our approach that everything that was on the old Third - jazz, drama, arts discussion, as well as classical music - and world music when it was 'born' - should be on Radio 3. Nothing to disagree about.

The Guardian story, an interview with Wright a couple of years later, was picked up by Private Eye who (without contacting us) ridiculed the BBC version mercilessly after checking our website - (Ingrams - or Hislop? can't remember - supposed to be in sympathy); unfortunately there is no online source: I'm not even sure that I still have my copy. We gained 70 new members on the strength of that single story!

But I suppose we just have to live with it. A nuisance, but not a huge problem. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ioan, thank you for your very thorough explanation. I have just removed the passage from the R3 page, substituting official comments which read as less tendentious, and will try to ensure that Wright's comments do not reappear in future. Unfortunately, the piece in Private Eye won't match the reliable sources policy, or at least the majority of editors feel the magazine fails the test outlined there, which given its reputation for litigation is fair enough. Philip Cross (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Very fair of you. Thank you. I wouldn't expect anything the Eye said to be used as evidence! Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Basie Swings, Williams Sings

Points taken on the implication of your edit, namely, that one is not here to contribute with a critique. I am curious to know the best way one could convey the flavour of the album so as to be most useful to the reader? Again I realize there are bound to be differences in perception but . . . Your comments would be welcome. Also, when do the liner notes etc. pass into the public domain? Passinginterest (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul Dacre

the speculation part of the blog is not anywhere in the edit I made -the blog sets the question - a fair question, a good question - dacre said on desert island discs his fathers behavior in life was his major influence , so his fathers behavior is germane to the article subject - I find your attitude here pathetic - you do not sodding OWN this article and you are giving useless excuses for censoring the article imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't mention Beaverbrook explicitly, but your comment "wondered what the circumstances were" is clearly implicitly trying to make such a connection without saying so. You are trying WP:SYNTHESIS in the point you are making above, as well as drawing on a self-published source in your edit. I am not the only user who has removed your paragraph. Philip Cross (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

'wondered' - doesn't clearly implicitly end up at beaverbrook - that's a jump - the SYNTHESIS - is here, not in the edit, and bLOgs are, or can be, ok. your arguments don't convince me. Sayerslle (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have begun a new section on the article's talk page where this discussion should continue. Philip Cross (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Joan Rodker and Doris Lessing

I think you are right to remove the comment in the article about Joan - she always talked positively of her friendship with Doris Lessing, and seemed proud of the fact that she was the model for Molly! Regards, Jpaulm (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of categories

Hiya. Just a thought - you know this edit. Well, yes, wp:MOS does advocate sorting categories. However, its recommended sort order is by importance. It argues against sorting alphabetically. The source is Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages. Nice edit summaries, BTW. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the advice you refer to. I quote:

The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.

Obviously, year of birth and living/deceased (year) status are the most important, but finding a consensus around the order of other categories is going to be impossible. Note that the policy does not say an alphabetical order is inadmissible. Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the paragraph I was thinking of. I agree that the policy doesn't say alphabetical order is wrong but, in your edit, you put the categories into alphabetical order, by moving the 2 that broke the alphabetic order. I thought maybe you were doing it just to sort them alphabetically, and maybe thought that such was the only recommended fashion. I was just remarking that alphabetical order isn't always best. Perhaps we agree in principle, though. Trafford09 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, btw, you know your archive 12 - 'Aug 12' - I guess that should read 'Aug 13'. PS: I should have said earlier - congrats. on your 100% usage of edit summaries. Trafford09 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the archive box error. Philip Cross (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories

Hello, if you have issues with my edits, please join me at the article's talk page instead of reverting. -A1candidate (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Penhaligon

I'd like to draw your attention to the article Susan Penhaligon. According to the page history you were an active editor on that page some time ago now, adding a lot of references, etc. In my opinion the article currently is a lot worse than it was. This version from 13 April 2013 I believe is the last correct version. Subsequent revisions have included unexplained removal of content and references by User:Susan penhaligon, who possibly has a WP:COI. I have now taken out all references called: "Susan Penhaligon", because that seems to be a clear violation of WP:OR to me, but I believe that the best thing to do is to reinstate the 13 April 2013-version. I just don't feel confident enough (and don't know enough about the subject) to place it back. Any advice? Thanks in advance. Mark in wiki (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Rod Liddle

Thanks for fixing the formatting error with the citation - I wasn't sure how to attach the references to the blockquotes. Also thanks for the new reference.Autarch (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you contribution to Seymour Hersh

Thanks for working on the "Syrian Civil War" section of the Seymour Hersh! My English is not the best and this is the first time I have contributed something so long to a political topic here in Wikipedia – it's good that someone with better knowledge of English has gone over that section.

I couldn't fail to notice afterwards the coincidence that you have started working on the section shortly before me – I didn't mean to pre-empt your work. :-) I was wondering why nobody hadn't added that to Hersh's article yet, and tried me best to make something worthy of the article and the topic. Next time I'll simply wait! (No, not really!) Tony Mach (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Prime Books Article - Neil Clarke (editor) Disambiguation

Thank you for correcting my omission. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)