User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 27

Wild Women of Piano
Hi, Philip. I've heard you like jazz. Last night I read a blogpost from a savvy WP-critic about some interesting BLP-less people (Tammy Hall, Ellen Seeling, ...). Given your experience in the area, I thought you might find this blog-post nourishing, provocative, and possibly funny. Is there a jazz portal where this message would be welcome? Also, thanks again for fixing one of my mistakes (an author's name) a while back. :) SashiRolls t ·  c 12:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikileaks & Julian Assange
An editor has raised concerns that your recent edits related to wikileaks and Julian Assange are violations of your topic ban (see WT:AE). While I'm not convinced it's a blatant violation, it could be considered somewhat close to the edges of your ban. Please do go carefully and make sure you aren't seen to be violating it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I assumed the Indictment page was safe for me to edit as the issues are (or perhaps were then) judicial and around law enforcement, with the deterioration of relations between Assange, an Australian national, and Ecuador and the unsealed US indictment being the main elements with no explicit reference to domestic (UK) politics. The comment from a very senior British politician (I have assumed including her name might be inadvisable) was only reactive and in passing, and thus, I thought, outside the topic ban. As the AE request is the only contribution to Wikipedia by User:Guantolaka, it is possibly a banned user with a sock-puppet account. Please advise further if necessary. Philip Cross (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My thinking is similar, but as you've continued the edits after my message above I've posted the request for arbitration on the user's behalf. See there for details (well, some details) of the user making the request - their edit history had not gone un-noticed.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Seeking clarification Guantolaka (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, User:Guantolaka. Philip Cross (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the full context, and particularly given the unfortunate situation that you inserted exactly the opposite of what you clearly intended (in the edit summary) and left it for two days, I would like to recommend that you steer clear of this topic indefinitely. As I'm quite sure that people who attack you will read this, I hasten to add that it is not my place to order people around, and a kind word of recommendation from me is not a ruling or requirement.  But, I'm old, and I have seen a lot, and I do recommend it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

United Constitutional Patriots
You appear to be exhibiting ownership of this article. Please stop.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney
Hi, Philip. What did you mean with "best option is to list Google Books reprints as part of External Links" - You do not allow books she published to be listed? --87.170.198.242 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Online texts by the subject are usually listed in external links. The book could be listed as well in the usual way without the link, after the prose "Awards and honors", but in an article the repetition of (for example) an inline citation as an external links is normally avoided. As Google Books material is generally only included as a citation to verify the content of the main text, I am not sure there is a precedent as to handling the current issue. Philip Cross (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 33, March – April 2019 
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * 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) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Nan Winton
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit, I don't there's an issue with other sources talking about the Daily Mail, otherwise we wouldn't be able to write an article on the newspaper itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"False Flag"
It's not that I'm determined this content needs to go in, but the rationale you used to remove the link doesn't make sense, as peer review is a very particular standard and is not being applied to other external links.

I'll make a note on the talk page soon. If the "minority report" has gotten significant coverage in the Russian media it probably deserves a reference somewhere on the main article. -Darouet (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Russian media you refer to are not reliable sources. For that reason they are likely to be quickly removed. What would be the point? Philip Cross (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. RT (controversial topics, international politics) and Sputnik News are not recommended for use. Philip Cross (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Clarification Request archived
This is a courtesy notice that "BLP issues on British politics articles" at ARCA has been archived. You may view the final discussion here. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you meant your link to go to a different edit as it doesn't go to one made by Philip. Apologies if I'm wrong. I would like to thank you for this edit Philip. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ? I thanked him for undoing the edit I linked--now he knows where it came from, if he didn't before. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So I did misread things . Again my apologies. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks again, Philip. That whole Jewish thing pops up in different ways--there are still plenty of antisemites around. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 34, May – June 2019  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * Partnerships
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * 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) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Abby Martin
Given your issues with Galloway it would probably be wise to steer clear of anyone associated with RT. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have generally stuck to issues related to RT America using US sources. If I were to avoid any issues which might be considered to have a potential connection to certain individuals and organisations, that takes in a rather wide spectrum. That does not mean a request to ascertain the extent of my COI should not be considered, if necessary. Philip Cross (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard
This edit introduced a grammatical error and changed the meaning of the sentence. I know you like these subtle changes that make a big difference in meaning, but please, let's be respectful of one another. Seeing how it was, I thought I'd introduced the mistake myself... also remember she was on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, and so had access to any evidence provided to Congress. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 12:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marcel Berlins
 Spencer T• C 23:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

James Mason being alt-right
Both the Atomwaffen and James Mason articles say that he is part of Atomwaffen, which is an alt-right organization. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Citing Wikipedia articles in Wikipedia article is not admissible. To have a good chance of not being removed or challenged, nor considered synthesis, a source needs to link Atomwaffen + alt-right + James Mason. Only the HuffPost source in the relevant passage of the Atomwaffen does this. I have reverted my own edit and added this source. However, HuffPost is often considered a non-reliable source by other editors, so my new edits are still liable to be removed. Philip Cross (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Birth dates
See WP:DOB Doug Weller  talk 10:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Since it was a Library of Congress source confirmed by email to LOC by the subject, I did not consider the privacy issue to apply. It is also on at least one astronomy RS as well, among many other websites. Anyway, I have removed an additional DoB I added to the infobox as well as the full citation. Philip Cross (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

NPA
Hi,

I notice this edit of yours diff. In this edit you used edit line to attack living person. That is violation of Biographies of living persons. Please take better care about it in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * But what if it is fair comment? Among many other articles on Milošević by this author, see "Milosevic, Prisoner of Conscience" in the New Statesman from February 2002.
 * Philip Cross (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the article on my watchlist and keep an eye on changes made to it. I do not see any issue with the edit summary. It is, after all, what reliable sources say. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the article on my watchlist and keep an eye on changes made to it. I do not see any issue with the edit summary. It is, after all, what reliable sources say. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

In the blogs
In case you haven't seen this:. My guess is that you've probably seen worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Berlin Wall tunneling
FYI, I think you are being a trifle pedantic in making changes to the tunneling info. The Cross article mentions 70 tunnels. The AFP article mentions 75. The AFP article mentions the use of explosives. In my opinion, the cites map to the facts presented in the gestalt, not sentence by sentence. You also seem to have ditched the excellent Cross article completely. And, you substituted my AFP cite in the Bangkok Post for the identical AFP article in France24, as if it is somehow more acceptable. I don't get that. Give me the honour of adding the cite as, after all, I noted and used it. Thanks for your many other contributions. Seligne (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Times article is by David Crossland. As the Bangkok Post operates under the military government in Thailand, it is probably best not to use it, even if uses an agency source from France, which may or may not have been altered. Philip Cross (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You may have already seen this...
... but if not, you might like to know that you're in Medium's crosshairs again. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Query over topic ban
[Section moved from Talk:Douma chemical attack Philip Cross (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)]

A question for Philip: since the topic of the article relates to the war in Syria in which the UK is involved and you are topic banned from "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed", do you think you might be, at least a little bit, infringing that ban? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ZScarpia, since no one is accusing the UK government of the Douma chemical attack, I think you are stretching "broadly construed". The authors of the citations are known for diminishing or acquitting the responsibility of the Syrian government and military for atrocities. Philip Cross (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that you are looking at the question the wrong way round. Admins making judgements about whether there has been an infringement will be looking at what connects the subject matter in the article with that of the ban. I doubt, in this case, that the argument that it doesn't because nobody has accused the UK government of being the perpetrator would cut the mustard. The article Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War contains much material on the UK's involvement in that conflict. The UK is allied with the US, the Gulf states, Egypt and Israel in trying to effect regime change in Syria. It is the latest in a number of such attempts it has been involved with, including Iraq and Libya. My guess would be that it has been involved in fomenting unrest in Iran and backed the coup in Egypt. The Douma attack was used as a reason to escalate the UK's involvement in Syria. As to whether that relates to post-1978 British politics broadly construed, I think you're on pretty shaky ground. My impression is that topic-banned editors are supposed to act cautiously, erring on the side of avoiding pages unless editing there would clearly not be a breach or asking for clarification.
 * "The authors of the citations are known for diminishing or acquitting the responsibility of the Syrian government and military for atrocities." Are you arguing that the authors are "in the wrong" and should therefore be ignored?
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  23:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Take to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and scroll down to "Click here to add a new enforcement request". I look forward to your notification on my talk page that you have done so. By the way, User:Bobfrombrockley describes the issues with "the authors" more precisely than I was able to do. Philip Cross (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What I did: ask you (politely) whether you might be infringing your topic ban. What I didn't do: make an accusation that you have been infringing your topic ban. Personally, I think you're being incautious, but you're free to make your own judgements just as I'm free to decide whether to seek enforcement or not. If you've been laying down a pattern of straying onto the fringes of your ban, though, the consequences for you might be a bit nasty, though. By the way, I don't think this discussion is inappropriate here rather than on your talkpage, so collapsing it looks a bit petulant. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  01:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * petulant... right. Nice to meet you, too. Please review WP:TALK. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not myself who collapsed it. I am guided by earlier requests for arbitration enforcement failing to gain traction. Philip Cross (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC) [End of passage moved from Talk:Douma chemical attack, except for comment by VQuakr added on 19 December 2019.]


 * Noted. I did look back through the edit history, but obviously not carefully enough. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  16:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I just want to inform the discussion here about a small piece of Wiki Evidence: Dr. Cross did deleted yesterday (18. Dec) the only "dissenting" view sentence/link sentence from the other Douma-gas-attack related Wiki site OPCW_Fact-Finding_Mission_in_Syria. It was the hint to the WikiLeaks publications on the whistleblower revelations. A similar sentenced he (nearly) accused me of 1RR and 3RR violations when reinstating it in the page discussed here above.

The deletion in the other site was not discussed whatsover on the talk page of that article. As this missions report is clearly a contentios issue, I find it very straight just do delete any link or hint of a dissenting perspective, without deliberations with those who put the sentence in. I did not put this sentence in, and I will refrain from edit-warring with Dr. Cross. I would like to kindly encourage him to discuss a little, before hitting the delete button. KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a link to Talk:Douma chemical attack in the edit summary for the issue you raise. I think resolved the issue conclusively on the Douma chemical attack talk page and I recommended his comments. Jimmy Wales on Twitter has explained the issues too on sourcing policies, in some cases to users banned on this website, at great length. Complain to Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to take the issue further, but it ought to be clear by now you will be wasting your time. Philip Cross (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC) [amended Philip Cross (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)]

AN/I discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  IWI  ( chat ) 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:IWI, please read WP:PROXYING, you may find it helpful. Philip Cross (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These edits are mine and not at the direction of anyone.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Abby Martin
With this tweet, Abby Martin criticized your activity as a Wikipedian, referring to you as "this mysterious spook." I bring this to your attention not to spread her slander, but because I noticed that 16 hours after her tweet, you edited Martin's BLP. Forgive me for saying so, as I am new to Wikipedia, but this presents the appearance—to a newcomer at least—of a conflict of interest. I readily acknowledge that I have no way of knowing whether or not you saw her tweet before editing her BLP. But the timing is nevertheless unsettling. If I am off base here, please accept my apology. NedFausa (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * User:NedFausa, you will have read it, but for lurkers, an administrator has explained at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Philip Cross (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for directing me to the administrator's comment, which I had not seen. His explanation that "being attacked by a subject of an article you've already edited doesn't constitute a COI" certainly applies here. I failed to realize that you are a longstanding editor of Abby Martin, and that her tweet, which I cited, came after edits by you to her BLP over the course of nearly six years. I humbly withdraw my suggestion of a conflict of interest. NedFausa (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert
Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible SYNTH
Your 07:06, 13 January 2020 comment at ANI immediately follows my 06:49, 13 January 2020 question to you. Did you intend your comment as a reply to my question? If so, I cannot understand how the comment addresses what I wrote. The source said certain things. You used the source to assert something about a living person. My question relates to whether the source verifies the assertion because the edit looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Do you stand by your edit? If so, how do you justify making that assertion about a BLP subject? Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * How would you describe "no evidence" when there is evidence? In the quote, Khalek refers to the "alleged" attack, when only fringe figures (as now, mainly) were using the "false flag" or similar arguments. It is the Haaretz article which interprets the quote and her "no evidence" claim as denial (though it is introduced to suggest far right/far left parallels in the rejection of the attack). The early evidence was taken as indicating the attack was genuine and asserting pro-Assad forces were responsible and the Haaretz article follows this interpretation. In other words, I was only drawing on a source as WP editors should rather than inventing a claim. Philip Cross (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That reply looks like more SYNTH. What text in the source justifies asserting that she denied the Syrian government was responsible? The source actually quoted her as saying there was no evidence that the [Syrian] government carried out last week's alleged attack (and the date of her statement in relation to when the event took place is missing). At any rate, now that you have the BLP notice, you will be topic banned from all BLP articles if such SYNTH occurs again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As the full quote reproduced in the Haaretz article from which I drew in the deleted edits is from an RS, I will reproduce it here with a citation:"'Congratulations to all the war hawks and pundits and regime change propagandists who encouraged [Trump]. There is still no evidence that the [Syrian] government carried out last week’s alleged attack.'"


 * Thus it is should be completely clear Khalek's comments refer to the American military response to the Douma chemical attack on 14 April 2018; the article was published only three days later. Her comment was very recent, unless it can be proved Alexander Reid Ross had sourced a quote relating to another incident in the Syrian Civil War. Khalek blames the Western media for leading the Trump administration government to respond, in other words she was certainly aware evidence had been presented by mainstream media, but chose to disagree with it so denying its credibility. Plenty of the other citations which were deleted also suggested Khalek's favouritism towards Assad's government in Syria, as "regime change propagandists" does in this citation. I probably should have used the full quote, but the opening seemed off-topic. My response here should be raised in the AN/I discussion, because I believe the case for me having practiced SYNTH is slight.
 * Philip Cross (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Text like "should be completely clear" and "unless it can be proved" and "she was certainly aware" is complete SYNTH. The suggestion that "other citations" are relevant is off-topic because the only point I'm making is that you left the article in a state where a certain claim was made with a certain source, and the source did not verify the claim. There may be some confusion about what part of the claim I am saying is SYNTH although I spelled it out at ANI: the article said "Haaretz quoted her denial in April 2018 that the Syrian government was responsible..." yet the source said Khalek had posted that there was no evidence . Khalek may be totally wrong and at that time she should have known there was evidence—I don't know. I also agree that saying "there is no evidence" is a debating trick used by trolls the world over to spread confusion. However, we cannot know what was in Khalek's mind when she made the statement quoted by the source, and the source does not make any ruling on that. The source effectively says "she said there is no evidence" but the article effectively said "she denied the Syrian government was responsible". That is a blatant misuse of a source. Anyone can have a bad day but I am concerned that you still not getting it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Text like "should be completely clear" and "unless it can be proved" and "she was certainly aware" is complete SYNTH. The suggestion that "other citations" are relevant is off-topic because the only point I'm making is that you left the article in a state where a certain claim was made with a certain source, and the source did not verify the claim. There may be some confusion about what part of the claim I am saying is SYNTH although I spelled it out at ANI: the article said "Haaretz quoted her denial in April 2018 that the Syrian government was responsible..." yet the source said Khalek had posted that there was no evidence . Khalek may be totally wrong and at that time she should have known there was evidence—I don't know. I also agree that saying "there is no evidence" is a debating trick used by trolls the world over to spread confusion. However, we cannot know what was in Khalek's mind when she made the statement quoted by the source, and the source does not make any ruling on that. The source effectively says "she said there is no evidence" but the article effectively said "she denied the Syrian government was responsible". That is a blatant misuse of a source. Anyone can have a bad day but I am concerned that you still not getting it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You are citing my opinions from this talk page where they are totally admissible. I also made use of other sources, confirming the date of the American response, for this page. I added the Khalek quote saying "no evidence" after m assertion of denial, so readers could make up their own mind whether it was an accurate introduction. As I said above, I probably should have added the whole quote which makes the context clearly. It is rather clear what was in Khalek's mind. Philip Cross (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen your name mentioned on noticeboards and assumed from the context that you were an advanced editor with a team of opponents on political grounds. However your above comment, coming after everything else, is breathtaking. A core point of WP:BLP is that we do not cherry-pick factoids "so readers could make up their own mind". I don't know why you can't just see the very simple point I made above: the article said X but the source said Y, and a complex set of unsourced arguments is needed to stretch from Y to X. Please be aware that believing you are right is not a defense against a BLP topic ban if future problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps have said "confirm." It was added to the article in the context of all the other (deleted) cited material suggesting Rania Khalek is pro-Assad. Philip Cross (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * <-- this is an opinionated blogpost you added to embellished a BLP with a pullquote from .  Sounds like you're only to realio-trulio lastest warnings, you should be good for another while yet. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 10:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability
Hello, just please note that the WP:NOTABILITY does not apply to content within articles, as stated on the page itself, but only for the creation of a page. You cannot use this as basis for removal of content.  IWI  ( chat ) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In the context I used the term, notability is demonstrated by what reliable sources say, and the inclusion of content is dependent on them. You might find this link useful. Since you are keen on editing Syrian Civil War related articles, please note that editors' are strongly discouraged from making use of sources like RT (international topics entry) which may present President Assad and his government in a positive way Philip Cross (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes RT is unreliable. Don’t attribute these edits to the wrong guideline as all I’m saying.  IWI  ( chat ) 11:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Complaint by BoMbY
Hi, I'll just move this here. For your information, and for BoMbY getting a different response than someone else's "wrong noticeboard". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems very active to push a political agenda, and to defame certain people; constantly violating NPOV. Recently for example on Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek and Tim Anderson (political economist) BoMbY (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please talk to the user directly. If you are unsatisfied with their response, WP:ANI would theoretically be the right noticeboard to complain at. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have anything new to add to my comments on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the edits I made to Rania Khalek's article. My most recent edits to Ms Khalek's page have mostly been reverted, as have those for the Tim Anderson article. I have added many comments to the talk page of the Max Blumenthal article in the last few weeks and it is there that BoMbY should outline his problems with my edits. The Wikipedia articles about Anderson, Blumenthal and Khalek concern their politics and affiliations with the citations I have added being drawn from reliable sources in line with Wikipedia policies such as reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Jill Stein
<-- this is an opinionated blogpost you added to embellished a BLP with a pullquote from. Sounds like you're only to realio-trulio lastest warnings, you should be good for another while yet. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 10:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * User:SashiRolls, I have moved your comment to a new section. The sources used in the article on John Aravosis and AMERICAblog itself give it a high rating. On a regularly edited and viewed article (10,668 views since Christmas Day), no editor has chosen to remove the source and quote from Jill Stein's WP article and it remains after nearly fifteen months. It looks as though the consensus is that AMERICAblog is a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I just removed the blog (now only used 72 times on en.wp as a source) from her BLP. You'll notice someone embedded a "better reference" tag in the template on 22 October 2019. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c


 * As you wish. I had not noticed the better source tag was present although it was added almost a year after I edited the passage on 1 November 2018. Philip Cross (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised to find that it was Snoog who originally added that blogpost to the BLP? You guys know each other, or is it just a "birds of a feather" type thing? 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 00:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I quote User:SashiRolls entire edit summary (the ellipsis is not mine) : "sorry forgot to sign. looked at your 'revenge' edit over there. a lot was ok, but there was no need to blank her response about ranked choice voting. I imagine there's a bot that can straighten out date patterns... but I've added in some of your revisions." No, Stein's advocacy of ranked choice voting was entirely off-topic in the 'Russia probe' section. Philip Cross (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Didn't Snoog create that Russian probe part? I think so, maybe I'm wrong.  I bet he wasn't expecting HRC to get confused between Russians & Republicans when accusing Stein of being someone's "asset".   Stein said ranked choice voting was the cure for undue election meddling.  Maybe she is wrong, but it reads to be her opinion on the whole Russia-probity panic concerning her running for office in 2016. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 23:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism
Is that a MOS issue? I need the correct name on Kim Iversen. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a title, so you have used the correct form, see MOS:MAJORWORK. Awards are not mentioned directly but on the same MOS page (Manual of Style/Titles) the policy for "Exhibitions, concerts, and other events" is that they should not even be rendered in quotation marks, let alone italics, which may be assumed to include Awards. Philip Cross (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the MOS, some fun facts such as GB vs. GiBi not withstanding. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Cristina Odone/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cristina Odone/Archive 1. Since you had some involvement with the Cristina Odone/Archive 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP and Max Blumenthal
Hi, I'm a new editor so I'm not completely familiar with standard policies. I certainly don't want to cast aspersions, but I have some concerns about some of your recent editing. There's an AN/I with many editors expressing concerns about your edits to various BLPs, but on the Max Blumenthal article you've continued to make a considerable number of edits, comprising the majority of edits to that article in the last few days. None of the edits seem to be particularly contentious, but why do you feel the need to continue having such an active role in this BLP article? Given the concerns expressed by other editors, wouldn't it be more prudent to take a step back and consider contributing to other areas of the project for a while? Again I'm not trying to call your integrity into question, but to an outsider it could appear that you aren't taking the feedback of your peers very seriously. LittleChongsto (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your interest and concern. The last AN/I discussion on my edits to BLPs ended with no action, not even a warning. Philip Cross (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)