User talk:Philip Cross

Archives

/Archive 1: Oct 05
/Archive 2: Oct 06
/Archive 3: Oct 07
/Archive 4: Dec 08

/Archive 5: May 09
/Archive 6: Dec 09
/Archive 7: Nov 10
/Archive 8: June 11

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For attention to detail in current affairs articles Cedders^tk 06:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I found your update to the Julian Lewis biog. very interesting. I note your use of the word 'posed'. Any further into' on this? He had claimed to be a member of the Labour Party. Tony Kelly (Wiki: Kellybfd) Kellybfd (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

A "heads-up" for WP:EW. Cheers. Please self revert your last edits, and discuss on the Daily Mail talk page. Collect (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Dorries

The blog contains valid criticism of the remarks, the version without contains NO criticism for these remarks. (Which, by any measure are foul and objectionable) They may not meet your standard, by they meet mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comments on your talk page which explain why I reverted. It is WP standards which I am adhering to, not my own. Dorries has many authoritative critics who can be cited in the article. We already have a comment from Chris Bryant and the responses of others are sumnarrised. Forgive me for not naming you directly but someone who uses abusive coarse slang as a user name is difficult to respond to. Philip Cross (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, allow me to get this "sumnarrised" for you: Bryant's remarks do not refer to the abuse remarks. As for the blog, did you, or Wikipedia, or anyone else expect a victim of childhood sexual abuse to use their own name (or perhaps post their home address?) on a blog? By posting the article, of which I included no content and referred to it as an "attack", which is what it is whether you agree with it or not, allows people to read it's remarks, consider that it is written under a pseudonym and, you know, decide for themselves. I would also remind you that Dorries stated that she thought sex education led to the rape and molestation of children. Read that again: CHILDREN. She wasn't saying that she didn't like IKEA FFS.... your version eliminates criticism and gives her a free ride.

As for the user name, are you serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant's response is to the bill which Dorries supported. You are repeatedly missing the point as to what is acceptable on WP. Disruptive editing, of which missing the point is one example, leads to blocks. Is this clear for you toss.er.live? Philip Cross (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant's criticism was of the BILL, the blog criticises the Dorries comments on the bill. Is that clear for you? The full post is now: "Her remarks were attacked on the nightmaresandboners.com blog by "Vanessa", a writer who claims to be a victim of childhood sexual abuse, in an article titled "Nadine Dorries Thinks I Was Asking For It."[43]" This is factual and allows any reader to choose to read the attack or not but also allows them to decide on the validity of the contents, your interpretation of the "rules" may not allow for that, but you are assuming I care what you think, "blocking" and further editing is shutting out valid criticism of an political position which is disingenuous at best, your (sorry...) interpretation allows Dorries to dodge responsibility for her statements. Take you blinkers off, man.... or did your NKVD application just get lost in the post?--You know it makes sense 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs)

Me: "Bryant's response is to the bill which Dorries supported". You: "Bryant's criticism was of the BILL, the blog criticises the Dorries comments on the bill." As the blog is an inadmissible source, your point is irrelevant. Why are you incapable of finding admissible sources which do criticise Dorries directly on this issue? Since you don't care what I think, I am a loss to see why you are repeatedly posting here. Cheers. Philip Cross (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point? Ha! Project much...? "your point is irrelevant" "inadmissible source" ahhh, the joy of engaging in unsupported absolutes in an attempt to assert authority, Thanks for your interest, so sorry about your small penis. --You know it makes sense 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User name

....mine is based on a e-mail adress I use. As for whether the name: "falls outside acceptability"

"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

  * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
  * Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia.
  * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
  * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia."

I'll take your opinion "under advisement", Thanks.--You know it makes sense 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toss.er live (talk • contribs)

sockpuppet editing

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed.

Susie Orbach

It is not up to Philip Cross to remove a recent personal photograph chosen by susie orbach and replace it without copyright permission from the photographer with a photo that Cross prefers from the Net. Can Philip Cross leave the Orbach entry to people who know what they are doing please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.4.105 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be confusing me with another editor, I have not touched any image file on the Susie Orbach page. You have reverted one of my two edits from six weeks ago which removed the phrase "and campaigns vigorously on many fronts" from the Journalism section. I did so on the grounds of vagueness, as indicated, it is also original research. Philip Cross (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit from 3 August is the most recent change of the photograph. Philip Cross (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Statesman

Philip - The New Statesman edit performed was entirely correct and did not require your actions.

Points of note:

Bulleted list item Spencer Neal left the New Statesman more than 6-months ago and is no longer Publisher.
Bulleted list item The New Statesman is not a left-wing magazine. It is a political, cultural and thought leadership magazine. In terms of political opinions it is centre-left, which is why I did not undo the right-hand mention.
Bulleted list item The NUJ discussions are not relevant when taking into account the 98 years of its publication. Far too much real estate was dedicated to this on the page.

Rather than undo your edit I would appreciate it if you undo your own undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyyy (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not think anyone will know what a "cultural and thought leadership magazine" might be, and have not come across the term before. OK, "nonsense" in my edit summary was too strong. While the description in the opening summary has to match the opinion the magazine might have of itself, "centre left" in the summary is disliked by many editors and it keeps being changed. While it is pretty accurate, that battle is clearly lost here. As far as the category "Socialist publications" is concerned, that is surely historically accurate. On the NUJ derecognition. Although you might have a case on the grounds of recentism, you are objecting to a mere two or three lines which have a reliable source.

Removed Spencer Neal from the infobox because there is no longer a source for this, as indicated in my edit summary. Philip Cross (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip - I appreciate your response.

The property cannot be described as socialist, or defined as left wing anymore and it is misleading to describe it as such. It has writers from all the main UK parties on staff. True, it has a history of supporting the centre-left Labour Party and Liberal Party, but should be described as being progressive and/or centrist rather than left wing and socialist.

Also, the magazine and website is very much more than niche politics and culture. More than anything else it defines itself as a thought leadership magazine with mass rather than niche appeal. Let me know if you need any statements from staff or citations to back this up.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyyy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can add citations supporting the above argument. The small circulation (compared with the tabloids) does not suggest 'mass' appeal. Philip Cross (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Philip, can you please stop inserting the ridiculous story about Gloria Stewart into Paul Johnson's entry? It was a story paid for by a very downmarket tabloid newspaper, the Daily Express, corroborated by nobody but Stewart herself, and caused a lot of unhappiness at the time. I know you care a great deal about accuracy and sources, and it does seem the source here is just not worth paying attention to. It would be a kindness if you could just let this one go. Sarcyncha (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC) PS Sorry, I don't know how to start a new topic here! Sarcyncha (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]