User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 8

Shamir
I took you addition out, the searchlight article is attacking and the name is dusputed, most of your addition has previously been discussed, a few moths ago the was an OTRS complaint regarding contentious content similar to your desired additions. Feel free to discuss on the talkpage. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was the volunteer that dealt with the OTRS complaint.thanks. 15:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)


 * For any interested visitors, the reference is to this discussion. Philip Cross (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sofia Wilén
Hello Philip Cross. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sofia Wilén, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Do not slap a tag back on after an admin declines the speedy. Thank you. Courcelles 06:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the decisions are wrong. WP:BLP has previously proved sufficient for the removal of a redirect for the other woman in this case on the grounds of privacy and her being known for one event. I have added Wilén to the AfD page. Philip Cross (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And since that is 'problematic', I have added Wilėn to the RFD page where circumstances have forced me to break my own case. Philip Cross (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention in the Richard Littlejohn section
We're currently voting in the discussion - several people are trying to take out highly noteworthy and impeccably sourced material, and your input would be really valued. David r from meth productions (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Philip Cross (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates from the Cornwall Calling website are not authoritative
You seem to have added dates to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poldark_Novels from the cornwall calling website. However the site is not authoritative and some of its dates appear to be incorrect. Ablonus (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Substituted dates from Independent obituary of Winaton Graham. Philip Cross (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Myra Taylor
I've created a page for a Kansas City based Jazz singer also named Myra Taylor. She is now 94 and has had an 80 year career in music, including number 1 songs. At the moment, she is at Myra Taylor (Jazz singer) and would like to move her to Myra Taylor, and move Myra Taylor to Myra Taylor (screenwriter), if that is OK. This one has been challenged for notability since 2007. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. K8 fan (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your point on the Talk:Myra Taylor page so that the notability issue can be discussed more widely, and suggested a solution. Philip Cross (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, hndis page created. Philip Cross (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fran Landesman
I added that heading to create a more precise link from List of unpublished books by notable authors, but okay as you have it. Pepso2 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaslight Square OR tag
I'm scratching my head as to why you tagged the entry for Gaslight Square, St. Louis as having OR problems. Given that it has 10 citations for what is a relatively short article, I'm puzzled. Also, no rationale or examples of what you find problematic are listed on the talk page. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No doubt quite minor, but my reasons are now on the [Talk:Gaslight Square, St. Louis|talk page]. 13:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sian O'Callaghan
This article might interest you as it is linked to the murder of Melanie Hall.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Sian O'Callaghan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Sian O'Callaghan  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/Death of Sian O'Callaghan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom 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/List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Reference Desker (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Private Eye - reliable source?
Whilst reading the Wiki article on Jeremy Clarkson I noticed your amendment/edit and the comment that "Private Eye" is not a reliable publication. I'd question this contention. Do you read "Private Eye"? The middle pages may be low-brow comic stuff, but the detailed prose writing is sound investigative journalism. The "Eye" is frequently ahead of the game as far as breaking news or "insider" and "whistle-blowing" stories are concerned.Sterneshandean (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I subscribe to Private Eye. The precise passage in the article you refer to was gossip, innuendo and synthesis. Philip Cross (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you quite gathered what the passage you were attempting to remove was actually trying to say, which was definitely in an encyclopaedic interest. I can't say what it is though, because of what it is. (82.7.88.169 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC))


 * There are no reliable sources suggesting Clarkson has taken out a super injunction. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Akass


The article John Akass has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gillyweed (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe Haines (journalist)
It is not clear to me how you can claim that that commentary was properly sourced. Nothing in here says that Haines was doing "what would now be called "'spin doctoring'" or that he did this in common with others. The tone already is not OK, since it is not neutral. And that other article, how could one possibly claim that it (a primary source! by the guy himself!) properly verifies that his article was prejudicial and that it led to criticism? Sorry, but that is not in agreement with common sense or with our BLP policies. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Larry (cat)
Hi Philip, hoping all is well with you.

I saw you deleted this cat picture diff - I imagine is either the same or requires deleting as well. Shall I nominate it for discussion? If you think its free to use let me know, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Medialens frenzy.
I have done this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Page_on_Media_Lens is it acceptable?Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks OK. The heavy editing of an article by one article [editor] is quite common though. Philip Cross (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)