User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 26

August 2018
Have included a reference where she discusses how she worked as a dominatrix in the past. Please spend 3 min to watch it. It can’t get more reliable than that. I would appreciate if you don’t retract my editing. https://www.express.co.uk/videos/78251/Ex-Dominatrix-Nichi-Hodgson-s-sex-and-relationship-tips-Part-One


 * As I typed in the edit summary, you did not use a reliable source which Wikipedia needs for verification. It does not matter if the biographical detail is true, it needs to be demonstrated within Wikipedia policies. Philip Cross (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, in any case, does not add such a potentially disparaging detail at the beginning of Biographies of Living Persons. Please use four tildes (or swing dash ~ ) at the end of your post. Philip Cross (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Violations of topic ban
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. KalHolmann (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Update. It seems that ANI was the wrong forum. I have opened an Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Sorry for the confusion. I am new at this. KalHolmann (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse
Given the subject matter of this article, and in particular the discussion in the section entitled Margaret Thatcher's government, do you really think it wise to be editing it? 86.147.197.31 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Self reverted. Philip Cross (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Word to the wise
If you think that anybody with an agenda against you might be able to argue even remotely plausibly that an edit is in the area of your TBAN, ask for advice before editing or even commenting. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

A goat for you!
Thank you for your great idea on Pelvic floor, I've replaced and improved the lead images, please make some comment if you find this in other articles, it's unfortunately not an uncommon issue that we should be addressing.

Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
With respect to your recent edits to Talk:Louise Ellman, I am requesting that ArbCom enforce its topic ban against you. KalHolmann (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, here is a link to my request. KalHolmann (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Self-reverted. Philip Cross (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, per discussion at WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  12:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Books & Bytes – Issue 29
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 29, June – July 2018  Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * New partners
 * Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
 * Wikimania
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

British politician
Please don't do this. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

William Joyce
Thanks for the edit summary in your restoration of my revert to this article. In the future, you might consider using "rvv" ("revert vandalism"), which is a fairly standard abbreviation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Should "Template:Art Ensemble of Chicago" have "musician" categories?
Why should Template:Art Ensemble of Chicago have musician categories such as Category:American musicians templates and Category:Jazz musicians templates if they are ensembles of multiple people? Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Footer templates
I see that you've added several footer templates to album pages. I assume you're a fan of Kenny Burrell. What do you feel is the benefit of having these templates when the musician's name is already linked in the text? Vmavanti (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Original vs reissues
Please excuse the reverts at Bobby Timmons. Original issues are listed, even when they link to one article, because a discography conventionally stresses original issues over reissues. The main creator of jazz album articles here typically opts for CD reissues, which often combine original releases, hence the existence of one article instead of two. Listing in the discography what was actually released, rather than re-released, seems reasonable to me, even if that means that >1 link points to the same place. EddieHugh (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, you are quite right about standard discographical practice. Wikipedia policy, however, is not to have multiple adjacent links to the same target article. I have assumed in the past that this website's practice should take precedence, but my tendency to do so is rather pointless if it is likely to be changed back. Philip Cross (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Which policy is that? I usually go with a combination of the MoS (MOS:REPEATLINK: "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead") and the FL requirement to link every occurrence in sortable tables. EddieHugh (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018  French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
 * Library Card translation
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Steve King
You are invited to participate at Talk:Steve King. R2 (bleep) 17:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Navboxes for jazz musicians
I see you've been hard at work creating these, but they are problematic when you start including every appearance of every musician. These need to be limited to only including works where the musician is the primary artist, and not every album they've ever appeared on. That's what the discography articles are for, not navboxes. -- wooden superman  14:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That is a matter of opinion. There appears not to be a policy document expressing an opinion contrary to the practice I have followed, and it is not a practice unique to myself. Philip Cross (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE will help. See also WP:FILMNAV for a parallel situation regarding primary creators of material.  Articles in a navbox should have strong ties to the subject of a navbox, and to each other, which is not the case if the subject is only a part of the process.  -- wooden  superman  15:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi can you look at Farrago (magazine) please? it needs work
Hi, Given your interest in Australian student publications, can you please go through Farrago (magazine), if possible? Thank you in advance. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Press coverage 2018
Hi. I hope you're not getting the impression that I'm stalking your edits. That page is on my watchlist and, like you, I'm one of the top ten editors ;-). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I should have made a direct reference to Wikipedia in my edit ("his [Wikipedia] edits seemed to chime with Kamm’s..."), although since the page is about this project's press coverage that might be considered obvious. I did not use the quote you have substituted because the "close connection" template has clearly been falsely attached to the article about Oliver Kamm; the arbcom case found no evidence of a close connection between Mr Kamm and myself or that I am his meat puppet. The quote now used is misleading as it appears to fuel the conspiracy theory that Oliver Kamm has been editing Wikipedia using a pseudonym/sock puppet which Ron McKay, in his short diary item as a whole, is no longer trying to imply. I would prefer the quote to be changed to avoid this problem as it misrepresents two living individuals. Philip Cross (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking. I saw two reasonable quotes given the material/topic (Press coverage about WP), the other was "Editing Wiki has become an obsession, or addiction, to some people. A guy called Philip Cross is the prime example." and I liked that less. As I understand it, you agree with the writer's implied thought in "my" quote (that the template is nonsense). I don't know if he's right or wrong, and I don't know if the connected contributor template at Talk:Oliver Kamm is reasonable or not. But as I see it, the "Press" page is quoting the The Herald's comment on WP reasonably well, and if there's a problem at Talk:Oliver Kamm, that should be solved there. Press coverage can often be wrong or misleading, that is in it's nature. It's still press coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Another quote I can live with: "That Mecca, or Jerusalem, of sources, Wikipedia. More and more of us rely on it to provide information and background and, while a sort of people’s encyclopaedia is a wonderful idea, the practicality is that there are no real safeguards, it’s open to anyone to add to or alter items." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Editing Wiki has become an obsession, or addiction, to some people. A guy called Philip Cross is the prime example" would be fine. It is unflattering, but it is fair comment, not inaccurate and perfectly acceptable because it does not include a potential libel. The second quote you suggest is, apart from Ron McKay's reference to Mecca and Jerusalem, the most used way to introduce Wikipedia as is this project's most commonly perceived flaw. In other words, Ron McKay's brief item might as well not be included in the press coverage article as it presents nothing new. Philip Cross (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is indeed common, but things like In a hysterical world, Wikipedia is a ray of light – and that’s the truth also exists, so some people (perhaps even many) see that aspect as well, and even write about it. I personally don't ask of presscoverage to state something new (but feel I've found way too much on the Trump-penis thing), so I'm ok with including it, but the page will survive either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Thankyou, MarnetteD. And the same good wishes to you. Philip Cross (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * OAWiki
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Breach of Arbitration
Arbitration Request

I have asked that your edits to Rachel Riley be reviewed due to her involvement with in the UK labour antisemitism debate and her connection to George Galloway.

It is only to gain clarification on to what level your topic ban applies. I think although minor it is very close to the wind in this case due to the Galloway connection.

I hope there is no ill will

Alextiffin88 Alex Tiffin (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. Philip Cross (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Zimbabwe fuel protests
Thanks for your edits on the Zimbabwe fuel protests article. It is always good to see more people involved in an article. I do however have one question, largely out of curiosity more than anything else. Why did you change the date format from "15th January 2019" for example to "January 15, 2019"? It is a bit of an unusual format for southern African Wikipedia article topics. I have seen it used in a few places but it is not very common from what I can tell. Thanks, --Discott (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia tends to use the American date format (mdy) rather than the European/English (dmy) and ordinals are never used. Although the latter could be considered appropriate owing to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, English is not the main language used in Zimbabwe. Philip Cross (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Another user has now switched the article to dmy. Philip Cross (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is true that English is not the main language in Zimbabwe but there is still Zimbabwean English that should be used for Zimbabwean articles which is very similar to South African English. English is not the main language of many countries but that does not mean we should default to American English in those cases.  If that was the case then All South African related articles should be written in American English which is not the case as English is also not the main language of South Africa.--Discott (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 'English is not the main language used in Zimbabwe' ... did you have a particularly 'liquid' of a ten/11-course luncheon in the West End yesterday?! Anyway, seriously! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I have not consumed any alcohol since last April, but check the Languages of Zimbabwe article for the issue you raise. Philip Cross (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Native languages ≠ official languages ≠ the most-commonly-used languages for  official  purposes (and in Zimbabwe, mm-dd-yyyy was definitely no longer used as a format by the start of the Second World War, if not the First) ... drop the James O'Brien 97.3 act! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Thanks for contributing to the article Hank Jones discography. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Westminster paedophile ring listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Westminster paedophile ring. Since you had some involvement with the Westminster paedophile ring redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It would probably be unwise for me to do so owing to a topic ban on post-1978 British politics. Thanks all the same. Philip Cross (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Word to the wise
Hello, I'm Tobias Epos. I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions — specifically this edit to Robert Faurisson — did not appear constructive, because it is related to Richard Williamson, who is placed in the categories Antisemitists in England and English Holocaust deniers. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Tobias Epos (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that anybody with an agenda against you might be able to argue even remotely plausibly that an edit is in the area of your TBAN (British politics topic ban), ask for advice before editing or even commenting.

Books & Bytes, Issue 32
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 32, January – February 2019  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New and expanded partners
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)