Cjc13

Welcome!

Hello, Cjc13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Elizabeth Taylor. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 10:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your note. And for your efforts to improve the article. What has happened here is two things. Some elements of fact have been conflated with erroneous assertion or assumption which resulted in a mistaken "meme" being generated. And then that mistaken "meme" has been picked up and mirrored in other locations that can be found on the internet. Well-intentioned - but wrong. The IMDB entry you refer to also includes a credit for him writing an episode of the 1970s US sitcom "Phyllis". Should we include that he wrote for "Phyllis" in the article? No - because it transpires that there was an American comedy writer born in 1915 who - like the Fleet Street - journalist had the identical name to the UK sitcom writer. And one of his credits has been erroneously conflated with this latterday Laurence Marks. The "shineonharveymoon" fan website you cite exists on a domain name that - according to the official "WhoIs" was registered on: 21-Oct-2007. In other words it's a fan website created after the publication of the erroneous assertion about the Sunday Times had appeared on several other sites. The fan website simply repeats and "mirrors" the mistaken meme. Thus are urban myths perpetuated! The BFI site unwittingly repeats the myth. The in-depth interview with Marks and Gran that I have included as part of the article features an extensive history of Marks - based on an in-person interview. Something as impressive as working for the Sunday Times would certainly have been mentioned either in direct quote from Marks - or en passant by the writer - who references his work as a reporter for a local weekly newspaper - the Tottenham Weekly Herald! But no reference to the far more famous Sunday Times. Instead - Marks and Gran relate that it was a chance encounter with Barry Took that led to them taking up comedy writing. Nothing whatsoever to do with Marks spending a year working on the Sunday Times investigating the Moorgate crash. If you really think that this particular Laurence Marks DID work for the Sunday Times - then you need to find an independent source - unrelated to the recent urban myth - that confirms it. If he really did work for the Sunday Times and investigated the Moorgate crash for an entire year - there will be evidence of such work. Not erroneous assertions made in 2006. But locatable references that can confirm the assertion. By all means try to find some. I will stand corrected if you do. But at present this is just urban myth. Thank you Davidpatrick (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your continued diligent research on this. While there are some articles that mention the Sunday Times in connection with the sitcom Marks, they are all recent era articles. And there is definitely a history of articles that conflate the credits and achievements of the two different people both called Laurence Marks. There is definitely more research required to determine the veracity of the matter. There is no urgent rush. We should both conduct research to try and find sources that clarify the issue in order to ensure that the article is accurate and not inadvertently compounding urban myth. Davidpatrick (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

A very useful thing to add back. Thank you. I will continue to research to try and find some first-hand references to his pre-sitcom career rather than depending just on after the fact references. As previously noted - at various times this article has stated that he worked for The Observer (that turned out to be the Fleet Street journalist called Laurence Marks); that he wrote episodes of "Phyllis" and "Hogan's Heroes" (that tuned out to be the US sitcom writer). All text that had been added by editors with the best of intentions - drawn from erroneous data on the internet - that had been mirrored in multiple sites - thus creating the illusion of accuracy. Whereas it actually reflected one of the drawbacks of the internet. The way that an erroneous fact can be picked up and replicated on multiple sites. Providing the misperception that the "fact" is valid based on the number of places it appears. Including in the works of mainstream journalists who do online research and then compound the error. Davidpatrick (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent additional research. Kudos to you for that. It was fascinating to read more about the distinguished journalist of that name who had a very long Fleet Street career.

What you found in Who's Who about the sitcom writer is also interesting. Without being pedantic - I draw slightly different conclusions from the text you quote.

"Trainee journalist, Thomson Regl Newspapers 1974; Reporter: N London Weekly Herald, 1975-77; Sunday Times 1975-76 (freelance) and 1978-79; This Week (TV current affairs prog.) 1977-78;"

First of all, as you may be aware, Who's Who entries are written from information provided by the subject and are thus not fully independent sources. (See Who's Who (UK):

Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects.

There have been occasions - and I am certainly not saying that this is one - where individuals have been known to either fabricate or exaggerate their entries. Which is why independent sources - contemporary to the matters claimed - are so beneficial.

Secondly, this entry is clear in claiming only a freelance connection to the Sunday Times as distinct from a staff position. In such circumstances a writer can be described as having had work published by the paper in question (though it would be prudent to independently verify that work HAD been actually published as opposed to simply being submitted) - but not as having "worked for" the paper - which implies a staff position or regular recurrent commissions.

Anyway, I think his claim of having freelanced for the Sunday Time should perhaps be referenced in the article and will do so. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Even I got that one wrong. Can you help at Laurence Marks to disambiguate the last few at "links here". I fixed all the MASH ones. You would be the expert on the UK two. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You did very nice work in reorganizing Category:Documentaries by topic, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cjc13, you do have a point that the academy is indeed often referred to by the acronym. However, I don't think that the acronym is really "widely known and used" in the same way IBM, EMI and NATO are. Anyway, the category title should match the main topic article, which is currently at London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art. Changing the way the academy is referred to in Wikipedia should probably start from that article's talk page. If there's consensus to move that article, moving the category back should be no big deal. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your excellent work in adding to this important subject. I was feeling pretty lonely in there. Jack1956 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cjc13, It really doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter whether it was created by a book buyer, a client, a band member or himself. I posted that IP information so that administration monitors responses. FWIW, it is permissible on WP to write an article about oneself as long as it's done within our policy guidelines. Most importantly within WP:N which is the reason why I submitted the article as WP:AfD. if you can find for this article any of the verifications as per WP Notability, I'll have no problem with its inclusion. Thanks.

That category works. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Soundtrack compilations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 15:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help in organizing categories now that the Cfd has been closed! MRDXII (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am asking you this becase in the discussion of the former Roman Catholic Church buildings established in the 14th censtury that we were both involved in there was an attempt to force a change on a policy developed from a June 9th discussion that had three participants. This seems to me too small of a smaple to force a change, especially when the change has the potential to open the flood gates of overcategorizing. I am wondering if there is a way to reopen that discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The simple answer is I do not know, although you could try the editor who closed the discussion. The current discussion of July 9 does provide a means of discussion and may end up contradicting the earlier discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reason the move was done was simply the consensus in the disucssion. In addition, that consensus reflected the consensus of recent related discussions. Yes, there where some editors who where opposed to this for various reasons, mostly the choice of 'people educated' rather then 'former pupils'. Those objections simply did not outweigh the overwhelming consensus in this or the other discussions. I did not make and extra comments on the close since the consensus was clear in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is 6 (including the nominator) overwhelming when there are 3 objectors? Is it not meant to be about the strength of argument? The only previous discussion relevant to these catgories was this discussion which was no consensus. There were other discussions relating to other countries, but the discussion for Canadian schools indicates that local terminology should be used. Cjc13 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you may wish to contribute here. Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the link. I am seeking a review of the above discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 27. I am not sure that this is the right procedure for cfd but this was the link given on the adjudication. Cjc13 (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if it is feasible to escalate the issue of the apparently uninformed having undue influence on the CfD process to WP:AN/I. I note that others currently have parallel issues with it as well. Ephebi (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Deletion Review achieved nothing as the only editors involved were those already in the discussion. So I am looking to try another line as I do not feel the issues were dealt with properly. WP:AN/I may be worth a try. Cjc13 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

They will say there was no incident, and rebuke you. (Plenty of people monitor DRV. If people make no comment it's because they see no problem.) There was a consensus - just accept it. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Various 'former pupils' categories, in which you have previously shown interest, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

A submarine chaser is actually a specific type of ship - wasn't sure if you knew that, based on your CfDS comment? (If you did, no biggie - and thanks for keeping me on my toes, btw, we might not agree on category names but it's good to be debated regardless of the outcome!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The current name seems clearer in indicating that it is a navy classification. It is not a type I had heard of and there is little in the proposed rename to indicate that it is an actual class of ship. There are similar problems with the destroyers and the cutters for instance, although they are better known clssifications. Cjc13 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As 'Old Fooian' is being contested again at Categories for Discussion I have made a suggestion at the CfD talk page which you might be interested in. Ephebi (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed, I was aware of that point and replied to it here. However, I have had so little support in recent weeks that I do not use much of my time in these cfds. So long as most of the "Fooian" supporters (such as Motmit) stay away completely, the anti brigade will go on having it all its own way. I do not understand why the other point of view is now so silent, but I suppose these people lack staying power. I rather think Peterkingiron is beginning to regret going native. I believe he thinks he has a private arrangement with BrownHairedGirl for his Old Salopians to be left undisturbed, but I shall be surprised if they are. Moonraker (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

In reply to your last note, I have been pretty active in these cfds until recently. The "anti" brigade was rather clever, picking away first at what they considered the most obscure and vulnerable categories, building up slowly until they had the momentum moving strongly in their direction. I do not think it can be turned around now, it is just a matter of how far they decide to go. BrownHairedGirl talks of leaving "Old Etonians" alone, and perhaps a few others, but I doubt whether her followers share that view. Moonraker (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You may like to cast an eye over this page, User:BrownHairedGirl/Old Fooian categs renamed. Moonraker (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Self-reflexive songs, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cjc13, please stop wasting time at CfD by misrepresenting WP:NDESC.

WP:NDESC says that descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and the section you quote "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources" is an out-of-context quote of a sentence which reads in full "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources".

WP:NDESC is therefore quite explicit that a descriptive title does not need to be sourced as a whole, and may be invented on Wikipedia. Please stop repeating your misrepresentation of WP:NDESC, because it is now starting to appear to be deliberately disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I feel that it is a valid and accurate quote from the policy. I am aware that "should" does not mean "has to" but it is a stronger term than "may". Cjc13 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you really and truly not understand that when a guideline says that a type of title may legitimately be "invented specifically for articles", that this means it does not require evidence of use elsewhere? Seriously?

Do you really and truly not understand that when the same guideline says in the next para that the same type of title "may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources", that means that it may incorporate common terms, but that the whole phrase does not have to be sourced? Seriously?

Or are you just trying to dump a load of nonsense into CfD in the hope that any admin trying to close it will give up in despair? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I am aware of the difference between "should" and "may". Also I would say that Old Fooians is "commonly used by sources". Cjc13 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• BrownHairedGirl, you are an admin, even if your points are correct isn't all this berating of Cjc13 rather over the top? Moonraker (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Moonraker, what's over-the-top here is Cjc13's calculated disruption of over a dozen CfD discussions by repeatedly misrepresenting a guideline. WP:NDESC says clearly that descriptive titles may be "invented specifically for articles", but Cjc13 repeatedly ignores that clear statement. If this happened once or twice, I would assume that it was an error made in good faith, but the endless repetition of Cjc's blatant inversion of a guideline amounts to a campaign of disruption, which fills each discussion page with rebuttals of the same nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• This really does come across as an attempt at intimidation of someone who disagrees with your opinion. Cjc13 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• If you genuinely believe that this is an attempt to intimidate, you know where to find WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U.
  I look forward to seeing how others editors your disruptive attempts to spam CfDs with FUD by repeatedly demand sourcing for the exact wording of a phrase which policy says can be invented by editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• If there are a number of similar discussions going on at the same time, it is not surprising if there is some repetition of arguments. Cjc13 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Repetition of arguments is inevitable. Repeated misrepresentation and inversion of Wikipedia policy is neither inevitable nor constructive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• That also applies to you. Cjc13 (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• If you have any evidence that I have misrepresented or inverted a policy, please explain how. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• That is what I have been trying to do. Cjc13 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Ok, I get it. I read the whole of a policy, and rather than snipping half-sentences and ignoring all the surrounding text, I take the pieces together. And you reckon that's misrepresentation :(
  So ... since my arguments have been accepted in over 50 successive CfDs, you must reckon you are looking at a huge stinking heap of lies. In which case, go open a WP:DRV, and have your complaints tested.
  However, if you don't go to DRV, I'll take it that you are just trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• There are other means of change than WP:DRV. As has been indicated before, Consensus can change. Cjc13 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• So you allege that policy has been systematically misrepresented, and that Vegaswikian has been making closures which do not reflect the discussion] ... yet you won't test these allegations at the proper place, which is WP:DRV?
  Very troll-like behaviour. I think I may open the DRV for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Films about health care, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Films about health care, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apologies if I haven't been very active in CfDs recently. After a while one feels that there are better places to spend ones energies. But I just stumbled across this thread and thought your recent experiences were relevant. I hope you don't mind me linking to this page as an example. Ephebi (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to be fair, I thought that I should clarify here: I will block you if you insert or re-insert unsourced names to List of Old Gregorians. There is nothing special about that alumni list that somehow renders it exempt from WP:NLIST--it is, in fact, exactly the kind of article for which that guideline was created. If you want to explain why that article is special, I suppose you can, but it will need to be a specific reason why Old Gregorians are somehow different in a substantive way from alumni at other schools such that they don't need to be referenced. If, alternatively, you want to argue that alumni shouldn't be subject to such a rule anywhere on the project, please raise the matter on WT:Notability (people) and see if you can get community consensus to change the guideline. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

WP:NLIST is a guideline not a policy. All I was asking was that the list was treated in the same way as many other lists which do not require such refernces. Normally a link to an article for an appropriate individual is sufficient to justify inclusion. I am interested as to why WP:NLIST is worded in that way. How was this agreed? Where is the justification for this since the page is actualy about notability not citations?

If you are going to criticise me than I think you should criticise the other editor for excluding names that did have references in their articles. Where I have made changes I have explained my reasons. Cjc13 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dickens family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Nell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fiennes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Films about healthcare, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Way back in 2009, you created the article on Tony Rivers, which says that he worked on Pink Floyd's The Final Cut LP. But he's not mentioned anywhere in the credits of that LP. Do you have a source for this information? Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The source I used for that was this Cherry Red page (ref 6 in the article). He has had a biography since which going by the reviews and publicity confirms that Pink Floyd was one of the acts he worked with. Cjc13 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that doesn't seem like much of a source to me, and the fact that the credits of the album itself don't mention him make it seem very unlikely, in my opinion, that he played on the record. But I'll let it pass. --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Carradine family. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and No sources the family as an entity and most of the rest are IMDB. Potentially notable but needs more work on sourcing. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carradine family is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carradine family until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

 Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:FA Cup final venues has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply