User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 24

Warwickshire

It's a trivium. Sure, then in Warwickshire is correct, but nobody cares other than the traditional counties nutters. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, but best to follow Wikipedia policies. The current West Midlands only formally exists from 1974, fifty years after Tony Hancock's birth and six years or so after he died. Philip Cross (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For changing my popularized to popularised on Ken Dodd. Good catch- cheers!

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Craig Murray

Hi Philip. I see you are still active at Mr Murray's BLP. As I'm sure you're aware, in 2016 Murray wrote a highly critical piece about your editing of his bio: "Is GCHQ Embedded in Wikipedia?"

Any quibbles that you have with the article can be brought up at the talkpage or relevant noticeboard. Surely, if only for appearances sake, you should refrain from further editing of Murray's bio, don't you think? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Murray's 2 year old article has featured prominently on my user page for some time. My most recent edits, finding the sourcing and notability of incidents unsatisfactory, along with my earlier changes, can be can be commented upon on the talk page in the usual way. Murray is naturally free to complain officially about my supposedly "derogatory" edits, but he appears not to have done. Philip Cross (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not commenting upon the substance of your edits, just the COI aspect and the apparent distress this is causing the subject. Murray has already complained publicly about your editing of his bio and by continuing to stick your oar in you are needlessly further upsetting him as shown by this recent edit summary: "I am Craig Murray. Philip Cross is a stalker whose hundreds of constant edits to my page are always hostile. He works together with Oliver Kamm and there is an obvious and repeated pattern of his making edits on the day of newspaper or twitter attacks by Kamm ... Wikipedia needs to offer me some protection from this stalking."

The humane thing to do would be to leave this particular article well alone. If you feel there are serious problems with Murrays bio you can always bring them up at the BLP Noticeboard where uninvolved editors can make any necessary changes. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

By all means raise this issue on the noticeboard, it would be useful to have an official opinion. WP:BLPCOI might apply to this case as it states an editor with a "significant controversy or dispute with another individual...should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person". (BLPCOI links to WP:POTENTIALCOI, which isn't really applicable). One blog article by Murray and a couple of comments is not a "significant controversy". Murray doesn't like my edits, an opinion he is entitled to assert, but he has not accused me of libelling him, and I am not working on his article, or others, in association with anyone else. So his accusations are false. What he terms "stalking" is usual Wikipedia activities. Philip Cross (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr Cross is a wiki-troll, but is it his own free will or is someone pulling his strings...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.203.121 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I always find conspiracy theories concerning my Wikipedia activities amusing. Philip Cross (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Jazz and Freemasonry

Not sure what perspective you're coming from here. The Guardian is a mainstream source and their article on the topic is reliable. There have also been entire books written about the subject, such as Black Freemasonry: From Prince Hall to the Giants of Jazz by Cécile Révauger. We mention on the article of other musicians such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart that he was a Freemason, we mention that George Washington was a Freemason and even that Sugar Ray Robinson was a Freemason. It is a completely subjective statement to claim that this is not a notable fact, if reliably sourced. It is no less notable than who their wife is, what political party they support, their religion or ethnic background. It is simply an objective part of their biography.

You don't have to explain to me your beef regarding the Labour Friends of Israel, I understand completely the WP:Wikilawyering to try and keep this off articles who the organisation lists on its official website as members and even when other references are provided, there is always some other pseudo-excuse to wriggle out of mentioning it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To passing editors and other observers, I posted the following, headed "Your Freemason edits" on Claíomh Solais talk page earlier today at 10:55 (UTC):

"Please resist the temptation to add material which is based on slender evidence or your own interpretation of what is notable. Having insisted on using primary sources for members of Labour Friends of Israel, while being warned against the practice by several editors, you reverted. Now you have added a mention that several notable African Americans were Freemasons usually based on a passing mention in a reliable source. I have removed your edits and would not add such material myself as it adds unnecessary clutter to an article. If you must include this detail, please ensure it is better sourced than hitherto."

Make of Claíomh Solais response what you will, posted here rather than on this user's own talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey

Dear administrator,

I think this is probably an act of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.224.132.96 He/she deleted a whole section. As far as I know, it's not illegal to talk about someone's personal life. Evan Spiegel's article, for instance, has a chapter devoted to that matter. Heavy.com is not a strong source, but I couldn't find a better one.

This person insulted Ms Greer by calling her an "unemployed golddigger". This Wikidata item, created by me, proves that's not true: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48980153.

Also, he/she threatened me. An anonymous user is not entitled to report any member.

Regards.

Soleil222 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not an administrator. Although the material you object to be removed is mostly, on this occasion, well sourced, it is gossip and trivial. So the other editors would appear to have good reason to remove it. Please read Identifying reliable sources and other policy articles. Philip Cross (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Philip, I noticed this, because you have been touching up my page again in recent days.

You wrote (cur | prev) 07:59, 13 December 2017‎ Philip Cross (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,373 bytes) (-68)‎ . . (→‎Personal life: MGB says he does not own the property, via a Twitter direct message to this editor; possibly the WW entry as printed is ambiguous or was misread)"

I have no idea what I said to you, but I lived permanently at Gordon Castle when I was younger + following the General Election until 2003. It is owned by a limited company not by a person and has been ever since my father bought a tiny fraction of the estate (which originally covered most of the Highlands in the Duke of Gordon's day!) back from the Nation in the 1960's. Unlike my days there when it was solely a private residence, it has in recent years been turned into a highly corporate entertainment venue more than offsetting the maintenance costs. So anyone contacting me there could and my name is still traceable on the electoral roll.

My Scottish background is important to me. I joined the Gordon Highlanders named after the Castle/Duke some centuries ago.

Would you consider removing the word "rant" in relation to my quite wrong comments of an anti-Semitic nature. It is very well known I have to manage complex PTSD - at one time my Wiki page said that my accommodation had been targeted by extremists in Pakistan and blown up killing my two body guards and leaving me relatively unscathed. I was working for MoD at the time and it was covered by the BBC (Marriot Hotel Islamabad Jan 2007) and to say I was having a bad day when pressured by Ben Rich I reacted badly. - I apologised unreservedly and given it was a one-day affair caused by illness it is very disturbing to me that people keep dragging it up as if it is representative of my views.

The reason I was suspended so quickly had nothing to do with the comments. Tim Farron and Ben Rich did not like me drawing attention to the two main donor's being under investigation by the SFO for bribery and corruption. They were not charged but ONLY because Rolls Royce paid a £600 fine to the SFO. I am thinking of talking to the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle after all this time.

I have no desire to make trouble for you. I am motivated if that is the right word in fairness and the effect some things have on my state of health are incredible. Following that Tweet I went downhill very rapidly indeed over a period of 18 months hitting rock bottom and don't be surprised if I still take my own life in the next year or so. I genuinely only battle on for the sake of my two children and my 90 year old mother. Best wishes, M 2A00:23C1:6C21:6501:E18A:9A6E:320F:BC48 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2A00:23C1:6C21:6501:E18A:9A6E:320F:BC48 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Piers Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia Today article

Hello Philip, it seems your edits have riled some people, but I am guessing that you are already aware of this fact. I haven't looked at these edits myself, but can guess which side is in the right. Today I saw this article [1] on Russia Today's website (titled "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia") and thought I should give you a heads up in light of the attention this article may bring. I have to say you are the first editor I have met that has had a bounty put out on their name. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Clumsy lead on User page

"Andrew Philip Cross (born 1963) is a British-based Wikipedian. In that time, I have modified or created pages relating to film, jazz, literature, the media, politics and other subjects too." The phrase In that time seems rather silly when referring to your entire lifetime. Or are you suggesting that you've edited Wikipedia since birth? If so, you must have been quite the wunderkind. KalHolmann (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is User:Philip_Cross. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. KalHolmann (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifications

Who is Philip Cross? What is the nature of his interest in George Galloway? Why has he made so many edits on the Wikipeda page about George Galloway? Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

We now know. "A Wikipedia editor called Philip Cross (Andrew Philip Cross and later "Julian" on Twitter) has a long record of editing the entries of many anti-war figures on the site to include mostly critical commentary while removing positive information contributed by others. At time of writing he is number 308 in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits."

"After George Galloway, Media Lens is his second most edited article on the site. Cross is responsible for almost 80% of all content on the Media Lens entry."

So now, we have to research all his edits, and tag them ALL with Bias. Its the 'Wikipedia way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:56:A494:E24D:2C11:BD29 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest gentleman. I have taken the very minor liberty of moving these talk page comments so that they are under a heading without having altered those comments. Philip Cross (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I have also made minor format changes. Philip Cross (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Man, you get even better trolls than the one that wrote my bio for me Dtellett (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm

Is this wiki admin Oliver Kamm? If so, it puts into question the notability of their own bio (which they have been the primary editor of), and highlights enormous conflicts of interest issues in their editing of various pages with real life conflicts with Oliver Kamm. To simply wave them off as "trolls" or sock puppets is nonsensical wagon circling, ignoring a profound and obvious problem with an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.189.109 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not a Wikipedia administrator, nor secondly, am I Oliver Kamm. Although born in the same year as Mr Kamm, he writes The Times and other publications, while I edit Wikipedia. Philip Cross (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Many years ago I dealt with material concerning Oliver Kamm at OTRS. He most definately is not Philip Cross. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	If you're annoying both George Galloway and Russia Today, you're doing something right. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually you need to just go somewhere else to do that Timbow001 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	In the face of all the crap, you still remain civil, so here's to you! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. No biggie I think, but I am concerned about the amount of crap being thrown around. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Philip Cross (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary it is a very big issue. Cross is being widely held up as an example of a blatantly politically motivated editor whose prolific and one-sided edits have been tolerated for years. So wikipedia looks at best complacent and at worst biased itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbow001 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) yes Timbow001 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on the RT profile

You must be doing a good job.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice you got featured twice on RT lol. [3]  Nixinova  T  C  22:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)