User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Nick Cohen page and reversing the vandalism of it

The same user has been vandalising the Johann Hari entry, inserting claims he is a "creep" and "weirdo" etc. Surely a strong case for banning this vandal? Are you an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.145.3 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but this page will put you in touch with one. Philip Cross (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Flint.

HI, this user has been reverting all day. I have reported him ..to the wrong place here.. [[1]] he needs reporting somewhere else. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Assuming User:Derjederman is User:Pfgpowell, we are already acquainted over edits to the Paul Dacre article. Philip Cross (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all I am not pfgpowell whoever he is. More to the point, what exactly is the purpose of your amendment from the previous 'United Kingdom' to 'England'? None, in fact, except a self-important desire to tinker. If you had wanted to be exact, you would have stuck with my edit of 'London, England, United Kingdom', which is, if nothing else, more detailed. Twickenham is part of Greater London, and not even, as Wikipedia claims elsewhere, a 'town' in its own right, so if it needs a more exact definition, it should be that it is a part of London. 'Twickenham, England' is no more or less correct than 'Twickenham, United Kingdom' and so didn't need to be changed. But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is simply to add your two ha'porthworth and then be in a position to quote Wikipedia chapter and verse (which I should imagine you know by heart) to justify yourself. Dear soul, get a life. Derjederman (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you have been caught using the same IP address as pfgpowell, I shall resist being very unkind to you. England does not have a political identity of its own. Philip Cross (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

. . . something which eluded you in the previous several hundred versions of this entry, but now, apparentlty, cries out to be immediately rectified Derjederman (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Patrickk/Derjederman, a check of your edit history reveals you are as guilty of error as anyone you attack. Philip Cross (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Phillip. I didn't know that. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Your recent additions, regarding the addition of...unemployed people should activly seek employment ...is actually a common reality and was true and has been true regardless of flint.

and...

adding every single comment from the press is not the idea of a biography... your recent addition adds nothing and pushes me to add the other side of nothing ... so would be better if you removed your nothing... regards (Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

you have added this...In February 2008, she suggested unemployed council house tenants should 'actively seek work', as a condition of their occupancy. .. do you understand what you are adding..why are you adding this? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Caroline Flint was housing minister at the time, and it is still a harsh comment for a Labour minister to make, the first time such a specific link has been made. I am not adding every comment I can find, its the first citation I have added to this article. Philip Cross (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

what is harsh about it...? .. When you are unemployed for the last 20 years ..and you are fit to work ..you have to show you are activly seeking work to get your benefit otherwise they stop paying your benefit and xoz they stop paying you soon get thrown out for not paying... take the rubbish out. I am going to add rubbish to explain your rubbish... filling up the biography with rubbish It is nothing new, it is a reiteration of the same policy of the last 20 years (Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

and adding every pov pushin comment from flint is tosh.. she has made her statement and thats it.. it's over it is a BLP not a tabloid gossip monger. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Andrew Brons‎

Can I query your revert on Andrew Brons‎ of my switch of "See also" and "References" sections. According to WP:LAYOUT#Standard appendices the "See also" section comes before any "Notes and references". Keith D (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it appears I was thinking of 'External links' rather than 'See also'. Philip Cross (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Philip Cross. You have new messages at Kbdank71's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Either/Or

I have conducted a reassessment of this article's GA status. I have placed the reassessment on hold as there are some points to be addressed at Talk:Either/Or/GA1#GA_Reassessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"the episode is on YouTube"

If you've only seen it on youtube it might be incomplete, try accessing it through archive.org instead. http://www.archive.org/details/Pandoras_Box_DVD_1_of_3 Siawase (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that segment is available on youtube after all, in this version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrjQvevsHXM it's about 2 minutes in. KGB is mentioned specifically at 2:21. Siawase (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

La Strada

yes, good question Is Z. repentant? I guess there are other interpretations available: self-pity, regret, remorse, relief. Not that I endorse them all since I have my own response. In a sense, that is the moment when he seems most catholic. Still, off the top of my head it seems easy to think of it many ways and the synopsis shouldn't offer interpretations. I hope you can endorse that much. I'm certainly not saying that he's not repentant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tory spin doctor

Andy Coulson is being refered to as tory spin doctor all over the press, is that ok? (Off2riorob (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

"Spin doctor" is a hackneyed term of journalese, unsuitable for invariable use in an encyclopedia which claims gravitas. We don't have to use the rather colloquial term for readers to know it applies to Coulson, language can be used in a fresh rather than stale manner. It avoids dullness, a claim made against Wikipedia, by even its defenders. See the recent David Runciman article in the London Review of Books as an example of what I mean. The first reference to Coulson's current post links to the article on spin if anyone wishes to know more about the term. Personally I only use "Tory" to avoid a repetition of "Conservative"; neutrality means one avoids winding them up. Philip Cross (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, go and have a look at the labour spin doctor pages, I see little neutrality here, If the same positions at labour are spin doctors then so are the tories spin doctors. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Don't you like the expression? would you please go and take it out of the labour pages, as it seems to be fine there. Its in the cite and I wonder do you want me to add a line of cites to support it? (Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I put it back, please leave it in, as it is in the cite all over the news and press and if it is good enough for the labour pages then it is good enough for the tories. What do you think, that labour has spin doctors and the tories have cosultants..sorry it's the same for both sides. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

"Don't you like the expression?" I have always found the expression tiresome. Coulson's antics at the Screws may damage his current employers, with luck they will, but avoiding the use of the derogatory term "spin doctor" won't help them; Alastair Campbell though is permanently stuck with the term. You are twisting my comments on neutrality, I was explaining my practice over the use of "Conservative" and "Tory". They have a right to find WP useful too, even if our old friend Derjederman appears to take a conspiratorial view of WP editors' objectives.

As a matter of fact news.google.com is currently listing "Andy Coulson" on 1,268 pages, but by adding "spin doctor" this total goes down to 105. I would contend we don't need to use the term on every single applicable occasion. Philip Cross (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That Derejman looks like a sock if you ask me, strange edits. Sure one spin doctor is enough. As regards neutrality, I prefer labour but I hope to rise above that on wikipedia, you prefer tory, but we are wikipedian editors..(Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I thought the identity of Derejman had been established a month ago over the Caroline Flint incident(s)? My edit history hardly suggests I am a Tory. What an appalling thought! Philip Cross (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore me..I am confused and stressed out. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your jazz edits!

Thanks for your Jazz Review / The Jazz Review edits. I haven't been around wikipedia long enough to know just what "usual fmt" is in all cases. I felt a very urgent need to straighten out the identity of these two magazines. Most wikipedians probably aren't old enough to know about The Jazz Review. When I met Nat Hentoff at the Newport Jazz Festival of 1958, he told me about a new magazine he was launching and invited me to submit something. I sent him an article on Chu Berry which he rejected as "not analytical enough"; I tore it up in disgust. I should have kept it for use in Chu's wikipedia page 50 years later. Oh well.

I have some more stuff to add to The Jazz Review's page, but it'll take a while to get it all together. I hope you'll look upon it kindly when I finally submit it. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth

I have removed your edit to the Bob Ainsworth article. Please read the Talk page. Hitchens' former membership of the IS does not make it a principle source: he does not clim to have any first-hand knowledge. His article is clearly a piece of comment, not news, and it cites no sources. If you read those articles that do exist, most of the seem to cite this page. It looks like original research. --Duncan (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Clark

I'm not going to tolerate any sockpuppetry in order to circumvent my warnings. The IP address have been blocked for one week due to this edit. Please desist with these activities, or I will block this account. —Dark ^talk 12:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would Google the IP address if I were you, it appears to be from the Royal Society of Arts. The edit was definitely not by me. Philip Cross (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

John Pilger

Have you read the articles Harri refers to? I don't believe Pilger is saying what Harri says he is saying. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have and agree with you, but that is not enough reason to delete the reference to the Hari article. It is why I added the original Pilger article citations to another editor's contribution. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing deleting that reference; my problem is that Hari's interpretation is given as fact. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added "what he saw as." Philip Cross (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New College, Oxford

Thank you for your interest in the page List of University of Oxford people. However, could I please urge you to take more care before you edit pages thinking that you are improving them when you are actually introducing errors. You changed '(New College)' to '(New)', noting in your edit summary that you were doing so in the interest of 'consistency'. Presumably you imagined that because all the other colleges lacked the word 'College', New College, too, was supposed to be abbreviated to 'New'. That is not the case. All the other colleges that are called 'X College' are indeed known as 'X', but New College is called 'New College'. In the future, when you see something that looks wrong, it might be a good idea to find out whether it really is wrong, or whether somebody has written something unusual for a good reason. I don't mean to sound beligerent, and you are far from the only person I've found doing this, in good faith, on Wikipedia (I remember somebody changing the title of a Dominican friar from 'fr.' to 'Fr').--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Great work

Nice work on Greer. She had as many edits since creation as she did in the 6hrs after Questtime, methinks. You did a great rewrite. I write a lot on jazz as well, I'm sure we'll bump into each other :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth, much appreciaterd comments. Philip Cross 12:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens article

Hi, Philip, you have done some good work on the Peter Hitchens article and I wondered if you would cast your eye over the recent edits. It seems my views are being ignored. Whether you agree or disagree your work previously moves me to apply for your opinion. Thanks. I will bow out of the discussion. Mimi ^(yack) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my editing on the Broken Compass. Hope you'll look in on that page and the Peter Hitchens page from time to time. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Philip, look I'm sorry to bother you again but do you know any editors that would give a fresh view to the situation on the PH article and the Broken Compass article? All I asked for was one quote to be included, although it was a lengthy request as debate and explanation was called for. I gave a precis of my views generally into the mix (the article has been longer and was criticised for that and shortened some time back). These were basically that sometimes it's better to quote rather than paraphrase as with the Hitchens thier choice of words is the point. I think the balance in the article fine (as Jprw is intending to greatly increase the books section when they have their own pages anyway). And if he's bent on expanding the article, which he seems to be, then I don't hold out much hope of him getting 'bonkers' in or a section on Hitchensblog. Typing is difficult at the moment and I seem not to be communicating effectively as Jprw is convinced I'm on some kind of mission to be hostile to PH, which is not so. I reversed an edit PH did a little while back as I honestly thought it would be better if someone else did it and expanded the article, which Jprw and I did. I wasn't being hostile, I was trying to be helpful. On both articles now Jprw seems to have a problem with me personally, and so any discussion of content seems compromised. Would you please ask a couple of editors to look over the articles? I'd be so grateful. Kind regards, Mimi ^(yack) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seumas Milne article

Hi Philip, you revised my addition to the article, citing the blog CiF watch. You claimed it is an inadmissible blog. Can you explain to me what makes it inadmissible and what qualified a blog as admissible.

Nik Sage ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Philip Cross (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip, thanks for your work in exposing that Stalinist scumbag Milne on Wikipedia.Haldraper (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)