User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 23
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wikipedia:LINKEDIN2 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:LINKEDIN2. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:LINKEDIN2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Katie Hopkins article
Hi Philip,
I just wanted to drop you a line regarding your decision to remove the section I added on Katie Hopkin's page re: the Kensington Crash.
In your accompanying comments you explain 'rm non-notable incident with limited sources, says nothing new about Hopkins'.
I completely agree that the incident doesn't say a huge amount that is new about Hopkins, but I still feel it would be helpful to document an example of where Hopkin has taken a particular line on an issue, and subsequently been shown to be wrong. It may be that this content is better placed on the 'Kensington Car Crash" page, which has recently sprung up, but given it's clear link to Hopkins I think it would be helpful to include it on her page.
Re: the limited sources, I'm more than happy to add in some additional sources if this would help to strength the case for keeping the section.
Look forward to hearing your opinion! Jono1011 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- The article is already quite long at nearly 76,000 bytes, much more than Hopkins really deserves, and I feel that a degree of selectivity is necessary. Hopkins has been shown to be wrong in two court cases in the last year, the proven libel of Jack Monroe involved her twitter account, and the deletion of a tweet. Admittedly, the current version does not indicate the legal action against Hopkins involved her use of twitter. You are, of course, perfectly free to raise the issue again on the article's talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Grant Shapps
'Public behaviour' is a meaningless term, no doubt designed to look as innocuous as possible. It is also inaccurate, if not 'Underhand' surely "Questionable' is more accurate than 'Public'. Perhaps 'Controversy' is a more even handed term. 86.180.159.80 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017
- You are right, 'Public behaviour' was intended to look innocuous, although to be more precise on Wikipedia it is referred to as a neutral point of view. In truth it was not quite neutral enough, but 'controversies' is not appropriate either for a section which includes an attempt to remove Theresa May, except for those who still support her. I have changed the heading to 'other issues'. Please learn what is appropriate practice on Wikipedia to avoid nasty messages being placed on your talk page. The most important other policy pages are no original research, verifiability and notability. Philip Cross (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sally Jones
hi, I heard sally jones was killed by a drone today. I looked up her page and seem to remember it being different 5 years ago, so I looked at the history. the curious thing is that your name came upon more than half the edits, but on your user page you are not credited with being a contributor? I only ask to find out a bit how this wikipedia thing works. you can email me directly on igyuyguoyn at hotmail. 2.12.46.53 (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I might add it in due course, but it is only a selection, mainly of those articles I am pleased with. Please use four tildes (~) when adding comments to talk pages Philip Cross (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
- Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
- Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Atzmon "Early Life" section
Thanks for contributing on the Gilad Atzmon article. There's currently an ongoing discussion on whether or ot the "early life" section has been turned into a Soapbox. Would appreciate getting your feedback, thanks. Drsmoo (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- The other editor has opened the section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gilad Atzmon asking for what he terms "third party independent input". I have had problems with adding the issue of antisemitism to the biography of a now leading UK politician whose party has become notorious for the attitude in the last few years, so I am not confident the BLP:N discussion will resolve the problems with the Atzmon article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Owen Jones
Hi there Phillip, I hope you'll take the time to hear my case for the revision I made to the commentator Owen Jone's article. You see, I believe that the inclusion of the term "communism" in the place of the word "socialism" would be far more precise, and would hopefully engender a more salubrious critique of the man's body of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.220.112 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It does not have a proper source. In Wikipedia terms, you have attempted original research, which is not admissible. Philip Cross (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Michael Fabricant
Thanks for highlighting. Sorry, I didn't notice; I will be more diligent in future. Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.234.67 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Colin Jordan
Just posting to discuss the revert on the edit I made on this page. I don't see how someone who is reckoned to have been far-right and neo-Nazi would not fit much more accurately into being ultranationalist than just nationalist. "Far-right nationalist" does not seem anywhere near as accurate as far-right ultranationalist. I fail to see how one can be far-right or neo-Nazi and not be on the extreme end of the nationalist scale. Also I changed another link which you may have accidentally reverted at the same time, this is because Britain and the UK are not the same, so Great Britain was linked instead. Helper201 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ultranationalism is clearly not recognised as an established term, and Neo-Nazi is not a euphemism and an appropriate description for Jordan's politics; there is not a stronger term. I removed the hyperlink because we do [not] use links for common terms, although you are quite right about the UK/Britain issue. Philip Cross (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ("not" added 30 November)
- As it stands, there are probably reliable sources to sustain usage. Making such changes as you suggest risks expressing a personal opinion and "Neo-Nazi" is already the strongest possible term. Philip Cross (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps it was one term too many. Philip Cross (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 121.72.178.149 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, IP address 121.72.178.149. Philip Cross (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Now permanently archived here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Luke Harding. Philip Cross (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing
 |
| Hello, Philip Cross.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Philip Cross. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have initiated a discussion to merge this article with the whole John Pilger article. As you were a recent contributor to the YZ page, I would like to invite you to take part in the discussion.
Merger discussion for [[Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia]]
An article that you have been involved in editing—[[Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia]]—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in [[John Pilger#Merger Proposal|the merger discussion]]. Thank you. Giorgio69 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 25
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017
- OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The Night They Raided Minsky's
Hello Philip,
Thanks for tweaking this page, which I mostly researched and wrote. However, in the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks. I think those corrections were completely unnecessary.
Plummer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plummer (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Reviewing
 | |||
Hello, Philip Cross.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
Hi @Philip Cross:. I'm asking around for help to improve Murder of Heather Rich to GA or even copy edit. It's in poor shape for a case that got national attention in America. For a start, it needs an infobox and it needs a picture of Ms. Rich, even that cheerleader shot that was widely circulated in the media. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Citation of Wikipedia ABOUT Wikipedia.
Disagree that you cannot cite Wikipedia when the subject matter itself is the history of Wikipedia. This is a little like saying you could not cite someone's autobiography as an source of that person's life history.
Are you implying that Wikipedia logs are somehow non-authoritative about the content history of Wikipedia? Does this imply that they cannot be trusted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.197.227 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia is dependent on third party reliable sources to verify content. Philip Cross (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your updates on John Worboys. Fences&Windows 18:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thankyou. Serious issues raised here, it will be staying on my Watchlist. Philip Cross (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Toby Young
Hi there
You removed my inclusion to Toby Young's summary that he has personally edited his Wikipedia page over 200 times. I fail to see how this isn't relevant to a summary of the man. I provided a source for this and it helps readers get a more accurate portrayal of Toby Young. Your justification for removing it wasn't good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.86.191.19 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- My last action on the passage was to move it to Toby Young#Twitter and Wikipedia after The Guardian source was added. It isn't important enough for the summary, which is not supposed to contain details absent from the main sections, and it still has not received sufficient attention for greater prominence. The Political Scrapbook source (which is probably borderline reliable), on its own, seemed insufficient for the issue to be included. Philip Cross (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Patrick McLoughlin
Hi, can you direct me to a reference where it says that Patrick McLoughlin has left his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster please? I can only find official statements which say he has resigned as Chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthouse3050 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- He has said on Sky News that he enjoyed his time in Cabinet "immensely". I cannot link to the item as it appears to be a copyvio, but the two posts are usually held jointly during Conservative governments. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Abolish the monarchy?
Dear Philip Cross,
Back in 2010, Mr Jones tweeted, "In case my Robespierre tweet gets me in trouble with the police, I'm not actually advocating the public beheading of the monarchy." Link: https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/4509215909482496
He seems to be a PRUDENT republican. So Express.co.uk exaggerates things a bit...
Soleil222 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Removal of "inconvenient picture" by another POV warrior
Why? Because Amin al-Husseini was the most important Palestinian leader. That's why the picture is there. Could you please restore it?--Gyanfranco44 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- The meeting between Amin al-Husseini and Hitler, or his connection with another Axis power, Fascist Italy, is not mentioned in the Palestinian nationalism article. The image's removal is thus legitimate, I'm afraid. The image is, however, contained in the al-Husseini article itself where his wartime connections are detailed, so I would hope no one removes the image from there. Thankfully, a claim for copyright infringement is unlikely to occur (check the file licensing). Philip Cross (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ahed Tamimi
Hey Philip, thanks for your recent fixes. I have one small reservation. The Tamimi family still actively protest beyond 2016 so "During 2012-2016..." is not entirely representative. To be honest, I don't know why the section is broken down into "2012-2016" and "2017-2018" to begin with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Probably length. Anyway, you pointed out a valid anomaly. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Cathy Newman article
Hullo; I saw your name as the primary contributor for the Cathy Newman article. As it currently stands, the bit about the Jordan Peterson interview appears inordinately large compared to the rest of the article, as well as somewhat biased against Newman in that it primarily focuses on mentioning criticism of her conduct in the interview and of Channel 4's actions in the aftermath. While I of course agree that this criticism is relevant, the perspective appears skewed to me. I'd edit it myself except my knowledge of Wikipedia is extremely limited - and there already seems to be a bit of an editing war brewing on the Talk page. Too many cooks---! Desolationofsmug (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Believe me, it will sort itself out in due course. Philip Cross (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
- #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
- Bytes in brief
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
February 2018
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Gilad Atzmon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)