User talk:Philip Cross

Digital Anthropology research

Hello Philip Cross, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely, Stelba90 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Stephanie Barker I am not able to help you with your project. Good luck with your research. Philip Cross (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Harry's Place

Hello I see you have been a recent editor to this page. There is a user who is writing highly-charged and venomous accusations against this website in the Wikipedia article, accompanied with similarly bellicose edit summaries and talk page posts. All this would be OK if he had better sources than two minor blogs. But he still shows no sign of dropping the stick. Can you keep an eye on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.99.144 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Looks like an entry on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page may need to be added at some point. Philip Cross (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Rank and File

Hello. Thank you for noticing my new page and contributing to it.

Are you sure that this was Play for Today and not The Wednesday Play? It says The Wednesday Play on this BBC page.

Cheers. Epa101 (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It must be an error. It is definitely a Play for Today. Episode 21 of the first series according to IMDb. There are several better, more academic, sites about Play for Today on the web which will confirm the BBC website has made an error on this. Philip Cross (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. It's quite bad of the BBC to get this wrong. I hope that you like the article. Epa101 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

George Monbiot

Hello,

Can you confirm you are not, in fact, George Monbiot?

If not, why do you feel the need to curate his career and delete the reference to his breach of contract at The Guardian?

Will you intend to delete this in future?

Paulthorgan (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not George Monbiot. It is possible to observe edits to articles via a watchlist. In the edit mode, see on the right below the edit summary box and the drop down summaries. As of yesterday, Monbiot's conflict of interest has not been taken up by any third party sources, usually necessary to establish an event's notability. For this reason it is liable to be removed by any editor. Philip Cross (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is usual to list sections in chronological order, and not to delete user's comments. Please do not do not act this again. Philip Cross (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is usual to list sections in chronological order, and not to delete user's comments. Please do not do not act this again. Philip Cross (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Philip Cross (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I would submit that the usual 'third party' place as you describe is, in fact, a newspaper. Given that this is, in fact, a newspaper article, and also from what some might regard as a highly respected source, that it does not require the standard of validation you insist.

Monbiot has not been transparent and open about his association with these charities and your deletions fall into that kind of activity. He did not include them in his 'register of interests', when he insists he is scrupulous on the matter of all his interests. He is clearly not. I will be including your behaviour in an article I am authoring on George Monbiot's activity. Paulthorgan (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick to a chronology so third parties can see how this develops, if you do not mind. Complain to administrators if you want, I would welcome it. Philip Cross (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain why you are curating Monbiot's entry and acted within minutes of my addition of this new information? The only beneficiary from your editing is, in fact, George Monbiot, although The Guardian probably would not like people knowing of Monbiot's activities. Paulthorgan (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I told you above, Monbiot is on my watchlist. At the moment, 116 editors follow edits to his page. So any of the 114 other people may choose to remove the passage on his conflict of interest. Philip Cross (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On that basis, the fact that I had added the entry alerted over one hundred people, none of which, apart from you, decided to immediately edit it. Your editing was within minutes. I find this earnestness interesting. Your only reason provided is that Monbiot being on your watchlist. You decided to delete the edit, and your justification is that it would be deleted anyway. Why not wait for processes to take their course? Why leap in so quickly? As I have written, only Monbiot and The Guardian benefit from your activity. Are you sure you are not George Monbiot? Paulthorgan (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not George Monbiot. Do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Philip Cross (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be Andrew Philip Cross, bane of one Neil Clark, whom you have banished from Wikipedia. He does not appear to like you. Paulthorgan (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness you now accept the truth. Clark's own Wikipedia page was deleted seven years ago on the grounds of his non-notability. I have cited Neil Clark actually, but most of his work is hardly a reliable source, and he has always been a fairly fringe pundit, even though he was once published by serious mainstream publications. I will now assume you would gladly cite with approval those with similar politics, such as George Galloway Seumas Milne, and John Pilger. Philip Cross (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not accept the 'truth'; I found it out for myself when you did not provide it. It is unlikely I will be declaring any affinity Galloway, Milne, Pilger, or even Monbiot. Paulthorgan (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

In restoring the material about Corbyn and anti-semitism, you're now in >1rr territory. I suggest self-reverting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is new material. I have not used this citation before, or for quite some time. Yesterday I tried to move Corbyn's "friends" comments about Hamas from March 2009, and his July 2015 comments on Channel 4 News. Not the same. Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You prefer to have the idea tested? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, AE it is: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)