Jump to content

Talk:Gregory Winter

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Greg Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greg Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greg Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

preferred name

[edit]

Most sober RS's use the name Gregory rather than the nickname Greg. Is it agreed that, in accord with WP:nickname, the title of the page should have the full name?--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC) I agree with this - the BBC used it in 'The Life Scientific' ixo (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a page Gregory Winter which redirects here, so the move cannot be made routinely. I've put in a request for the change at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests, so hopefully someone will make the change for us. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The change has now been made. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

paralysed arm

[edit]

The paralysis of his arm following being mugged was a turning point in Sir Gregory's life. Is his arm still paralysed? Has he achieved all this with one arm? If not, how did it come back into use? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002m2h ixo (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of paralysis so presumably he recovered. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this, and it seems he is able to use the injured arm, but lacks fine control of movement. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

marriage

[edit]

A section on Winter's marriage was added recently (Jan 8, 2019) by an editor. The Who's Who entry given as ref. indicates that the marriage was dissolved in 2002, and the ex-wife doesn't seem to be a notable person, so I don't think there's a good case for including this information in the article, especially as the section in its present form gives the impression that they are still married. I have accordingly removed this section (as has his approval). --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the reference given in regard to the marriage is to the 2001 edition of Who's Who, which would not have had the information about the subsequent dissolution. Thus the editor who added the section would not have known about the current situation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the notability or lack thereof of the former spouse is the driving criterion here. A marriage is a public matter (though we might in retrospect wish it were not) and it's an important part of the person (though we - or he - might ....etc.) You cannot unstate it anymore than you can unprint Who's Who or the records of the thing made public by or on behalf of government agencies. Maybe the more persuasive consideration for not including former marriages and any children of them, at least where the parties are very much alive and painful memories may still ache, is one of simple compassion, especially in England where privacy is more highly valued and more shamelessly invaded than in those parts of Europe where for many purposes people are inclined to feel they're all on the same side.
The point that cries out more loudly in this instance is that the gentleman appears to be your chum. There are wikipedia guidelines which on this matter mostly come down to common sense about avoiding perceived conflicts of interest. Deleting bits in entries about yourself or your chums appears to fall foul of wiki-guidelines. Clearly, lots of people do it anyway. And I apologise if I only tell you what you perfectly well know already. But in case not, please be aware .... Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call him a chum ('close friend', according to the dictionary)! In what way might this be considered a 'conflict of interest', please enlighten me? And isn't politeness a valid consideration (there are guidelines for living people): you can't validly claim public interest here as there is in some cases where people want information to be removed. There are good and bad reasons for citing CoI, and this is clearly the latter. I am, by the way, aware of the CoI guidelines, but this situation falls so far short of their being relevant that it never entered into my head to take them into account. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Politeness is an entirely valid consideration but I've not worked out how you think you (or I) have (or have not) applied it (or offended against it) here. I had not intended to launch a wiki-p***ing contest (with apologies for the asterisks if you wish to infer discourtesy from them) but to draw your attention to a concern. Your appetite for a polarised discussion is not one that I share and nor do I think it appropriate here. "Yes:no" is not always necessary, and it often tends to simplify and distort in ways that are not very constructive. Try, please, and extend yourself to the occasional "yes, but what if ....". I have drawn your attention to concerns of which, you state that it "never entered into [your] head to take them into account". I am delighted that it now appears to have entered into your head. It will perhaps provide helpful context for your future contributions! ... with which I wish you every success Charles01 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. When I talked of politeness I didn't mean that I thought you impolite (though your latest contribution I do find quite aggressive); what I meant was that it would be impolite to retain the 'personal' section in the absence of good reason to do so, given that Winter had indicated a strong preference for nothing personal to be included (this isn't the Daily Mail, after all).
I might also make it clear that I would class him as a colleague rather than a friend, but as we both have lunch in the same college we quite often see each other there. My opinion, with which you perhaps disagree, is that I should take into account a colleague's views if I am editing his/her web page, so I took the chance to check with him things like whether the title of his page should be his nickname or his more formal name. Shall we leave it for now, or do you want to continue?
And another thing I perhaps need to make clear given your comment: I am very aware of the CoI issue and would take it into account if I thought it relevant, but did not see it as in any way relevant here. By the way, there should be a WP principle, if there is not one already: do not blindly apply the rules. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'd not been aware that "Winter had indicated a strong preference for nothing personal to be included", so thank you for bringing new information to what I think these days we are invited to refer to as the table. I do not believe - probably in other cases you would not either - that wiki-subjects should be encouraged to attempt a veto over their own wiki entries (tho' I understand that with "Who's Who", which is for England the closest pre-web equivalent I can think of, people tended to compile their own entries: maybe still do. And they mostly still seem to be content to identify spouse(s), so I guess these must be readers of the Daily Mail?). There is of course room for politeness and, other things being equal, gratuitous unkindness is to be avoided. On the other hand, where wikipedia entries - especially the more important ones - are concerned, there are plenty of cases where incompleteness taken too far is used to corrupt truth. And truth is very important. Sometimes even more important, in the context of wikipedia entries, than kindness. Ditto politeness. Anyway, I note what you write and disagree with quite a lot of it. But I don't think further discussion is likely to lead anywhere constructive. And yes, there is of course a wikipedia quasi-rule entitled Ignore all rules. Did you ever doubt it? Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of accuracy, Winter did not attempt to veto his entry: I decided entirely on my own that that section was inappropriate given that the marriage was ancient history and removed it myself, later asking him if he agreed with my doing that. Actually, if you had restored the section including the fact that the marriage had been dissolved I probably would not have objected, but preferred instead to remove the section.
Who's Who is a bit different from w'pedia in that it is a source of record (people are still asked to submit their own details, incidentally) whereas 'notability' is a criterion that is relevant for w'pedia. And I guess that was my motivation for doing the edit, the marriage hardly being very relevant at this time. You were not to know the details if I have it right, as you referenced a very ancient Who's Who. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career and research

[edit]

This section tells us twice that 'Winter was a founder of Cambridge Antibody Technology', so should be rewritten by someone who can spare the time to do it to avoid this duplication.
In addition, there are references to his being on the Scientific Advisory Board of two little-known companies (little known to me at least). Being on an Advisory Board is a different matter to founding a company, and such information doesn't seem to me notable enough to merit inclusion in the article.--Brian Josephson (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gregory_Winter&oldid=1207564906"