User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 29

"Two Cities protests" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Two Cities protests. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sputnik
I left you a message on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Stranger in the House (1997 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stranger in the House (1997 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stranger in the House (1997 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 40, July – August 2020 
 * New partnerships
 * Al Manhal
 * Ancestry
 * RILM
 * #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
 * AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Acrylics
Hi Philip. Thanks for all your work on the acrylic paint article. I am utterly clueless in all visual arts fields, which perhaps makes me a good reader but a dangerous editor for this! I wondered if you could kindly have a look at the second photo caption please. It currently reads: Examples of acrylic wash over other colors. Notice how the two different colors would be difficult to converge even in wet conditions. I found this close to impenetrable. (And I apologize if you are its author! I'm afraid I didn't check the whole history ...).

If you like I can dissect for you why exactly I don't think it works, but I hope it might be obvious. Is it possible to rewrite it into something more accessible, please? (And, yes, preferably without telling our readers to notice stuff, which I thought was a nono!) ... I feel as if I know it's wrong but I don't know quite how to make it right.

I hope this makes sense and comes across as neither rude nor onerous in intent. Please feel free to shout at me as required.

Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, you are quite comprehensible. I think the writer was trying to make a point about the less flexible ability of acrylics to be used in the Wet-on-wet method, but was not clear. Philip Cross (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. The new succinct version is SO much better ... and even I can understand it! With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Rob Cowan
WP:BLP. Please familiarise yourself with it before reinserting unsourced information onto the article. Thanks.  Cassianto Talk  16:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any source online helping to avoid potential confusion, the new citation mentioning Cowan's family should resolve the issue indirectly. Philip Cross (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, my main problem with what was there was that we were mentioning something that he was not. Inevitably, if we were to do that, the list would be endless: he was not a campanologist; he was not a Sagittarius; he was not a native of Dorset? You've worded it for the better, IMO. Thanks.   Cassianto Talk  19:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice
Nice copyedit! Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

Max Blumenthal article
Hi, you reverted my edit on Max Blumenthal because you mentioned Blumenthal needs to be mentioned in the source. The material added is about Atzmon, not Blumenthal. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう  09:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue arises because you added material about Gilad Atzmon to the article about Max Blumenthal. The policy I cited in the edit summary, refers to the creation of synthesis, part of the page on original research. In a nutshell, if the subject of an article (Blumenthal) is not mentioned in the citation, it cannot be used because it becomes the editor's interpretation rather than being something directly originating in a source. Philip Cross (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pardon my ignorance, but what is exactly being synthesed here? The content added was about providing a context to who Atzmon is, is straight from the Atzmon article itself, and does not imply anything else. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう  09:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend you follow Wikipedia policies, which I have explained to you. Philip Cross (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in my response indicates I don’t intend to follow Wikipedia policies. Please don’t immediately assume bad faith. I’m explaining to you why I think your interpretation of the policy does not apply here, a discussion that you don’t seem be interested. A synthesis, per the policy page, requires A + B therefore C. The edit I made is only A. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう  10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * But does not even mention Blumenthal. The passage reads: "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says 'A' in one context, and 'B' in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of 'therefore C', then 'therefore C' cannot be used in any article." Philip Cross (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m going to ask you the third and the last time here. What is the C here? It’s a description of a person, a singular thing. It doesn’t connect to anything else. There is no therefore anywhere. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう  10:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You are trying to Connect Atzmon to Blumenthal when the connection isn't made in the source. Wikipedia has internal links to inform users about Atzmon if required. Philip Cross (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I followed the breadcrumbs here from WP:3O. I don't see the WP:SYN issue that is complaining about. Nothing in that policy states that every reference used in a BLP must mention the subject of the BLP, and like I don't see what C would be in the purported A + B train of thought. If it's relevant to the topic to mention praise from David Duke and Gilad Atzmon, then surely it's relevant or at least useful to the reader to briefly clarify who these folks are. Yilloslime (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Kate Shemirani
Philip, I saw you improved one reference (by adding a quote), but entirely removed another reference which was also published by Jewish Chronicle. Was there a reason for removing that source? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My mistake, two articles by the same journalist in the same newspaper a day apart. Now as it should be. Philip Cross (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work
I really appreciate the improvements you made to Kate Shemirani and Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). The articles are more coherent and definitely easier to read. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald / Castro
What’s your take on Greenwald posting this: https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/802495984848736256?lang=en ?

Do you think he just reported the news or sympathetic?

Regards.

Kacziey (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Straight translation from the Portuguese. He might agree with it, he might not. Philip Cross (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore
My source is Jimmy Dore. Do I really need to cite that? Why are you blocking the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuttiShruti (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You added a POV statement on the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack which no reliable source sustains, including the one which follows in the article about Dore. Philip Cross (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ref format
Hi Philip, that reference format in the GBD article seems to be giving trouble. It looks like the length of it causes a line warp or something, and it's leading to other references not to be displayed. I had a look at it, but I think you were also editing it at the time. Arcturus (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like you fixed it. Cheers, Arcturus (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hi Philip Cross! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Richard B. Spencer that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Some might also say it was an inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK, but I am assuming good faith, just be careful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, the addition of this material has been contentious before, so I assumed no further comment needed to be made. Philip Cross (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

White Helmets
No you're right, not "officially", just purely off the record. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 41, September – October 2020 
 * New partnership: Taxmann
 * WikiCite
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Would you please help me translate some "British English"?
I am drafting a bio but having trouble with The Guardian. How do I translate "comprehensive-educated" into comprehensible wiki-linked prose? Does saying that he has "chambers" in Middle Temple convey useful information that should be included in a bio? (I am not sure if it is "too soon" for this bio, but I came across his name in an article related to another BLP that I created.) Thanks if you can help, and if you can't I will try somebody else. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Comprehensive school link you have used is fine, although for someone from Liverpool Comprehensive school (England and Wales) would be more precise. Inns of Court is OK also over Chambers as Chambers (law) could be misunderstood. Try Help desk for further assistance. Philip Cross (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your kindness and your proposed different way to get help with this. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales
I've created An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales largely from your work at Martin Bashir. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the information. Best. Philip Cross (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll ping you when I take it to DYK, hopefully later this week. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazon as a source
Hi Philip, I noticed you removed an Amazon.com source from the Ron Unz article. I'm not looking to argue about it; I have an honest question because I don't know the policy myself. Are all links from Amazon not allowed as sources? I can definitely see why a better source would be preferable, but if one doesn't exist, is the link from Amazon allowed as a sort of "better than nothing at all" source? And if not, should the entire statement be removed? Dennis Osmosis (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed it on the basis of Spam, rather than sourcing, although you may find Reliable sources/Perennial sources useful. Philip Cross (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is indeed a useful table. I noticed it said "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work", which is why I assume Doug Weller added it, back in August. I don't know, but it seems either the Amazon source is fine, or the whole paragraph should just be thrown out. Leaving that bit of trivia about a self-published book without a source seems like the worst of the three options.

Nomination of Benny Lee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benny Lee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Benny Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hi. May I ask you to copy edit this draft - The Insider? I saw you copyedited Bellingcat, so I thought you might help me. Thanks in advance.--Renat (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's greetings

 * Belated thankyou, and the same best wishes to you. Philip Cross (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting of Lauren Southern and Mark Levin talk pages
Hello, Philip, I reviewed Talk_page_guidelines. Your recent reversion of the Lauren Southern and Mark Levin talk pages do not qualify under any of these. Moreover, the posts to these and other Adler editorials are not spam. I went through the T.D. Adler posts with several search engines and picked out the ones which were most applicable rather than just a broad opinion. The ones I posted were all that I found. Not all of the Adler editorials were posted on Breitbart, although most were. As you note, Breitbart is deprecated: see Deprecated_sources. This does not forbid its use on talk page discussions. As for spamming potential, please click on "page information" for the talk pages, and then scroll to the bottom of the page. There is a link which will show a graph for views. You will see from this that there are very few views to talk pages. So these posts are not spam because there's very little audience and I posted them thoughtfully rather than as a bot. I am certainly not suggesting these editorials for inclusion on the article pages. Had the editorial referred only to the topic rather than the Wikipedia article itself, I would not have posted it.

In short I am looking for a commitment from you not to revert my talk page comments when they refer to an Adler editorial. As for getting something from me, I understand that the media mention template is not a good fit for these editorials. So I will not post them as such.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you check the edit history of the Lauren Southern talk page you will see that I am not the only editor to remove the Breitbart article from the Lauren Southern talk page, and I do not suppose I will be the last. Philip Cross (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I went and posted a similar comment on another editor's page. You might find Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/SMcCandlish/Questions interesting (question #2), even though it is only tangentially related to this. Discussing these editorials and their merits or demerits should help to reduce their power at least by showing that WP editors aren't afraid of them. If there are falsehoods or omissions, a discussion should help to point them out. So if I re-add the comment to the Southern article, you will not remove it?Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not suppose the citations will be removed by only one editor. Best not to supply this individual with any new material, but make use of any valid points such as citations being wrong for a passage of text. Philip Cross (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can write a new comment centered around a particular point made in the editorial. Will you accept this?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, and the nonsensical personal attacks of a banned user have no place on the encyclopedia. They can rant all they want on Breitbart (or their own random personal blog) - we're under no obligation to host them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

John Cromwell...photo portrait?
I noticed you've taken an interest in the reedited John Cromwell (director) and demonstrated your familiarity of his filmography.

Perhaps you know of an image/portrait in the public domain that would satisfy Wiki Commons requirements. It seems a pity that Cromwell's handsome visage should not ornament the article. Lord Such&#38;Such (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ad Hominem/Disruptive Editing
Please refrain from any ad hominem and disruptive editing. A talk section is available for editing controversies on article PressTV, otherwise the items on record need attention by an admin (hopefully not). DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is consensus that Press TV is generally unreliable" and "is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial." Not most people's idea of mainstream. Philip Cross (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Abby Martin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Apeholder (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * No, because it does not apply when reverting vandalism, such as the removal of reliable sources as a personal preference rather for following policies, such as substituting a better source. Philip Cross (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable as per the RS page. You totally ignored the description of the site, how strange Apeholder (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As I indicated before it is a green listed site. The full description is as follows: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." In other words it is as issue of personal discretion. If you use the string '"Abby Martin" fluoridation' on Google, you will find the assertion is entirely accurate. Philip Cross (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 42, November – December 2020 
 * New EBSCO collections now available
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
 * Library Card input requested
 * Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Philip Cross - British politics. Thank you. Cambial Yellowing (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2021‎

FAC: Love for Sale (Bilal album)
Hi. Can you review my nomination of this article please? Here is the criteria for featured articles, if you choose to do so. Thank you. isento (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)