This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How is Philip Cross able to edit so consistently for the past 5 years from from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. WIkipedia does not pay people as far as we know especially given their advertisements asking for donations every couple of months. Philip Cross has a clear agenda and should not be allowed to enact his crusade on the lives of people. This is a very dangerous person (or peoples) involved in gatekeeping information, vandalism and even driving a politician to near suicide. Wikipedia should act before this story puts the website in the headlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.154.47 ( talk) 14:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Who is employing you to edit the BlPs of certain people ? I ask this as the amount of edits and time stamps of those edits would make it impossible for you to have genuine employment, which could present a possible COI. Finally how many people are operating the "Philip Cross" account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.17.116 ( talk) 00:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Could you please link to where the accusation that user 'Philip Cross' is multiple people has been explicitly rebutted by 'Philip Cross'? Phantomsnake ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What would constitute a complaint 'on-wiki' and how does one go about making one? Phantomsnake ( talk) 19:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyway it looks like the situation might resolve itself with Philip Cross voluntarily stepping away from the disputed articles (per his statement in the arb request). Otherwise, from having observed these kinds of processes on Wikipedia for a while, seeking interventions by making wide allegations and spouting opinions never gets results. It needs careful analysis which (in this case) nobody has done because of the amount of work involved. You could look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence (the ongoing evidence presentation in an unrelated dispute) to see what such an analysis effort looks like. Those cases go on for weeks or months and participating in one is almost a full-time job. It's especially thankless if you're not invested in the outcome yourself, and if you are invested then you may be part of the problem. That's why nobody is excited about the prospect. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § George Galloway, for reasons I think I explain in the case filing. Guy ( Help!) 09:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
After seeing your note at ArbCom and the general support at AN, I have closed the discussion regarding your topic ban of George Galloway. If you see content that needs changing, please use edit requests on the talk page. If you have any further questions or clarifications please feel free to ping me here or on my talk page. Primefac ( talk) 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As for the scope of the restriction, it looks like it applies only to the GG article and that you can still edit non-GG articles and the GG talk page. (@ Primefac:, you might want to note that in the closing statement, since sometimes people also get restricted from the talk page). But I'd urge being very careful about any potentially controversial edits in other articles. One way I stay out of trouble as an IP editor (while I'm not super conservative about what I add to articles) is by almost never reverting stuff that other people have added. I usually make a note on the talk page rather than reverting, and only revert if nobody objects after a while. But that's just me. As a general practice (and contra to WP:BOLD) I think it's best that if you have doubts about a possible edit, to propose it on the talk page instead of making it directly. If you make it after nobody says anything for a day or so, you're in better shape than if you made it without waiting. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 22:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Came across this Draft:Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor they are probably up to no good. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Throughout Wikipedia there are many show/hide boxes at the bottom of the screen. Take Capitol Records, with the Vivendi box. Is there a default position for these? If so, what do I type to show or hide? I would rather have them hidden to spend less time scrolling, but I don't know what the rule is, if any. Thanks for your help.
Vmavanti (
talk) 22:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you help with the formatting of the artwork on this page please? I can’t get it right. Design ( talk) 04:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. The arbitration case request currently titled "George Galloway" has reached an absolute majority of active arbitrators to open a case, and we are currently working to get it open. During discussion among arbitrators, we considered that it may be ideal to proceed with the case on an accelerated schedule for a couple reasons. The community has already spent substantial time sifting through the contributions relevant to this case, including presenting them at the case request, so the Committee expects that evidence will not take multiple weeks to compile. Further, an accelerated schedule avoids a long drawn-out case which is usually perceived negatively by all participants. Rest assured that, if we proceed with an accelerated schedule, the Arbitration Committee will still review all the evidence, public and private, as well as the contributions to the workshop phase. If it becomes necessary, we will also extend the schedule to the usual time to allow for additional contributions and review. As you are one of the parties in the case request, could you please comment on your opinion of this possibility? ~ Rob13 Talk 10:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear Philip Cross, I live in Germany, I´m German native. I joined recently the English Wikipedia to ask you something. My question to you: Is it true, that you have the Asperger syndrome? Some Germans in Youtube-videos talk about you. They are making recherches of the seriosity, truth and hierarchie of the German Wikipedia. (Markus Fiedler: teacher of biology and music teacher, Dirk Pohlmann, a journalist).Their name is Gruppe42. Group42. Here is one video of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugkQMWxFciw They regard also the English Wikipedia and make comparations to the German Wikipedia. They are looking for manipulation and lies in the German Wikipedia and try to find it out. They compare you, Philip, with a German user with the name Kopilot. While watching the English Wikipedia they found you. The group is telling stories about you. I am not part of that group, I´m not a member of that group. I am a single person for my own.
I´m interested especially in the Asperger syndrome. Politics are not so important for me. Crazy stuff. So, if you want, answer me. But if you don´t want, it is okay! Don´t stress yourself. But think, England will also recognize your answer, so be careful. 12.06.2018 Germany -- SanktHieronymus ( talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Today is 19 June 2018. I received no answer from you, Philip Cross. I worry about you. I have a premonition. 18 June 2018 you ( or another person? ) made only two contributions on articles. 19 June 2018 also only two contributions from user Philip Cross. I think this is unusual and strange. Usually you make more contributions a day. And you visit your own discussion page no longer! Dear Philip, I hope you are still alive! I have a premonition. Soon I´ll go back to German Wikipedia. My English is not the best. I will make a prayer for you tonight. Yours -- SanktHieronymus ( talk) 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I read about you in the press today, and I wanted to say, while I may not agree with all your edits, I am very thankful for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not let the media intimidate you and please do not let somebody bully just because they are famous. If we start compromising on the pillars of the project and we bow to pressure just because some famous guy doesn't like what an article says, sooner or later Wikipedia will lose all traces of neutrality or reliability, which is ultimately bad for everybody. Dr. Vogel ( talk) 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018
Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian 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) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a question last month about showing or in this case hiding a template when first seen ("transcluded") on an article page. I noticed that your artist templates, like the one for Art Pepper, also were not shown as collapsed to the title box when the page is first viewed, which was obviously the intention. Well, I figured out how to fix the problem. I will let Vmavanti know about this too. -- Alan W ( talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Philip
I wanted to ask you about a query I have concerning your last edit to the Page 3 article. The edit nicely helped to improve the readability of the definition, but as I understand the WP guidelines on this subject, the edit contravenes WP:ISATERMFOR, which says that the definition should only say what something is and not what it is a term for. Did you have a particular reason in mind as to why this article should deviate from the guidelines?
Polly
Polly Tunnel ( talk) 10:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware but we're required (and forgot) to notify you that a remedy has been proposed that relates to you in the proposed decision of the BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the source that details Ms Badawi co presenting the Channel 4 with Jon Snow news back in 1988 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bbc-appoints-two-female-newsreaders-in-their-50s-1845094.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamoc ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding BLP issues on British politics articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)