User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 10

Anthony Bevins
Thanks for tidying that up. Bevo74 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I was wondering if I could nominate you for Adminship. If you accept, I will create the page. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 12:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not interested, but thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone
You recently amended a section that I had edited. No doubt you are equally certain that I am talking rubbish and have violated all sorts of policies, but can I request that you at least provide some feedback, and explain to me why I am such a fool. Thank you. Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  18:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Bonjour
Parlez-vous francais? 50.102.90.73 (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Raheem Kassam
As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just added my opinion to the AFD. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Time Tunnel
Great cleanup/O.R. removal on The Time Tunnel‎‎! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

BBC Archives
Hi, the reason that I reverted that edit was because Windmill Road was mentioned later in that paragraph in more detail and referenced better. Contrary to your edit comment, the section on Windmill Road was still in the Television Archive section and I feel it makes much more sense in it's previous layout, i.e. explanation about where the archive is now, facilities at that archive and then where it was previously. I hope that you can see my sense in this and I intend to revert to this structure for the sake of flow and easy understanding. Rafmarham (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your article on Caroline Thomson
Hi, I am reasonably new to writing/editing articles on Wikipedia so hope you don't mind me asking you for clarification on an edit I did to the article you wrote about Caroline?

I did read through the articles cited as references for your work, but realised that the Telegraph one contained incorrect information as I was at the same school with both Caroline and her younger sister. So, I am not quite sure how to cite this as it is personal information. All help gratefully received.

Best wishes Annishine (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, private information for the purposes of Wikipedia counts as original research. Assuming the Telegraph obituary of Thomson's father is indeed inaccurate, reliable sources with the correct information may well be in the majority and quite possibly easier to find. Philip Cross (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the clarification and references to the research guidelines, these will be very helpful for me. I just found it amusing that even though I, and several hundred other people, were at school with her and knew the family situation that an incorrect reference in a published article is assumed to be correct. Will have to search for a correct source!  Annishine (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RT
The Julia Ioffe quote does not belong in the 'conspiracy theory' section. I went to pages 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 of the article, and the term "conspiracy theories" is not used, so the placement of the excerpt from the Ioffe article in the 'conspiracy theory' section suggests that "an alternate point of view" is a conspiracy theory; that is WP:OR. The entire article is an attack on RT for being "pro-Kremlin" so why not choose an appropriate excerpt to support Ioffe's claim that RT is "pro-Kremlin" in the "Allegations of pro-Kremlin bias" section? Please either place the article in an appropriate section or not at all. Vatan79 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The point about "9/11 truthers" would be acknowledged by 80% of editors and readers as being legitimately placed under "consopiracy theories", and perhaps the claim about the CIA using drugs too - note I didn't use the point about a Maoist being interviewed whose opinions, fringe obviously, would be thought 'alternative' rather than expressing 'conspiracy theories'. The full quote (now) is: "Julia Ioffe has said Russia Today, in attempting to feature 'an alternate point of view ... is forced to talk to marginal, offensive, and often irrelevant figures who can take positions bordering on the absurd'". I cannot see how to cut the first part and retain the sense. Philip Cross (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The rewritten version looks fine. Can you please refer me to the specific WP policy that states quotes shouldn't contain wikilinks? I believe you, but I'd like to have the official policy to store in my mental arsenal of WP policies :). Vatan79 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See Manual of Style. Philip Cross (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vatan79 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mhmmm
You have made it very evident to me that you haven't a decent sense of humour. 50.102.29.27 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Incredible lazy edit and reversion
There was a reason to revert your edits on Isuzu Yamada. They were extremely bad edits, resulting in grammatically incorrect English. I don't know what reason you had for reverting my reversion. Thankfully Michihiro corrected the worst errors in your edits. Next time I request you to inspect the reason why I reverted your bad and grammatically incorrect edit. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway Michihiro missed some of your mistakes, such as repeating the word "film" twice in the same sentence, so I have just reverted all your blunders out. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Val Wilmer
Re your reversion... I had intended to add references directing users to (at least some of) the relevant obits. Don't you think that might be relevant in the context of comments about the content of her writing - i.e. so users could also judge for themselves? Itbeso (talk)
 * The bulk of your examples will be from The Guardian. A link to her contributor page on their website should be enough. Philip Cross (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources
Hi Philip, please read both WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:SOURCE carefully, and beware WP:EDITWARRING. Thanks, Avi. 77.101.48.35 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Munira Mirza
Hallo, in your tidying up of this you moved the stub tag from right to wrong place - it goes after everything except inter-language links, per WP:ORDER. I've replaced it. Pam D  07:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pam D, I am rusty. Philip Cross (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swizzlewick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comptroller-General (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Oliver Kamm article
I have started a section on the Oliver Kamm talk page about your deletions for no good reasons. Please come and comment and explain your reasons for those deletions. Thanks Zrdragon12 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have responded to this user on the two talk pages listed above. "I have started a section on the Oliver Kamm talk page about your deletions for no good reasons." Quite. Philip Cross (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * [personal name redacted] you have been fingered as being behind the 'Zrdragon12' account by one of your favourite email (and Wikipedia) targets. As you were behind the banned User talk:Citylightsgirl account, you have rather a lot to live down. Go on, post it on the 'Zrdragon12' talk page: "I am not [personal name redacted], and 'Philip Cross' is ..." For anyone who is unfamiliar with this saga, the material deleted from the talk page by Zrdragon12 gives a brief outline in my opening comments of the history. You keep deleting an otherwise obvious libel. Philip Cross (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Harassment from 'Phillip Cross' on my talk page and other pages
I really do not know what your problem is but I suggest that you pack in the harassment against me or I will report you.You have come on my talk page accusing me of being someone else and various silly statements.
 * Here you post a warning to me about editing and bring up other editors and accuse me of being a sock puppet.
 * Here you claim that I have not denied being this [personal name redacted] fella and ask if Hungarian is my first language.
 * Again with the Hungarian thing.
 * Again accusing me of being a sock puppet.
 * Then accuse me of being someone else yet again.
 * Here you call me [personal name redacted] even though I am not.
 * Even when your posts are being deleted you come back and start more sections on my talk page and accuse me of being someone else.
 * Then you come back yet again even after I deleted your harassing posts.
 * Then you go off to some other wikipage and accuse me of being a sock puppet yet again.[guess as to personal identity redacted]
 * You also go to another page and write the same thing.
 * Also you have posted this on your own talk page.

Now this is a clear case of harassing a fellow wikipedia editor. So I will ask you nicely one more time to cease your campaign against me  Thanks.Zrdragon12 (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Zrdragon12' in the material you deleted from your own talk page, you indicated an intention, no made a "promise" to ignore me. You have now gone back on that promise. I suspect you have not seen this: [external link commenting on personal identity redacted] . Curiously you haven't objected to the other insinuation I have made before, or [address of off-wiki commenter on personal identity redacted] makes, about your identity, apart from denying that your first language is Hungarian. You might also ponder why I made changes to the Neil Armstrong and Nick Clarke WP entries last night.  Please desist from making yourself look foolish. Philip Cross (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So now you are going off this site on to twitter to harass me and put me down. Well you had your chance and I asked you nicely but now I am going to start the process of reporting you here, Have a nice day.Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not ignoring me. Hasn't [identifying information redacted] 'put you down' too? How long will you desist from editing the article on [identifying information redacted]? Your idea of "nice" is very peculiar, so I will take the last comment as being totally insincere. Good look on the complaint, you will need it. Philip Cross (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The following comments have unsurprisingly been removed from the talk page of Zrdragon12. I paste them here, slightly modified, for other editor's elucidation: "'Hello 'John Rivers', another of this 'new' editor's pseudonyms. Media Lens, RT, Seumas Milne and Peter Wilby are among the articles you have edited favourably (against NPOV) after my neutralising work. Now which journalist, who you do not know, has a connection with these institutions or individuals, and whose twitter accounts were among the first feeds added to his own account? You also seem fixated on 'regime change' as a concept, another preoccupation of someone with whom you claim to have no connection. I don't mind the harrassment, you are confirming to other observers what I already know. I would temper your anti-Americanism though - yes, I know where Chomsky lives - it does not help you.'" Philip Cross (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Suppressed information
After redacting information about the identity of a Wikipedia user, using the Oversight tool I have suppressed, hidden from view, a number of edits containing that information. If there is a conflict of interest issue, please handle that quietly by confidentially contacting Wikipedia administrators by email. Posting information about the identity of other Wikipedia editors, whether it is well-founded or not, is considered Harrassment, see Outing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had overlooked that. I have just added my comments to the ANI. Philip Cross (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You have reverted the Jonathan Cook page
You have edited the Jonathan Cook another 3 times now in the last 10 minutes, you have broken the 1RR again,that is twice now in less than 24hrs even after you have been told not to. I suggest you self revert now or I am going to have to report you for breaking the 1RR rule.Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No I haven't. The 1RR/3RR applies to the content from our disopute this morning, not changes to other parts of an article. I would try and report me quickly if I were you. My guess is that Slim Virgin has a good memory. [Weblog link from 2007 redacted] Philip Cross (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Talking about SlimVirgin, I have just emailed to her some links to articles by [redacted] which will help her decide that the person behind Citylightsgirl is also [redacted] who is Zrdragon12. You behaviour over the John Cook article in connection with Gilad Atzmon helps prove my point at [blog which helps identity a 'pseudonymous' user] and of a justifiably prominent journalist [whose name would help identity a 'pseudonymous' user] and you and your BNP sympathising significant other are indeed putting on a red act. I wish you had linked to the WP pages on virtual harrassment. It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.


 * I look forward to 'communicating' with you around 2017 - NOT. Philip Cross (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Other editors
People who disagree with you about important issues have the right to edit Wikipedia regardless of their identity and personal history. Please do not harass other users as you did here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry again. Why this user has not deposited an email address is a mystery. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's optional, as you know. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)