User talk:Philip Cross

Please remember the option of contacting Wikipedia officially if you wish to make a complaint about my edits, or anything relevant to the Wikipedia project.

Warwickshire

It's a trivium. Sure, then in Warwickshire is correct, but nobody cares other than the traditional counties nutters. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, but best to follow Wikipedia policies. The current West Midlands only formally exists from 1974, fifty years after Tony Hancock's birth and six years or so after he died. Philip Cross (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For changing my popularized to popularised on Ken Dodd. Good catch- cheers!

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Craig Murray

Hi Philip. I see you are still active at Mr Murray's BLP. As I'm sure you're aware, in 2016 Murray wrote a highly critical piece about your editing of his bio: "Is GCHQ Embedded in Wikipedia?"

Any quibbles that you have with the article can be brought up at the talkpage or relevant noticeboard. Surely, if only for appearances sake, you should refrain from further editing of Murray's bio, don't you think? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Murray's 2 year old article has featured prominently on my user page for some time. My most recent edits, finding the sourcing and notability of incidents unsatisfactory, along with my earlier changes, can be can be commented upon on the talk page in the usual way. Murray is naturally free to complain officially about my supposedly "derogatory" edits, but he appears not to have done. Philip Cross (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not commenting upon the substance of your edits, just the COI aspect and the apparent distress this is causing the subject. Murray has already complained publicly about your editing of his bio and by continuing to stick your oar in you are needlessly further upsetting him as shown by this recent edit summary: "I am Craig Murray. Philip Cross is a stalker whose hundreds of constant edits to my page are always hostile. He works together with Oliver Kamm and there is an obvious and repeated pattern of his making edits on the day of newspaper or twitter attacks by Kamm ... Wikipedia needs to offer me some protection from this stalking."

The humane thing to do would be to leave this particular article well alone. If you feel there are serious problems with Murrays bio you can always bring them up at the BLP Noticeboard where uninvolved editors can make any necessary changes. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

By all means raise this issue on the noticeboard, it would be useful to have an official opinion. WP:BLPCOI might apply to this case as it states an editor with a "significant controversy or dispute with another individual...should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person". (BLPCOI links to WP:POTENTIALCOI, which isn't really applicable). One blog article by Murray and a couple of comments is not a "significant controversy". Murray doesn't like my edits, an opinion he is entitled to assert, but he has not accused me of libelling him, and I am not working on his article, or others, in association with anyone else. So his accusations are false. What he terms "stalking" is usual Wikipedia activities. Philip Cross (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr Cross is a wiki-troll, but is it his own free will or is someone pulling his strings...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.203.121 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I always find conspiracy theories concerning my Wikipedia activities amusing. Philip Cross (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Jazz and Freemasonry

Not sure what perspective you're coming from here. The Guardian is a mainstream source and their article on the topic is reliable. There have also been entire books written about the subject, such as Black Freemasonry: From Prince Hall to the Giants of Jazz by Cécile Révauger. We mention on the article of other musicians such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart that he was a Freemason, we mention that George Washington was a Freemason and even that Sugar Ray Robinson was a Freemason. It is a completely subjective statement to claim that this is not a notable fact, if reliably sourced. It is no less notable than who their wife is, what political party they support, their religion or ethnic background. It is simply an objective part of their biography.

You don't have to explain to me your beef regarding the Labour Friends of Israel, I understand completely the WP:Wikilawyering to try and keep this off articles who the organisation lists on its official website as members and even when other references are provided, there is always some other pseudo-excuse to wriggle out of mentioning it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To passing editors and other observers, I posted the following, headed "Your Freemason edits" on Claíomh Solais talk page earlier today at 10:55 (UTC):

"Please resist the temptation to add material which is based on slender evidence or your own interpretation of what is notable. Having insisted on using primary sources for members of Labour Friends of Israel, while being warned against the practice by several editors, you reverted. Now you have added a mention that several notable African Americans were Freemasons usually based on a passing mention in a reliable source. I have removed your edits and would not add such material myself as it adds unnecessary clutter to an article. If you must include this detail, please ensure it is better sourced than hitherto."

Make of Claíomh Solais response what you will, posted here rather than on this user's own talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey

Dear administrator,

I think this is probably an act of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.224.132.96 He/she deleted a whole section. As far as I know, it's not illegal to talk about someone's personal life. Evan Spiegel's article, for instance, has a chapter devoted to that matter. Heavy.com is not a strong source, but I couldn't find a better one.

This person insulted Ms Greer by calling her an "unemployed golddigger". This Wikidata item, created by me, proves that's not true: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48980153.

Also, he/she threatened me. An anonymous user is not entitled to report any member.

Regards.

Soleil222 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not an administrator. Although the material you object to be removed is mostly, on this occasion, well sourced, it is gossip and trivial. So the other editors would appear to have good reason to remove it. Please read Identifying reliable sources and other policy articles. Philip Cross (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese 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) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Philip, I noticed this, because you have been AT my page again in recent days.

You wrote (cur | prev) 07:59, 13 December 2017‎ Philip Cross (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,373 bytes) (-68)‎ . . (→‎Personal life: MGB says he does not own the property, via a Twitter direct message to this editor; possibly the WW entry as printed is ambiguous or was misread)"

I have no idea what I said to you, but I lived permanently at Gordon Castle when I was younger and following the General Election until 2003. It is owned by a limited not by a person and unlike my days there when it was solely a private residence, it has in recent years been turned into a corporate entertainment venue.

My Scottish background is important to me. I joined the Gordon Highlanders named after the Castle many years ago.2A00:23C1:6C21:6501:E18A:9A6E:320F:BC48 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)