User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 30

Rose Tobias Shaw

Thank you for expanding the article. There's a link I added to the talk page that has lots of information about her life. Not all will be relevant but some might be. I haven't gotten around to it. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Fatima Aziz

On 14 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fatima Aziz, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 19:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

New York Review of Books

I know that you have edited the article previously. Would you please look over the past few days of edits and see what you think of deleting the Wolfe quote from the Lead? It has been there for many years, and it has often been quoted, so I think that it belongs there. I'd like another opinion either way. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Using blogs as a reliable source

Hi Philip. I was under the impression that blogs are not considered to be a reliable source, particularly in BLP's. Can you please help me to understand why Whitakers personal, self-published blog is admissible in this case? In what way is he an acknowledged subject-matter expert in the field under discussion? I'm not sure writing for the Guardian cuts the mustard to be honest. --DSQ (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Acceptable use of self-published works: "The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims." (bold in the original). In other words, has been published by a reliable source. I recommend you try and get The Guardian deprecated. Plenty of non-RS outlets and perhaps 47 banned users would cheer you on. Philip Cross (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would I want the Guardian deprecated Philip? I use it as a source regularly. Maybe I'm interpreting the cited policy incorrectly, but I read "established expert" as an academic, for example, who has had peer-reviewed works published, not a journalist who happens to write about a specific subject in the Guardian (or any other mainstream newspaper for that matter). Does Whitaker lecture on the subject or is he called upon to give his "expert" analysis on relevant breaking news stories relating to chemical weapons, the OPCW et al.?If not, I doubt he can be considered a subject-matter expert in this scenario and his self-published blog isn't appropriate as a source. What do you think? --DSQ (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

DSQ, you raised a particular point about BLPs. For statements about living people, see the Unacceptable use of self-published works and For claims about living people sections of the Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works explanatory supplement mentioned above. My reading of that is that self-published works cannot be used for unattributed statements of fact about living people, though they could be used to state facts about what the author of those works has written about living people. As always, whether to include such material and at what length would be a matter of consensus.     ←   ZScarpia   23:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:ZScarpia for your response and for providing the relevant links. I was under the impression that self-published blogs shouldn't be used. Full stop. But that makes more sense now. (I think). My main concern was around the removal of a primary source, which I believe to be a valid use WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and replacing it with a blog post which reads like an attempt to deny the validity of the members of the Courage Foundation panel. I've boldly reverted it anyway, as Philip didn't respond to my concerns. I remain happy to discuss though. Thanks again. --DSQ (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You probably know, but although secondary sources are preferred, primary ones may be used with care. The difficulty is in doing so in such a way that you're not putting any of your own interpretation on their content, which would come under the heading "original research". Some musings: as far as I know, there is no definition of what constitutes a blog in the rules. The criteria, of course, is "self-published." What that denotes is the type of work which would come under the heading "vanity publishing", where the author would not be able to get a reputable publisher to pay for the work, but would instead have to pay for publication and then be out of pocket. With material published online, there's probably a bit of grey area between what people would consider to be blogs, the type of webpages set up when blogger software became available, and what they would consider to be websites containing reliably factual material.     ←   ZScarpia   12:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles

On closure of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles] arbitration case in July 2018, a warning was issued to you not to edit topics with which you have a conflict of interest. One person you have been in conflict with is Neil Clark. Since 2018, you have occasionally edited the article on Neal's Yard Remedies, the latest edit being yesterday, 21 April. Neal's Yard Remedies is, as it is suspected you know, the employer of Neil Clark's wife. To avoid the appearance of harassment and breach of your sanction, it would probably be wise to leave the article alone.     ←   ZScarpia   22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the company has about "5,000 sellers" in the UK, plus other employees, and 60 stores internationally. Not much of a conflict of interest, in fact one individual represents a tiny fraction of 1% of the company workforce. Philip Cross (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hello. I tried to say thanks for creating that new sub-section for me on the Stan Tracy page, re. 'Stolen Hours', but I kept receiving an error message, so I'll leave it here. Heath St John (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

David Miller

Hi Philip. I noticed that you reverted one of your edits to this article as being "too close to topic ban restrictions". Bearing in mind that Miller is a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media & you appear to have had a conflict of interest with various memmbers of that group, do you think it's appropriate for you to be editing his article at all? --DSQ (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear why I did that in the detail I restored. I have not said anything unwise on Twitter (or elsewhere) about Professor Miller or Professor Paul McKeigue, about whom I have made 26 edits in the last two months largely about his admitted Russian connections, I do not see it as an issue myself, although you are welcome to make a report if you wish. Philip Cross (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Philip, I have no interest in reporting you or getting embroiled in drama. I was concerned because a standalone section has been added by, for all intents and purposes, a SPA relating to an apparent police investigation; it's been inserted prominently right at the top of the article. Miller is a relatively unknown individual and the article is a BLP; he hasn't been charged with anything as yet and that section simply shouldn't be there. A brief mention could've been included in the "Statements and activities" section if absolutely necessary. I would've hoped, as a highly experienced editor, you would've addressed that as opposed to shoring it up. I felt that the article was potentially too close to the apparent COI's you've had in the past as I couldn't think of any other reason for you leaving it where it is. I apologise if that's not the case and I will edit it myself. --DSQ (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to your removal of the section which was undue at this stage. In line with the decision in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish Chronicle ("weak consensus that it's generally reliable"), I have added attribution to The Jewish Chronicle and identified the month. The issues raised about Professor Miller in recent months don't have anything to do with his personal associations. Philip Cross (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hasty?

Hi Philip, I came across numerous edits of yours to articles about Panther cars. A few concerns: your edits sometimes destroy the grammar/meaning of sentences that were okay. Here is an example from Panther Rio:

Problems for the Rio customer included a more cramped interior than the Dolomite because of the new thicker, fatter seats resulted in a more .

Also, AFAIK there is no need whatsoever to change <br> to <br /> or vice versa. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "resulted in a more" was a remnant. The reason for the edit was my belief the word Dolomite needed bringing forward in the sentence.

No idea how your browser or preferences are set up, but on mine the text in the editing window is colour coded, so that the url is in light blue and the other text in citations is yellow (if the cite news/web/book template is used). Template tags, like the one for a line break, are pink/magenta, but all of the rest of the text is too unless the tag is formatted with the forward slash. A space as well is the default
(<br />), so I observe it. Philip Cross (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank for improving Sacha Stone

The article is much better now, thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John M. Patterson

On 10 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John M. Patterson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You're a great editor. V. E. (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation at article about journalist who has criticized Israel

Citing a press release from the Anti-Defamation League titled "Iranian Hatefest Promotes Anti-Semitism, Draws Holocaust Deniers and U.S. Anti-Israel Activists," you recently added a paragraph to Pepe Escobar:

The Anti-Defamation League described Escobar as a "anti-Israeli journalist". Escobar was among those attending the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, Iran in Fall 2014 along with others the ADL described as antisemites and Holocaust deniers.

It took me just a moment of searching on Google to discover a detailed article about the conference based on information from attendee Gareth Porter , who "was upset by the content of the conference ..[because] the organizers had assured him that extremists wouldn't be there...Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin and Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, also in attendance, were equally upset about the conference."[1] Jeremy Stone, who funded Porter's travel, remarked "in our half-century of efforts to prevent war, terrorism and genocide, and forestall the collapse of civilization, it is not feasible to avoid attending Middle East conferences that might, in the end, be attended by various nuts in varying proportions." Devoting a paragraph sourced only to a press release from ADL that briefly mentions him greatly unbalanced a very brief article about Escobar. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to reverse your edit, but Iran has a history of blatantly antisemitic events over the last fifteen years or so. These include the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition and International Conference on Hollywoodism as well as the New Horizon conference in 2014 these individuals attended. The earlier events were certainly attended by "nuts" in a very high proportion. Philip Cross (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your doubling down on "guilt by association" in response to clear evidence that the ADL press release misrepresented Escobar is troubling. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I was entirely correct to remove your contentious paragraph, which blatantly violated both BLP and WP:BALASP. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I am not going to revert your edit. Philip Cross (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of LewRockwell.com

I’m curious why you removed the book review on the Pat Buchanan page. Neighborhood Review (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

As the original location of that review is LewRockwell.com, it cannot be considered a reliable source suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. LRC has a reputation for AIDS denialism and the belief vaccines cause autism, among other discredited hypotheses. Philip Cross (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I recommend a search of the archive at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you will find there is a consensus over the last decade or so not to use LRC as a source. Philip Cross (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello friend, could you check if the improvements to this article Draw My Life are good or something is wrong. Thanks --Nasty bits (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Excuse me for asking, but are you not still topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed? If so, should you be editing the David Miller-article? Or has your topic-ban has been rescinded? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

David Miller is an academic whose employment by the University of Bristol is the subject of an internal inquiry. Assuming his assertions about Israel's supposed direct connection to teenage students, and his other conspiracy theories, are only taken seriously by the fringe, non-mainstream, non-reliable sources, and are thus not verifiable, I do not believe I have broken my topic ban. The topic ban remains in force by the way. Philip Cross (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Huldra If Philip Cross is using Wikipedia BLPs to punish those perceived as "anti-Israel," (see this now-archived discussion) then maybe the ArbCom should broaden the area of topics he's banned from. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"The topic ban remains in force by the way." As does the warning.

Would one of those conspiracy theories be that "parts of the Zionist movement are involved in funding Islamophobia"? Perhaps, take a look at the activities of organisations such as Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, David Horowitz's Freedom Centre and the Gatestone Institute. "Keir Starmer of taking money from 'the Zionist movement'"? Well, there's Trevor Chinn for starters. Links between Israel and student organisations? Some reading material.[2]

    ←   ZScarpia   01:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor: "In 2013, his organisation Spinwatch published an important report on BICOM, a major Israel lobby group in the UK. Contrary to the Zionist smears which falsely claim that Miller and people like him (including this author) promote "conspiracy theories" about some "all-powerful Jewish lobby", Spinwatch's report on BICOM showed how the group has actually lost the battle to influence British public opinion and was actually retreating on that front, which had been its initial main goal. ... In 2016, Spinwatch published another ground-breaking report, this time on the Israel lobby in the European Union. This one showed how anti-Muslim groups in the US had funded the Israel lobby in Europe. The links between the Zionist movement and the global anti-Muslim network have been a major theme in Miller's work for years. ...As revenge for Miller's exposure of their activities, pro-Israel networks in the UK are currently waging a war against Miller. This is part of what he, accurately, describes as Israel's war on British universities. Pro-Israel activists, both on and off campus, are demanding that Miller be fired."     ←   ZScarpia   22:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Russian foreign agent

Hi! I wonder if the wording of the category Category:Media listed as a Russian foreign agent is correct: it is about media which operate in Russia and are considered as foreign agents in that country, not about Russian agents in other countries. I named it after Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent, but maybe one should reformulate it?

P. S. There are 3 separate statuses of foreign agents in Russian law - for non-profit organization, mass media and people, so I split Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent into Category:Media listed as a Russian foreign agent and Category:Non-profit organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Voice of America heads the list. A more appropriate category needs to make it clear that it is on a list from the Russian government, whereas the current version implies it is the same as American policy against Russian organizations such as RT (TV network). I suggest finding a western reliable source, as the one you have used is likely to be queried. Philip Cross (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean a secondary RS? There are BBC and DW, for example (in Russian). How would you rename the categories? I am not fluent enough in English to name them, unfortunately. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Maram Susli's Youtube subscriptions and views

Its last update was on May, and I had updated them. But you reverted it. Was that a mistake?--Andres arg (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Restored your updates. It was the primary source references to Susli's media appearances surrounding your edit which I believed needed to be removed. Philip Cross (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

About Sacha Stone

Do you think some kind of protection may be warranted? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The vandalism of the article may be at too low a level to gain administrator consent. Best. Philip Cross (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleting others' comments

16 years on Wikipedia and you still don't understand the basic rules about editing other people's comments on talk pages? You can do better. 98.127.81.62 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually 17 years this month. Follow the link I provide on those occasions that I delete talk page comments. Philip Cross (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation

Hi Philip Cross. Your edit to the COVID-19 misinformation article introduction an unclosed <!--, which made a section of the article disappear. You added <!-- four, see following source --), I'm guessing you meant to use a > at the end there. I put this here as the talk page is locked. Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou, issue fixed. Philip Cross (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Using cite form

thank you for tidying my refs on Kathleen Stock. I'd been doing them by hand based on other entries, will use cite in future Mattymmoo (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment. However, sections on talk pages are opened in chronological sequence, so I have taken the liberty of moving this section. Philip Cross (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:David Miller (sociologist): My reference to you yesterday on the talk page of David Miller

Philip, I now remember protocol on Twitter requires me to ask on your own talk page before discussing another editor on a talk page of another subject, so apologises for not informing you first. I think talk pages can't be edited, but I'm happy to remove your name. That said, I think your ban applies to the David Miller page for the reasons I mentioned. Andromedean (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It is probable this issue has been raised by interested parties via the OTRS system, but I have heard nothing despite having edited Miller's article quite heavily for several months. Help:Notifications explains how to notify other editors in talk page exchanges. Incidentally, internal links are not included in any headings. Philip Cross (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on your ban on ANI

Philip, I've started a section regarding your ban on editing political topics and the David Miller article [on the administrators notice board] --Andromedean (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban from post-1978 British politics while discussion of another ban violation was ongoing at ANI on the page Richard Desmond ‎, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Philip Cross (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Richard Desmond's career was as a publisher of magazines (mainly pornographic) and later of a newspaper group, not as a politician or as someone directly involved in politics. I have not edited the passages in the article referring to the donations he has made to certain British organisations, or the changes in affiliation of one of his newspapers from one to another of those organisations, as the diffs will demonstrate. I cited a reference to migration in a passage (the one which also mentions the weather and Diana, Princess of Wales), but that was entirely in general terms not as it applies to a specific country, and the original sources are non-specific as well. Philip Cross (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After a discussion among uninvolved administrator there was no consensus to reverse this action. Your appeal has been declined. See: [3]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Philip Cross: would you prefer to see if HJ Mitchell considers your appeal or would you like it posted to AE or AN? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement would be the better option as the wider issue is probably heading there anyway. Philip Cross (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I have copied your appeal verbatim to WP:AE. If you have anything to add that you'd like copied to AE, you can ask anyone to move it over but you're welcome to ping me and I'll get to it as quickly as I can. In the meantime, I've put the unblock template on hold. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, wouldn't an appeal to the Committee at WP:ARCA also be an option? (Or were you just trying to lessen your own workload, because that I'd respect.) El_C 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C, in theory the TBAN could have been appealed to ARCA directly. However most arbs tend to take a "try normal routes of appeal before coming to us" approach so I did not offer that as a solution as it felt like it would have been bad advice. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Heh, nice save! El_C 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Heavily involved in writing and rewriting articles about Max Blumenthal and The Grayzone

This user enforces a strong opinionated bent on the articles on Max Blumenthal and the related article on The Grayzone. This appears inappropriate and seems to relate to the same reasons they were blocked from articles regarding post-1978 British politics. Wackword (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Wackword

That's not true, he sticks strongly to reliable sources, and doesn't attempt to promote fringe viewpoints which is what you are attempting to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)