User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

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)

I have restored your deletion of George Monbiot's serial abuses of the Guardian's guidelines. Your criterion of a single source is irrelevant. You have no good reason for protecting this man from his own hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthorgan (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Protecting this man from his own hypocrisy" makes you sound agenda driven. Point 3 of WP:SOAPBOX seems to apply to this editing issue, as well as the notability problem and WP:NOTNEWS. Philip Cross (talk) 10:11, 4 October 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)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JamesJohnson2 10:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC) [Moved from my user page. Philip Cross (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ]

I know, I opened it earlier. By the way, thank you for adding the dubious secondary sources to the AN/I page. Philip Cross (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Now merged into my section. Philip Cross (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi. I've noticed the good work you do on here. I was wondering if you'd be interested in contributing to this ambitious British Isles challenge to bringing about 10,000 improvements to the UK and Ireland. The drive is fuelled by regional contests every few months, but it is generally an ongoing content improvement development. If you'd be interested in chipping in with the articles you improve please add your name to the participants and start adding your entries to the big list. Diversity of input will make it much more interesting to peruse! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am rather surprised

by your removal of the word "notorious " in the Kathleen Garman article, as applied to her and to her sisters. Did you read about them? I think, given the social mores of a century ago that "notorious" is exactly the word for them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think "notorious" might still be applicable if they were fascists, but I do not think using it for people who have multiple affairs is valid. It is misleading, and users may falsely assume they were like Diana (later Mosley) and Unity Mitford. Philip Cross (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see the connection between "notorious" and "fascist" other than some fascists are notorious. So is, let's say Mandy Rice-Davies and she was, I don't think, ever called a fascist. Carptrash (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch article, especially the section WP:PEACOCK: "Peacockery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much". The section below, WP:LABEL, might just as well include the word "notorious": "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" (emphasis in the original). Philip Cross (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess I just disagree with you. Words have meanings and should be allowed to be employed where the meanings fit. However I don't undo edits of folks who seem wedded to their POVs. Carptrash (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ray Milland and Grace Kelly

The affair cause Milland and his wife to separate. It was also known about by the Kelly family and also by Milland's wife Mal.

"You go ahead and get a divorce and marry Grace Kelly. That's okay with me, because all the property is in my name" (Mal Milland)

"My father was concerned about Ray Milland. He didn't like what he had heard about him" (Kell Kelly, Grace's brother)

"My mother and father were very strong willed people. Grace came to realize that Ray hadn't quite gotten over his wife and that it was wrong for her to be the cause of his divorce" (Lizanne Kelly, Grace's sister)

Grace : The secret lives of a princess by James Spada, Sidgewick and Jackson, 1987

I'll reinstate the edit and add the reference. Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate?

I just wanted to clarify. How is listing the Sydney Peace Prize in the Honours and awards section duplication? --Երևանցի ^talk 14:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In the John Pilger article, the 2009 Sydney Peace Prize is mentioned at the end of the Barack Obama section. Philip Cross (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And that means it shouldn't be listed in the honours and awards section? --Երևանցի ^talk 15:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. At present, the article ends with two miscellanies, the other being the Responses section. Although none of the content is trivial as such, Wikipedia policy is against such an organisation of material. The article has a overly cluttered, rather than ordered, end before the references. The two items currently in the honours and awards section should be incorporated into the main text, in passing, or deleted. They will not mean much to most users who will not know of the particular awards, I mean the series of awards of which those to Pilger are a part. The 1990 Richard Dimbleby award was controversial at the time, and there is a limited amount of material online about this, but it is perhaps not worth mentioning because it is a relatively slight issue. Critical comments about Pilger were made by Robin Day and David Dimbleby, as I recall, and the article has perhaps enough brief negative comment about Pilger already. The citation link for the Grierson Trust Award is currently broken, though I am about to update the link, but I suspect it should not be considered especially notable either. Philip Cross (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No matter how many times you list a notable individual's awards in the article body they should neatly compiled in a separate section for better navigation. What if you're somebody who is specifically looking for their awards? You're not gonna read the entire article to find out. You're immediately gonna go to the awards section. Take a look at Nelson Mandela article (a Good Article). It's listed several times in the article that he was honored major prizes (e.g. Nobel Peace Prize). And there's a separate section which lists his awards. "Duplication" is a non-issue. Some of his awards are listed, not twice but 3 or 4 times (in the intro, in the infobox, in the Orders, decorations, and monuments section). --Երևանցի ^talk 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The biography section on John Pilger's website (prominently tabbed) lists all of his honours and selected awards in detail and is presumably the definitive list. His website is listed on Google ahead of the Wikipedia article. I think Pilger's website is the ideal place for such things and interested parties will go their first. Incidentally policy wise, the summaries are not intended to list awards. Philip Cross (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Princess Diana Conspiracies

I would have thought that a convincing destruction of Fayed's chief argument would be a valid point for the Talk page on the conspiracies. Also I didn't know that the Talk page items could be deleted. There are plenty of long, hysterical edits that have passed into the archives. Can we establish who is allowed to delete Talk Page edits, and who is not? May I? Valetude (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was following established policies. Do not be put off editing Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject".

How to use article talk pages: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal".

This is also worth noting generally. WP:FORUM: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" "please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: 1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications". (Emphasis in the origin.) See also No original research. Philip Cross (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

Hi, I see you're editing the article on Peter Tatchell. He's quite keen that File:Peter Tatchell headshot.jpg should be as close to the top as possible. I found a compromise where it fitted with "Personal life", as it is a photo take at his home, but I see you have now changed this to "Early life". I wonder if that is not the best change. I know the section didn't extend beyond his graduation, but there is no reason why a biography shouldn't have a longer "Personal life" section. Perhaps the article just lacks the information about much of his adult personal life, and concentrates largely on his public life. So I wonder if you might consider changing that section back. Even if you lack the info on his further personal life, perhaps someone else in future will add details. -- Colin°^Talk 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

'Early life' is the usual title for such a section and it is important that it does not contain material from later in Peter Tatchell's life. The chronology was scrambled in various places before my edits and I have tried to make it more coherent. Because there is usually a shortage of copy free photographs from decades ago which can be used in Wikipedia biographies, images in biographies seldom match the chronology of the text. The 2007 image of Peter Tatchell at home is not likely to be moved or deleted for the reason you fear. Philip Cross (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Blimey, oops ...

... and thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Philip Cross. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Moore (TV executive)

Dear Philip Cross, thank you very much for your contribution to the above article. I had left "Controller of BBC1" in place, on the basis that the BBC's own web-site states that, "She also remains Controller of BBC One". Is that inaccurate or out-of-date, do you know? With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Not an entirely out-of date assumption, as the article previously suggested, but the re-organisation of BBC Television's management means that the office title is no longer formally used. It is true the BBC source does say the Controller posts were abolished, but the way the changes are explained in The Guardian article is a perfectly legitimate interpretation to use within Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Philip Cross (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Arron Banks

Could you clarify your recent edit to Arron Banks, where you changed "also known as Aaron Banks" to "known Aaron Banks" (i.e. you removed the word "also")? This would appear to imply that he is always known as "Aaron Banks", but that appears to contradict your edit summary (among other things). --Boson (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

He is commonly referred to as Arron Banks in media coverage, never with his full name, except perhaps in primary sources which we are not supposed to use. I don't see a problem with "known as Aaron Banks" (I did not delete "as", as you imply). Some editors remove the clarification on the grounds that the common form of address has already been used in the article title. Philip Cross (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the "as". I used cut and paste, so I don't know how that happened. I find the removal of the "also" very misleading. The spelling with two 'a's doesn't seem that common at all. --Boson (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I realized afterwards that (like other users) you may not have noticed the difference in the first name (Arron/Aaron). IAC a citation is needed for the alternative names.--Boson (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Jayda Franssen

Yes, my mistake. Apologies. Emeraude (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)