User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 28

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ban status query
I noticed on Twitter today someone complaining that you are "openly flouting" your topic ban from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. But you were entitled to appeal that ban after six months, and it's been 1½ years. So I searched "appeal" and "unblock", respectively, in your User Talk archives, but found no indication that you had appealed. The person on Twitter specified your minor edits here, in which you merely italicized a couple of names. Nevertheless, it does seem germane to inquire as to your block status, since James Bloodworth is an English journalist and writer, born in 1982, who writes about post-1978 British politics. Please, would you clarify this? Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I knew who the Twitter user would be before I checked. The individual concerned was banned from editing for creating multiple sock accounts/IP hoping for the purpose of adding improperly sourced information to a BLP. The final count reached 17, if I remember correctly. Please see WP:PROXYING.


 * Incidentally, there is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics in the article you cite and you should check the enforcement requests (most recent first) in which it will become clear I probably would not be considered to have broken the topic ban. Philip Cross (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. As shown by the word query in the title of the section I opened here, I was not asserting that you'd broken the topic ban. Rather, I inquired as to whether or not that ban is still in effect. Instead of answering directly, you advised me to check the enforcement requests. Accordingly, I searched the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement archive.


 * I found three applicable items. On 13 August 2018, administrator blocked you for a week for violating your topic ban. On 17 January 2019, Sandstein took no action because the edits and pages in question were not about British politics. On 23 April 2019, administrator  took no action because neither the article nor the edits in question related to British politics.


 * Certainly the two most recent closures reinforce that you are free to edit pages that do not relate to British politics. However, I dispute your present contention that "there is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics" in the BLP James Bloodworth (journalist), which you edited on 10 February 2020 and that includes the following references to post-1978 British politics.
 * Bloodworth is a former member of Britain's Trotskyist group Alliance for Workers' Liberty, who edited the left-wing UK political news and comment site Left Foot Forward from 2013 until 2016.
 * He blogged from 2013 to 2015 at The Spectator, which Wikipedia identifies as a UK political magazine.
 * He is the author of The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Working-Class Kids Still Get Working-Class Jobs (2016), whose Amazon product description states: "Hitherto, Labour and Conservative politicians alike have sought to deal with the problem by promoting the idea of 'equality of opportunity'. In politics, social mobility is the only game in town, and old socialist arguments emphasising economic equality are about as fashionable today as mullets and shell suits."
 * He is the author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain (2019), whose Amazon product description quotes Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to then UK prime minister Theresa May: "Whatever you think of the political assertions in this book—and I disagree with many of them—this is an important investigation into the reality of low-wage Britain. Whether you are on the Right, Left or Centre, anybody who believes in solidarity and social justice should read this book."
 * He has praised Roger Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left (2015), a book that proved controversial (Wikipedia tells us) because of Scruton's attacks on the British Left.


 * In an article about a living British journalist that is still classified as a stub, this is an impressive amount of detail related to post-1978 British politics.


 * As for what I take to be your pointed advice "Please see WP:PROXYING," I assure you that I have contributed to your User Talk page at the direction of no one. NedFausa (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have edited multiple articles in the last eighteen months which mention publications which cover British current affairs or mention that someone is a member (or former member) of a British political party or organisation. This includes some of the articles mentioned in the AE requests. Deciding whether an article comes under politics is dependent on the content of the article, not what outside sources say, so the quotes you cite concerning Hired are not relevant here. Similarly, James Bloodworth's description of the Roger Scruton book, referring to "some of the most fashionable left-wing thinkers of the past 50 years", itself makes no mention of the individual's nationality. The only political figures mentioned in the article are Senator Bernie Sanders, a White House press secretary (Joshua Earnest) and President Bashar al-Assad, all of whom are either American or Syrian. Philip Cross (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Reynhard Sinaga
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Author & Professional Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie
I have a request for help from you: Can you kindly provide me with some support for the Alan Roger Currie article that I created in April 2015?? I would VERY MUCH appreciate your support and assistance. Thank you. The Discussion is HERE Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ron Unz
Hi Philip,

I'm wondering, at what point, and at how many sources, does an "assertion" just become plain obvious fact? I mean, those are three really solid sources (NYT, etc), and if you look at some of these pages on the site:

Section devoted to black crime

The End of White America

"the problem of carjacking is an almost entirely black affair"

Article by white supremacist Jared Taylor

I'm just asking, why do we need to water down the description of this site by saying things that imply "well, only a few sources think this" when it's self-evident? It's not like there are any reliable sources that contradict these assertions. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unz
I really think discussing this on the article's talk page would be better than discussing it in edit summaries. I have started the discussion already, please join in. Thank you. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have responded to you on the talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we're on the same side here; the people trying to damage that article are the ones who would like to whitewash (no pun intended) Unz's views on white supremacy. You and I are both trying to improve it, I think. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, you did offer....
Thank you for the welcome and the pointers Philip. I appreciate it.

I found my way here after watching Murdered for Being Different on iPlayer. I personally found the article quite clunky and long winded and felt sure I could improve it. However, as it took me 3 attempts to add one paragraph to Jack Ma's bio I'm a bit wary of tackling it! Can you have a look at the article, particularly the plot section, and tell me what you think? I'd like to expand Murdered by My Boyfriend too, which is less onerous, and may be a better starting point. --DeltaSnowQueen (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Polite reminder
Hi, just a polite reminder to refrain from editing articles about British politicians, as you recently did here and here. Also, British political journalists is a no-go area, too (won't list each edit but they are many). Regards, — kashmīrī  TALK  18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Richard Crossman died in 1974, my topic ban applies to post-1978 British politics. The edits to articles about British journalists require political content for the TB to apply, as you will find if you will check the enforcement requests. Philip Cross (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020 
 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media
Hi, I see that you were involved in earlier interactions on Piers Robinson's talk page back in 2018 about the initial deletion of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media article. Given that the WGSPM has had increased coverage since then with the OPCW leaks on Douma, as well as a general agreement with recent discussion on Piers's that it is probably worth merging Piers's article into a newly created WGSPM article, a Draft now exists at Draft:Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Your participation in the discussion would be appreciated, given your involvment in previous discussions. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As this is mostly about Syria, does this violate your topic ban? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, not because it's about Syria. Rather, it falls under Philip Cross's topic ban because this article is unquestionably about British politics. --NSH001 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate the rudeness for an innocent question, you can see from my editing history that this isn't my usual wheelhouse. As someone who is not familiar with Philip Cross or his topic ban, can you give me a TL;DR explanation? Why is Philip notorious enough to have been [Redacted, PC]?, I have some vague sense from the news reporting that he edited the articles of UK anti imperialist activists like George Galloway, who aren't exactly uncontroversial figures in their own right. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , the relevant page for my topic ban is here. The immediate issue was discussed in the evidence phase. Philip Cross (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for removing the link. I thought including it was a bad idea immediately after sending it and I apologize for including it. Most of your editing seems fine. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So-called "disinformation" for broadcasters over White Helmets
You're having a laugh, right? That supposed to convince Sputnik and the others who know about the Helmets that they are wrong? It's called proof by assertion as is your sustained push for WP:TRUTH. I applied bold on your since you are well-known off-Wiki enough to be one of those who heavily pushes the globalist narratives. I've got bad news for you. Less and less of the WESTERN public believe your "sources" (mainstream media and affiliates) any more, less than half in fact. I can see that your cartel is more powerful on this project, but in the real world, it is a losing battle for you. And that in turn is thanks to access to information and in particular those news networks that make your skin crawl for deconstructing your myths and whom you want silenced in the Orwellian fashion. There are more networks from more countries to expose and report on the Helmets are terrorists, but I fear that in the current paradigm they would only be consigned by your buccaneers to the "disinformation" pile for no other reason than they don't fit the falsehoods you and your mainstream affiliates promote. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Post-1978 British politics
Given the Thorpe Affair rumbled on until 1979 (actually the police interviewed one connected party less than two years ago) and Jeremy Thorpe was an MP until the 1979 general election, don't you think your edits this morning kind of breach the spirit, if not the actual letter, of the restrictions against you (or have they now been lifted)? - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have not directly edited any of the post-1978 passages. Philip Cross (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Monk 10-inch LP chronology
Hey there! I recognize that the term "Mini-LP" is arguably a misnomer, since that was used when 10" records were reintroduced in the late 1970's. Nonetheless, there _were_ two distinct formats of long playing record in the early 1950's; it was simply rare for the 12" format to be used for albums other than classical pieces (Benny Goodman being a notable exception). Anyway, I do want to honor your take on this. But please hear me out for a moment:

The reason the separate 10-LP chronology was set up for those Monk pages was to diffuse an ongoing difficulty in organizing these pages. Monk's early albums were reconfigured, and some pages addressed _several_ versions of a given album, which were released in drastically different configurations with the same name. An agreement was reached: The chronology bifurcates into a 12" version and a 10" version. This was a solution hard-arrived at after an unpleasant ongoing back and forth last fall.

You might have noticed that these pages still contained two "Thelonious Monk" chronologies; with your edits, it simply wasn't clear anymore why they were both there. So I added the term "10-inch LP" to differentiate them, while honoring your removal of "Mini-LP."

Thanks for your understanding. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 10-inch LP is the better option, "mini-LP" is not the usual rendering as I indicated and has not been used for other cases (as far as I could determine) where 10-inch LPs were reconfigured for 12-inch issue. Philip Cross (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Tom Cotton
Hi, please have another look at this. Since Durbin is not a Republican, I think you meant something else. —Emufarmers(T/C) 00:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Emufarmers(T/C) 20:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 39, May – June 2020 
 * Library Card Platform
 * New partnerships
 * ProQuest
 * Springer Nature
 * BioOne
 * CEEOL
 * IWA Publishing
 * ICE Publishing
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2414 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typo
That was pretty cool lol GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Breitbart is a far-right
Your modification: here is deeply disturbing!!!

Breitbart is a far-right, not right-wing, Philip. Far-right.

This may *not* be changed without getting consensus on the talk page. Any attempts may result in an immediate block. See Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3



And you obviously know it. --217.234.70.55 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The source said "right wing". On Wikipedia, assertions are verified by sources. Of course, Breitbart News is described as far right in multiple sources, but adding personal interpretation in such a context is still original research. The RfC applied to the description in the lead of the Breitbart News article. The closing admin wrote "yes, it is appropriate, in certain circumstances, to refer to Breitbart as far-right", which does not allow for an automatic description of Breitbart News as far-right. Philip Cross (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Changed the source so Breitbart News usual description matches the citation. As an edit war on this point was clearly a distinct possibility, it seemed necessary. The Stella Immanuel article was being heavily edited yesterday, so ensuring statements in a BLP were properly cited was more important. Philip Cross (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Your recent editing history at Max Blumenthal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now quoted Max Blumenthal directly from his appearance on RT's Going Underground leaving no doubt that my rephrasing was reasonable. Should stop any future edit wars on this passage. Philip Cross (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ron Unz
Hello, I recently restored the status quo when a user made edits that seemed to downplay Unz's anti-semitism. This user has challenged my revert on the talk page in a way that I'm not 100% sure how to respond to since I haven't been very involved in the development of the article. Looking over its recent history, I see that you've made some excellent contributions and defended it from disruptive users in the past. If you have any advice on how I might best respond that would be very helpful. Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirects which are not broken
Please do not "fix" redirects that already point to the correct page location, as you did at United States v. Flynn. As a second point, please follow WP:BRD: when you make a change which is reverted for cause (in this case, WP:NOTBROKEN) especially when the relevant policy is quoted to you and linked in the edit summary, do not re-revert in order to insist on your preferred version. Instead, follow the terms of BRD, and raise a discussion on the Talk page. In this case, this is not a content dispute, but a policy-based one: please leave redirects be when they already point to the correct location, and do not try to "resolve" them with a piped link. Thank you, Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Inviting you to take place in a discussion about Chris Mullin page
Hi, how are you?

As you know, right now the Chris Mullin page leads directly to the basketball player, which I find a tad ridiculous, as outside of the US, hardly anyone has heard of him, and in Britain when they say Chris Mullin they clearly refer to the politician Chris Mullin (politician).

I've started a discussion on the Talk:Chris Mullin page, under the title Talk:Chris Mullin, and would really appreciate it if you could voice your piece there.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Martin C. Thurley
Prima facie the link appears valid.

Jim Craigie (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As the link was to Thurley's wife, Jan Francis, it seemed to be unfortunate, like women being subsumed by their husband's biographies. Jan Francis also appeared in Play for Today, but formally, we cannot have an easter egg link and a link to an article's main subject. What point is a link which only mentions Thurley's marriage? Philip Cross (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now created Redirect pages for Thurley and linked to these, which is usual where one spouse is notable and the other is mentioned but not notable enough for his/her own article. I don’t really see it as one being subsumed by the other, just different notabilities. In addition to identifying his spouse, the link mentions children, residence, etc, but by inference that he wasn’t a very notable actor who doesn’t appear to have worked since the 1970s, and an even less notable writer (no mentions at all in Wikipedia), unless he writes under an unlinked pseudonym.


 * I think your assertion that there cannot be links to both the main subject and also to a section of the same article is not correct – I’ve not seen any policy stating that. But MOS:REPEATLINK says “if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, ...” – and for tables that are sortable where rows may be read in any order, or where individual rows may be read via links to section anchors, it is helpful to readers to make each row standalone in terms of links.


 * Jim Craigie (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits of the q= on the Abby Johnson (activist) article seem to make the quote not display if q>1
Hello, I noticed you changed all the "q=" to "q1= ...qn=" ... I'm not familiar with that notation (other than having read the Template:R page), how does it work, because it seems that the quote now no longer displays on mouse-over of the page number (generally always page 1 on a webpage) for the reader to see, on ANY of the references using the q=2 and above:q=3,4,5 Does this functionality of the R function not work properly? I use the "& a p o s ;" because the quote stops displaying when it hits a single tick mark....Maybe the q=larger than one functionality does not work? All of the rest of your edits did improve the article, thank you!! --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried three browsers, but the quotes did not display, so I followed the template you mention about numbering quotes. As the p=1 value is a constant, the quotes do need to be numbered, or at least differentiated. It seemed to solve the problem on the whole. Philip Cross (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood my above paragraph. When you mouse-over the page number (1) on this statement for reference 4 in the current version of the article: "...of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood,[8]:1 [4]:1 whose spokesperson stated that Johnson's allegations were "completely false".[4]:1 " The quote displays for the first occurrence, (q=1. after Planned Parenthood), but NOT after "completely false"(q=2).  The quotes displayed on ALL occurrences BEFORE your edits, when you hovered with your mouse over the page number....it is called "ToolTips"--- Avatar317 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)