User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 21

Dear Phillip Cross,

I just wanted to get in touch with you about my previous edits on the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom page. You reverted my edits regarding the so-called Al Jazeera investigation into the lobby's activities in January 2017. I am not very familiar with how Wikipedia works so I just wanted to clarify whether it was to do with the reliability of the sources which I cited. I was just curious and perplexed about what would constitute reliable sources. Wouldn't a news site such as Al Jazeera be considered a citeable source? Thanks. Look forward to hearing from you. Andykatib 01:33, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

Normally Al Jazeera would be seen as being a credible source, see Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability for advice. On this occasion, however, there is plenty of source material around to suggest this issue has been treated by some websites above its true merit. British tabloid sources, which should not be used on their own, are the only ones to give this incident much coverage. The secretly recorded material with Shai Masot is from as long ago as last October, but nothing has happened to suggest it is a notable intervention. Philip Cross (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Dear Philip,

Thank you very much for your advice. Will read those resources carefully and will be more careful next time. Best regards. Andykatib 00:29, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Andykatib,WP:Notability is a guideline (not policy) which discusses the whether topics should be covered by their own article or not. WP:Weight is probably the policy of most relevance to whether or not relevant material from reliable sources should be included in an article. The assertion above that sources other than British tabloids didn't give the Al Jazeera investigation "much coverage" is false: to my knowledge, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian extensively covered the fallout from the investigation. In my opinion, the argument that material should not be covered because "there is plenty of source material around to suggest this issue has been treated by some websites above its true merits" contravenes the Neutrality policy.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry ZScarpia, but that can be an argument for citing virtually anything which gains momentary passing notice, while we are supposed to concentrate on events and issues of permanent relevance rather than news. The reliable sources you mention which note it would indeed normally be enough to allow for inclusion, but anything to do with Israel, among other contentious subjects, should be treated with extreme caution. The Al Jazeera "investigation" lasted for months, but what it uncovered was pretty insubstantial and has not been corroborated by other news outlets. "There is plenty of source material around" from such sources as The Jewish Chronicle "to suggest this issue has been treated by some websites above its true merits". "In my opinion", they are right. Read about the actions of Malia Bouattia, especially her own comments, to see how ridiculous are the claims of underhand tactics. For this reason, I retained mention of the Al Jazeera assertions. Philip Cross (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 97RGr. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Britain First have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Sources directly from the Britain First website have been used previously. This does not mean you have to revert all my edits, including where I have replaced incorrect information about the party leadership. Your revert has made the party leadership information incorrect, and has undone efforts to allow a neutral point of view on the article. 97RGr (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you removed properly sourced material. In this edit you attempted to create a synthesis from the source you cited. Philip Cross (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was giving an example of Britain First's direct action outside the homes of extremists, and stated Anjem Choudhary as one of them, along with a brief sentence about him. The source I cited was about the sentence about Choudhary, therefore there is no problem with this. You undid information about the correct status of the party leadership unnecessarily, along with all my other edits for no reason. Careful - you're close to violating the 3RR policy. 97RGr (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Britain First, you may be blocked from editing. You keep reverting my edits on the status of the Britain First party leadership which has properly cited sources and is correct, as well as my edits to neutralize the point of view on the article. 97RGr (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Britain First shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97RGr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a great pleasure to see the Jazz photographers category so exquisitely filled. Thank you! No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We urgently need another Mingus! Philip Cross (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry but I think you've made a mistake about Hill - she says on Twitter that Hill is her maiden name and she reverted to it after being called Cunningham - I presume after divorce, though I don't know. Unless you know different? Blythwood (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I came across the following "Fiona Hill, known by her married name Cunningham before she was divorced". The Twitter comment looks accurate, but BBC News is a better source for now. Philip Cross (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Issue resolved with an ideal source located. Hill was indeed her original surname. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

You reverted an edit I made and I don't understand the reason. What do you mean by "Indivduals look into an article." If it's necessary to have alternate the images on the left of the page, it can be done in CSS. --Stroller (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a stated preference for images to look into an article (see brief passage at the end of the section). Right placement is the default. Philip Cross (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know that. --Stroller (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I've just replaced the word "classic" you deleted from Damaris H's page. Sorry, but I believe the description is sourced (^[1]), BBc online referring to the adventure as belonging to the "classic series" of Doctor Who, i.e. "the original run of Doctor Who adventures between 1963 and 1996."^[2]

I have to admit my motivation for adding "classic" has a lot to do with justifying the photo on the page, which is up for deletion. By upping the significance of her role I'm trying to save the photo (see the photo file for further blah blah). But I believe her role in the Doctor Who is notable for her, as she usually played bit parts hardly even cameos, and this was a significant supporting role in a well thought of five part adventure (and I'm not really a Who fan).

Beryl reid fan (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The direct reference to this serial using the word "classic" is as follows:

"Perhaps the most scathing review of all was by Chris Newbold in Perigosto Stick Issue Two, dated August 1991: 'It is my considered opinion, as someone who has seen almost all the Doctor Who stories it is possible to see, that "The Dæmons" is without doubt one of the worst. I say that in full possession of the knowledge that it is thought of as an example of the very best of Doctor Who, an 'all-time classic'.[My emphasis] Naturally I find it hard to see how this view can possibly have come about, unless it is part of a more general belief that the Pertwee years represent Doctor Who at its best. I do not subscribe to such a view".

I added the year of the original transmission to avoid any confusion with the revived series. If the image does not match the fair use criteria, their nothing to done, although adding an image to the article will doubtless jog memories as Damaris Hayman's other work. Philip Cross (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but Chris Newbold of Perigosto Stick Two is hardly a known source (though even he/she acknowledges "The Daemons" is thought of as an "all-time classic"), whereas BBC Online is, and the term "Classic series" is the heading at the top of the page.

I am returning the term classic, sir, and request you leave it in place until the file deletion oissue is resolved (anytime from yesterday on).

Beryl reid fan (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

After that please remove it. Hope this is O.K., as this is really purely tactical on my part to do with supporting the file non deletion, and I actually kind of agree with you and have no wish to get into a spat with you. Beryl reid fan (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the offending word. Thank you for your patience. Beryl reid fan (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks

Jojogungun (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work on Paul Dacre. I've given your account Rollback and pending changes review rights. I'm expecting that someone will put one or more of the pages you seem to be watching on pending changes in the near future so we ought to give you the right to approve edits others have made under WP:Pending Changes. As for wp:Rollback, it gives you one click reversion and of multiple edits by the same person, but please, only for reverting blatant vandalism or your own mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

You've recently commented on my edit of George Monbiot's page - thanks for your input, btw - that I should look for third-party sources. As is probably obvious, this is my first major wiki edit, and I'm a bit lost. There are no biographies that I can use, and I simply don't know what would constitute a third-party source in this case. Would you be able to give me some more specific help and advice, please? Rowan Cairns (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

By third-party sources, I mean those not connected to the subject of an article. In this case, for example, articles about Monbiot's collaboration with Ewan McLennan by other journalists would establish the project's notability, whereas Monbiot's Guardian articles, although not inadmissible, would not. I added the main policy documents to your talk page, but the list of other helpful articles is almost endless. The most obvious ones are Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Help:Contents. Assuming you have access to pre-internet articles by, or about, George Monbiot, that would be one way of helping to develop the article. Post here again if you wish, and I will see what I can do to help. Good luck. Philip Cross (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)--181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)