This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Philip Cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

Wikimedia Foundation

Katie Hopkins[edit]

I did have one eye on improving this to good article status at some point this year, but a moving target is hard to hit and she keeps getting the news so the article isn't really stable enough. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Best to concentrate on another subject to achieve your goal of a GA. As you say, her article is unlikely to be stable for long. Good luck. Philip Cross (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Reuters attributed the wording - which appears to be from Clause IV - but I am unsure that "greater" is supported either, if one reads the cites accurately. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"false attribution"?[edit]

[1] seems on its face to be a Reuters dispatch by Andrew Osborn dated August 9, 2015. What part of that attribution is "false"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC) .

The attribution to Corbyn of "means of production, distribution and exchange", a phrase which he did not use in the Independent on Sunday interview. As is clear from the direct quote, he is more open minded. Philip Cross (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You well should have noted the use of the phrase in the cite which you removed from Reuters. Which is RS AFAICT. I rather think the Reuters ref should be re-added, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Page 3[edit]

Every day I have checked now there is a new Page 3 girl. It seems odd to leave something in the article so oviously wrong and so easily checked. I don't understand, is this something that is only in the online addition? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As your user page says you are in the UK, could you pick up the paper and see? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Desmond[edit]

You're right, thank you, neutrality is preferable. (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Laurie Penny[edit]

Hi. Looking at the edit history, it was established a self published blog written by a subject was OK - so surely a post from a verified Twitter account is too? I have also placed info regarding her father, which also in effect confirms her surname.

Noddyholderspetchimp (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be legitimate if the source was Laurie Penny herself. As the Guido Fawkes blog isn't admissible here, their twitter account should not be either. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter where only primary sources are allowed. Philip Cross (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Benny Lee[edit]


I would like to invite you to the talk page of Benny Lee. I need a second opinion, so I picked you since you created and have contributed to the article. Thank you.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have looked in to your query, and my response is on the talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Marjorie Reeves has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]


I see you reverted my edit there based on your view that the journalist was biased. Can you give me some evidence that would prove he is "a notorious Milosevic sympathizer"? VS6507 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Try this. Originally published by the New Statesman, on whose website it is not currently available. Note the name of the organisation at the top of this document. Search for articles by Marko Attila Hoare and Oliver Kamm (among others) who have written about Neil Clark's pieces on Milosevic, Serbia and the Balkans. I have to declare an interest in that Clark and myself do not exactly get on. Philip Cross (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Catherine Masters for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catherine Masters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Masters (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EEng (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

For lurkers, and myself in years to come, the proper link is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Masters (2nd nomination). Philip Cross (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Hilary Benn's WP article[edit]

Can you explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A mistake. The "values" and "public opinion" comments, now removed, are POV. To be admissible, an editor would need to add a source. See Identifying Reliable Sources. Incidentally, when asked about his son, Tony Benn usually described Hilary Benn as being "his own man". (Talk pages don't normally need to be sourced.) Philip Cross (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Stella Creasy[edit]

This quote appears on her page "Creasy is coming under the threat of deselection from activists in her Walthamstow constituency, such as members of the Jeremy Corbyn-supporting Momentum group, who would prefer a candidate at the next general election with opinions closer to those of the Labour leader. A possibility that the seat might be redrawn after boundary changes means potential candidates are jockeying for position in the constituency party.[28]"

The article referenced mentions Monentum's denial. In the interests of balance this denial should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Done. Philip Cross (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Brackets and references[edit]

The MOS says that references for information in brackets are included inside the brackets and not outside. This is an exception to the usual rule. Anglicanus (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Independent censoring comments[edit]

Why are you censoring the talk page over on the Independent:

'The Independent has taken to disabling commenting for a certain subset of registered users. If you log in, all the comments and the commenting box totally disappears. For an alleged independent online newspaper, this is disingenuous and dishonest at its worst. Would anyone here care to contacts the editors and ask for an explanation.'

Yaweller (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Take up the issue with the newspaper. If you read the WP:FORUM article you will find that talk pages are intended for discussing potential improvements to the article, rather than for issues unrelated to Wikipedia itself. If you can find a reliable source discussing the issue, you could add a passage to The Independent article itself. Philip Cross (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas[edit]

Thankyou both, and to all this pages other followers, formal watchlisters and occasional visitors. Philip Cross (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Philip Cross as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Mother Agnes and StWC (admin noticeboard)[edit]

A "clash"? Really? Have you been reading tabloids or something? Seriously, I would appreciate the withdrawal of your ad hominem comments regarding my supposedly disliking a person I have never heard of before today. I fear it will not look good for others reviewing your case. I would hate to see you getting a topic ban unnecessarily. Please at least think about it. --John (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Edited comment. I wasn't accusing you of disliking me, only of disliking my comments about Mother Agnes. Changed the heading, so I know what this section is about in the future. Philip Cross (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard of Mother Agnes and neither like nor dislike her. I do have concern that the edit I highlighted, combined with the comments you made in article talk which another editor highlighted, may be seen as problematic regarding your future conduct at that article. I was interested to see your name come up at AN, a page I have watchlisted since 2006, right after our disagreement, but if you are trying to deflect criticism of you onto me for carrying on a perfectly civil disagreement over article content into endorsing concerns others have raised abut your editing in an entirely different area, I am not sure how well that will fly. This is a precious opportunity for you to reflect honestly on how your editing may come across to others. Please take it. --John (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I would look into Mother Agnes if I were you. You objected to necessary NPOV in the Janner article's opening summary which had unaccountably been omitted.. This would have been noticed as uninvolved administrators look through our edit histories, so frankly you are scaremongering. I note neither you, or other editors, have accused me of breaking the 3RR rule which is usually considered edit warring and leads to topic bans after several warnings. So I am not particularly worried. Philip Cross (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Militant in Liverpool[edit]

Thank you for your edits on Militant in Liverpool which means that I can resume my obsession with century old by-elections. JASpencer (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)