User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 3

Richard Littlejohn
Hi Philip, I noticed you reverted the Richard Littlejohn article. I edited the article in the first place primarily because of the large number of unsourced controversial statements which are not permitted for an article about a living person (WP:BLP). The resulting article does come across as a whitewash to a certain extent, but the fact is that any controversial statements about living people need to be backed up with reliable sources.

Please improve the article if you think it's a whitewash, but I'll continue to re-revert any wholesale reverts unless you can state, on the talk page, why I am wrong, and why the old version is in fact acceptable under WP:BLP. It was not my intention to whitewash Littlejohn, and I fully intend to add back controversial stuff once I've found proper sources for it (but not before). In fact it might even be better to do a complete re-write. 217.34.39.123 11:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
..and a happy New Year. Miamomimi 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Antony Lambton, Lord Lambton
You really should have discussed this move as it is disputed. It was not his courtesy title from 1970> and any further use was without any sanction or precedent and was a hotly contested matter in parliament. Alci12 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jade Goody
Hi Philip. Sorry to bother you but I do not agree with your deletion in Jade good. I agree that this is a controversial topic, but that should not stop us from putting the facts in the article. Infact facts are always better than wild rumors. If you do not put these facts in an encyclopedia article, then people will go to the blogs and forums to search for the actual comments and generally in doing so they will read the comments or rumors which are far worse than the facts. Actually most of her forums have now turned into hate forums so it is hard it differentiate fact from fiction from blogs etc. see {http://www.jadegoodyonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=221} and {http://www.jadegoodyonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=186}. Wikipedia has never censored its articles or comments etc if they are verifyable. see, Prince Henry of Wales, Lewinsky scandal or Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. so why should we remove it form this article. people should know what was actually said and what was not said so that they would not get biased by the article. I think that it becomes even more important in controversial topics like this. merely stating that Jade Goddy is racist is like doing injustice to her as it can be just ordinary bullying, which is common every where. reader should decide it himself. he does not need our help in that. If you do not think that this is correct then I guess that we should discuss the deletion with other wikipedians in the talk section before deleting it. Preetikapoor0 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip, Thanks a lot. Preetikapoor0 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Rosen
I know Michael, who has told me more than once that he "is not, and never has been" a member of the SWP. He has certainly spoken at their Marxism event regularly, and appeared on other platforms. I can't cite any evidence, except a private email; but see for instance his comment on the peacepalestine weblog "I don't belong to any organisation or political party (though I stood for Respect in the elections a year or so ago and support them)". Since I knew that the statement was mistaken, I did not give it a "citation needed" tag, but simply removed it. --RolandR 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Citylightsgirl
Thank you for letting me know about your report on this complaint. I think you've behaved very calmly and reasonably.--ElenaZam 12:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Roy Jenkins' infobox
I have reverted your edits to Roy Jenkins. I realise that some of the information in the box was repeated at the bottom of the page, but this is the case for most pages with an infobox, just look at the George W. Bush or Tony Blair pages. The infobox is not there to give unique information that can not be found anywhere else on the page, it is there to instantly tell the reader the office/s the person occupied and when the person occupied it along with other important information relating to the individual. --Philip Stevens 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

George Orwell
I am sure you did not mean to, but the effect of your edit was to reinstate vandalism. There may be a problem with the edit conflict system, a while ago the same thing happened when I reverted vandalism to George W. Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viewfinder (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Viewfinder, you last comment is probably correct, I thought I was removing something you had added. In any case, checking back a little, the spate of dubious edits all appear to have been removed. Philip Cross 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My Israel Shamir Date of Birth query with RolandR
Actually, I believe that he was born on 11 June 1947. That at least is the date on his Swedish passport, in the name of Jöran Jermas (see copy at ). I have also removed the reference to 1950 slightly below, since this is not, as claimed, included in Shamir's own account on his home page. RolandR 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC Music Magazine
The repeat of "magazine" in the lead is partly to allow it be wikilinked (as wikilinking part of the bolded name is poor style), though it's also the case that not everything that calls itself a magazine need be one. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch Article
If you want to put this criticism in the article about Atzmon fine. It doesn't belong in a article about counterpunch. This is blatant POV pushing, I don't understand why I'm the only one who see's that. You should see some of the comments by the moron who originally posted this where he calls counterpunch a bunch of "Anti-semitic, Neo-Nazi Rascists", this guy is clearly not being neutral in adding this paragraph. This is some mad zionist going on a tirade against counterpunch. annoynmous 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Cottage
I see you've been adding various details about him into the BNP article. As it's only early in the trial and there's likely to be plenty more details forthcoming, do you think a seperate Cottage article with a quick summary of Cottage in the BNP article would be better? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's appropriate yet to add details from the trial to the BNP page. At most, we have two guys who were members of the BNP doing things that would not have been approved of by the BNP, and that's only if they are actually found guilty. (At time of writing, I assume the case is still going on.) Assuming they are guilty, they will probably deserve no more than a sentence or two as an example of the sort of person the BNP attracts, given that they met in its ranks. Emeraude 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Janet Street-Porter
Hi there. With regards to your edit summary on the Janet Street-Porter article, just incase you aimed your comment at myself, I wasn't the one who reverted her previous name. By "corrected names" I meant changing Gordon Ramsey to Gordon Ramsay. It must have been some other editor who reverted the name before. But just incase you thought I had done it. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see! Thanks for your reply. Regards and happy editing! Eagle Owl 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

List of British films
Hi. Please please help out with List of British films this should be crammed full with alll the films and details!!!! I am currently only half way through A and even then all the details haven't been added!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dacre
elements cross-posted

The article was deleted for being an attack piece. Managing to cite others' opinions does not make it neutral; I now have significant NPOV concerns in what is, essentially, your creation. Note that your extensive efforts have sourced 10 of 12 cites from El Grauniad/The Indie - very balanced. How about we work more productively to make a proper article?


 * I freely admit that the article is 'work in progress', the Independent and Guardian pieces dominate because Google lists them among their 'hits' near the start of the results. I filled out reference to the Lawrence case and the poll result in the introduction to 'humanize' Paul Dacre. In due course I will doubtless come across others and add them too. Philip Cross 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * JDF, I'm curious as to why you have reformatted my page references on the Paul Dacre article with the use of stops. My recent Oxford Manual of Style describes the practice as "anachronistic", which is why I do not use them. Certainly it still seems to be the practice in the USA (although page references are usually given without a [prefix] at all now), witness the need to use them on Amazon for T.S Eliot, etc, but the WP house style is for American usage to be used on pages relevant to those countries. Philip Cross 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The OMS is rather reknowned for being, well, "radical", seeing itself as "fighting the good fight" against anything that might derive from a Classical education; their anti-Latinate stance is why they oppose "pp.". I would consel against its use as an authoratative text when writing items for "real" useage. As to the use of dots, well, that's again a stylistic point, because apparently using a dot to denote brevity uses too much time.
 * James F. (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

George Monbiot
Sorry to have reverted your edits - i was reverting the former editor, and yours got caught in the edit. --Kim D. Petersen 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Clark
I don't see how we can call him a journalist. He seems to be a teacher who sometimes writes, and the writing includes articles about racing horses, which it would be a stretch to call journalism. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Clark again
Dear Philip, I'd like to draw your attention to a note I've just put on the user page of SlimVirgin, as it refers to you too. Thanks.OliverKamm 13:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Tallis
I note you worked on the page. I have added some expansion on his life and bibliographical details,(few for the moment). But they do not show, despite my attempts to register them, except on the 'edit page'. I wonder if you could be so kind as to fix up whatever is hiding the full content? Thank you in anticipation RegardsNishidani 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip,

Thanks indeed. That was very gracious of you. Sorry for the bother. I hope in time to work a little more to improve the page, having read several of his books. Best Nishidani 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Portillo
I was listening to the programme while making the edit and it hadnt occurred to me that the programme itself sources this material in a way it wasnt sourced before, SqueakBox 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony Benn
Please check the talk of Tony Benn's article, There is a telephone interview on Commons which is intended (a) to make an article on Wikinews and (b) as a source for both Wikiquote and his Wikipedia article. He talks at length about his opinions on Tony Blair, the United Nations, and his optimism so far at the early days of Gordon Brown's premiership.

Help transcribing the interview would be appreciated, I have a work deadline and the time I can devote to the Wiki is limited for the next several days. --Brianmc 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Paxman
Why the revert? Jw6aa 20:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You stated that there was no reference on bulletin boards. Here is such a reference:. The main online writer about University Challenge also uses this nickname frequently. The explanation is completely founded in logic. The edit I made was never in bad faith, though it seems it might have been construed as such - it was made as the nickname warrants an explanation. Jw6aa 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC).