User talk:Philip Cross

Archives

1: 10/05
2: 10/06
3: 10/07
4: 12/08
5: 05/09
6: 12/09
7: 11/10
8: 06/11

9: 03/12
10: 09/12
11: 11/12
12: 08/13
13: 12/13
14: 03/14
15: 08/14

16: 02/15
17: 07/15
18: 04/16
19: 07/16
20: 12/16
21: 05/17
22: 09/17

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would advocate it should still be changed, perhaps to 'extreme nationalist circles', 'fascist circles', or just far-right circles and leave out the nationalism element. Nationalism on its own is too broad a phrase. Helper201 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why not just remove the word nationalism from the section, 'In the far-right nationalist circles ... '? This then avoids any controversy about what to change nationalism to or put in front of it. Its only this section that I'm referring to. Helper201 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps it was one term too many. Philip Cross (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you, IP address 121.72.178.149. Philip Cross (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now permanently archived here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Luke Harding. Philip Cross (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Philip Cross.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia

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)[reply]