User talk:Philip Cross

Welcome

Hello, Philip Cross, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! -- Mdd (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Summary" or "intro"

Hi Philip Cross,

I noticed you have been doing a lot of work at WQ lately. Just a small question about WQ jargon...

In Julian Assange you made some changes to the introduction and called it "updated summary". Just wondering, since I had always assumed that a summary refers to the Edit Summary.

Keep up the good work! Ottawahitech (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, will type "introduction" in future. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page headers

Hi Philip Cross and thank you for your work here. Please don't create talk pages just to add the talk header - as the template documentation on {{talkheader}} says, "This template should be used only when needed. Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone. If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced." Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hadley Freeman

[Split Ottawahitech comments into new section from the Talk page headers issue. Philip Cross (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)]

I just happened to see Hadley Freeman which is one of the pages @Ferien is talking about, I think? I made a small edit to the page and was not sure if I should have posted my edit summary to the talk page or not? Opinions?

In my experience WQ has a poor attendance on most of its talk pages Ottawahitech (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No it's fine. Ms Freeman has spent most of her life in the UK, but still identifies as a New Yorker, perhaps more so than being explicitly an American. Philip Cross (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

#SheSaid

Thanks for Special:Diff/3197227. I could easily have gender assigned them to the #SheSaid by mistake. I was wondering if you know any good [[:w:Al Murray] quotes. More serioussly you've done some excellent articles here but I wonder if you do any more for women at this time you could add #SheSaid to the comment as it saves me having to do dummy one. Thanks. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't know any Al Murray jokes, sorry. Will try to remember to add #SheSaid in due course. Cheers. Philip Cross (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

talkheader on the Assange Talk-page

Hi Philip Cross, I see you have added the talk-page template to Talk: Julian Assange. Problem is: this template is outdated. It is no longer necessary to sign or to place a new section at the bottom when one clicks Add topic, and, unfortuately, we have no one (as far as know) at Wikiquote who has the interest and experience necessary to work on templates. I hope I am making sense? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You are perfectly comprehensible. I don't add the template to the talk pages anymore. Philip Cross (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

I believe you have shown interest in or edited some Elvis Presley related pages. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Elvis Presley quote forks, and may even wish to participate or add comment(s). Thankyou -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 07:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph website should be accessible to non-subscribers to a limited extent

Hi Philip Cross,

Can you please explain what you meant when you un-did my edit at Lee Anderson saying

Telegraph website should be accessible to non-subscribers to a limited extent

Also just to let you know I receive no notification of your undo, not sure why. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ottawahitech, I reverted your addition manually. Checking, it is true the Telegraph does not have metered access for non-subscribers, but selecting "Text-only version" from the Google cache does get around the problem.

Best. Philip Cross (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I also use manual reverts (undo), but I hope that the users I am reverting still get notified? Also, how do you get a Google-cache-version when clicking on a link at ENWQ? Thanks again, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

See here. Left click on the three vertical dots at the end of the https line and, in the box which appears, select cache on the bottom far right. Philip Cross (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

When I click More followed by three vertical dots this is what I see:

• Maps
• Shopping
• Flights
• Finance

all preceded by an icon, but no google-cache

Thanks for Your time, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy

Hello, Philip Cross. You tagged following pages as speedy. Sadly, according to current wikiquote:Speedy deletions, there's no such policy for speedy them. But I believe VFD is the better place for them, can you fix them to {{vfd-new}}?

• Nicos Anastasiades
• Volkan Bozkır
• Hu Xijin
• Gilbert Mercier
• Emmerson Mnangagwa
• Rich Whitney
• Zeng Guang

Lemonaka (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing where I have erred. Thankyou for your help. Fixed, eventually. Philip Cross (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

VFD

Thank you for your nominations of a few pages for VFD. Please remember to use the process spelled out on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion page - in which you use substitution templates (rather than simply typing up your input). This ensures that certain things like the end date of the nomination are added. If you're not sure, take a look at the page and ask any questions you may have. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, I think correctly on the remainder listed above.. Thankyou for your help. Philip Cross (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I also request you inform major contributors. Its not mandatory but I would advise it for editors with accounts in good standing and not explicitly retired. I am now more aware of concerns from an AE ban by which while outside enWP jurisdiction specifically mention enWikiquote activities. To a degree I see possible concerns with some of your activities here. In my view it is possible they will become a problem for you at some point. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 00:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My problems at Wikipedia became terminal (in part) when I reverted someone's edit when I shouldn't have done because it contained a source which was not (considered) a reliable source. I have spent some of the last week either removing quotes cited to websites which are deprecated or notorious citations used in improper places (the hardly mainstream The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion in articles about money or Judaism, for example). For that reason, I don't foresee potential problems, although I remember the two Wikiquote articles (one I created) which the Wikipedia administrator mentioned. I would be grateful if you were more specific as to your concerns. Philip Cross (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I was concerned by the VFD's which were pushed into that state by quote removal. I am concerned by failure to notify creators / contributors and failure to find alternative quotes to replace the removed quotes which may have avoided the VfD in the first place. These are possible indicator's of a bissed approproach which may intentionally or otherwise targeted particular stances / viewpoints etc. I observe the earlier inappropriate Speedie's and and some minded the comments from rookie admin (currently on a wikibreak) may have been seen as an endorsement of the VFD whereas it possibly may, and I very much say may, have been more of a generic comment that VFD was more appropriate than Speedie in the case with scrutinising the details of the case. If a AGF there you were not aware of these possible implications. I'm finishing this after a 2 hour mad scramble and I'm in a hurry so I have very much not carefully gone over this answer as much as I should. In terms of the Ford/Zion/Jew things you do seem at a glance to be contributing towards a consensus but I haven't look in deep detail there. I am not prepared to contribute off-wiki by email. I must stress this is a rushed response and I may need to clarify or even retract a statement. But I'm to RL rushed for to get too drawn in. I'm had to waste too much energy on VFD notifications and W:WP:HEY work on your VFDs. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 14:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits

In my opinion, your recent edits to the Chris Williamson article are problematic. They rewrite the article in such a way as to make it seem that any dispute about allegations of the extent of antisemitism in the Labour Party were invalid, so that Williamson was referring to the response to "de facto" antisemitism. You removed use of the word "allegations". You inserted a tendentious headline which does not reflect the content of the newspaper article following. You inserted a reference to the EHRC report without any acknowledgement that both the conduct of the EHRC and its report are a matter of controversy and in such a way as to imply that Jeremy Corbyn was responsible for the acts which were criticised.
You have recently edited the Craig Murray Wikiquote article. As your editing of the Craig Murray Wikipedia article, along with others biographical ones, such as the one on George Galloway, was a matter of particular controversy, I think that's unwise.
Given the way you've edited the Chris Williamson article to reflect badly on Jeremy Corbyn, I think that you should consider staying away from the Jeremy Corbyn article, which you've also recently edited.
ZScarpia (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The reference to the EHRC is based on the passage from Wikipedia's Labour antisemitism article. That fringe sources still refer to "allegations" and have problems with the official EHRC report is neither here nor there for the purposes of Wikiquote. As you will know from my Wikipedia talk page, for administrative purposes, the two Wikimedia websites are managed entirely separately, so I fail to see why I am being "unwise" in editing the articles I have. I did not create a "tendentious headline", it is the headline used in the The Yorkshire Post, but simply removed the sub-heading. For probably most users, identifying Williamson as a "Jeremy Corbyn ally" probably does not help how he perceived. I didn't remove "allegations" a second time, but developed the explanation which is in line with mainstream sources. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only has 'Philip Cross' "recently edited the Craig Murray Wikiquote article", he set it up himself, on 09/08/22. He set it up, along with articles for other prominent leftists/dissidents such as Chris Williamson and David Miller, while he was under a three month block in Wikipedia for topic ban violations, his third block for the same behaviour. Craig Murray has already described this Wikiquotes page on Twitter as "an organised effort to demean me on the internet". [1] By 21/12/22, out of all the available quotes on the internet about Craig Murray, many of them highly complimentary, 'Philip Cross' had chosen two: one a fairly neutral analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, the other an extremely nasty attack by David Aaronovitch. Aaronovitch is, admittedly, a high profile commentator, and it is not therefore unreasonable to include his work. However, Murray has been supported eloquently by, to quote some examples, Clare Short, David Leigh, and Kenny MacAskill, in readily available sources commonly regarded as reliable. 'Philip Cross' could easily have included such sources in the 'About' section, to reflect the fact that Murray has supporters as well as detractors. It is difficult, in the light of this, and given that he is also under a minimum year long fourth block on Wikipedia for "disruptive editing by repeatedly trying to game or push the limits of TBANs", to continue to assume good faith in his editing, particularly since he has in the past described Craig Murray as a "goon" on Twitter. Leftworks2 (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh hello old chap, thank you for the tips. Philip Cross (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me try to make this simple for you (pardon me, I'm going to have to repeat myself):

You claim that the sources which refer to allegations of antisemitim as allegations are "fringe".

The short Yorkshire Post article which the quotation under discussion was cited to (and it begs the question why a short article from a non-national newspaper has been chosen for the citation) refers immediately under the headline to the claims as allegations. Does that make the article fringe? The headline, which doesn't reflect what is underneath, is tendentious for that reason. You chose to include the text of the headline in the article.

You added a link to the Wikipedia "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" article. The very first sentence of that article states: "Allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the United Kingdom (UK) have been made since Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader of the party in September 2015." Lower down, the word "allegations" is used multiple times. Have the multiple sources being cited been misrepresented or are they all, according to your reasoning, "fringe"?

You've thought, for an unexplained reason, to include a reference to the EHRC report, doing so in what, to me, is a partisan manner. You claim that sources which have a problem with the EHRC report are, again, "fringe." I think that's as bogus as your claim about sources which refer to "allegations". The EHRC is a quango which has been subject to years of controversial tinkering by Conservative governments, leading to criticisms by ex-board members. The reasoning in the EHRC report has been criticised by people with legal expertise. Supposedly, Williamson was supposed to have been named in the report alongside Ken Livingstone. Unlike Livingstone, Williamson threatened to sue, on which the EHRC removed his name. That indicates that the EHRC lacked faith in its own findings.

ZScarpia (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The Yorkshire Post article was published before the EHRC report when "allegations" was still commonly used in the mainstream press. I probably used that source because Williamson's comments are rendered in a more complete form than elsewhere. The title of the wikipedia article began with "Allegations of..." for quite some time, but no longer does, and I did not remove your restoration of the word for a second time. Williamson was making a claim about the Labour Party which an official body (originally created by the last Labour government) found did not stand up. Reliable sources have not queried the issue of antisemitism existing in the Labour Party, or it being a fundamental problem during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, quite apart what a minority still persist in believing. Philip Cross (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody, including Chris Williamson has said that antisemitism did not exist or does not exist in the Labour Party. The question is whether levels were exagerrated by those whom Jeremy Corbyn referred to as "opponents." For that matter, hopefully nobody would deny that racism exists (to some degree) in the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Antisemitism, organisations submitting allegations to the EHRC which lobby on behalf of Israel. In any case, Chris Williamson (and Jeremy Corbyn for that matter) were not referring to the EHRC report, so the justification for including the material about it which you added is questionable. ZScarpia (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) {An opinion at odds with the EHRC report and therefore perhaps "fringe": [2]}

Ah yes, an article by Professor Jonathan Rosenhead "[a} member of the fringe, pro-Corbyn Jewish Voice For Labour" who on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme "defended Mr Corbyn for calling Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' because 'he's never impolite'" (The Jewish Chronicle (27 November 2019). Philip Cross (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, The Jewish Chronicle, a once decent newspaper that went steeply down hill and hit hard times, with a tiny circulation, giving half of its output away free, becoming insolvent partly because of its habit of libelling opponents of Israel. You have a very peculiar notion of "fringe." Do you actually bother reading anything which doesn't coincide with your own ideological beliefs? Being able to edit neutrally requires the capacity to admit that viewpoints other than your own should be allowed space. At least Jonathan Rosenhead's piece was published in Haaretz, a newspaper which is still world-class. Do you think that none of the assortment of fascistic, Zionist ethno-supremacists who are welcomed to the UK and fawned over are not nauseating? Hamas grew largely because of Israeli "divide and rule" machinations. At least it cannot be accused of a settler-colonial occupation. Hezbollah came into existence as a response to the IDF's rampage round South Lebanon. ZScarpia (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"English-American" is a common description, "Jewish" isn't

Hi Philip Cross:

I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your edit on 29 October 2022 to the Christopher Hitchens page. The word Jewish was inserted into a very prominent part of this page on 12 July 2021 with an edit summary of (Part Jewish per wikipage), but no one thought to revert this edit until you came along more than a year later.

Well-done IMIO. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A protection on English Wikipedia?

Hi you talk pages on English Wikipedia has been vandalized a lot recently. Since you are blocked there, do you need me to request a protect for you there? Lemonaka (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher): @Lemonaka:: I thanked you for your edit but I then looked and and my view is that Philip Cross's talk page on enWP has not been particularly heavily vandalized and that Philip Cross has the required talk page access to deal with it. Unless you are seeing something I have missed am not the talk page access restriction is currently not necessary. What is relevant that talk page is specific references to articles on enWQ and the suggestion the enWQ may need to monitor such contributions. -- (Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 18:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to monitor WQ daily, normally, we won't protect talk pages except user talk pages. Since Philip Cross is Extended confirmed, they will not be hindered by semi or extended protections. Lemonaka (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about Philip Cross's talk page on Wikiquote (it this page) or their talk page on the English Wikipedia. Becase in your last sentence you seem to be talking about monitoring WQ and then requesting an action on the English Wikipedia? -- Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 21:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This conversation between Lemonaka and myself has moved to my talk page. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 22:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Arising from scrutiny of English Wikipedia talk page

Due to @Tamzin: references to enWikiquote as part of the comments with regards to the 30 October 2022 block I have looked at w:en:user talk:Philip Cross and w:en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. In general in my opinion at one level most of Tamzin's criticism's are of relatively reasonable practice, especially with reference to enWikiQuote edits, and the practice of using the reverse link of {{Wikipedia}} on articles is strongly recommended here albeit it is simply the reverse link that seems to have initiated you block. I'm not massively concerned about Hadley Freeman article on Wikiquote, at least at a glance in the context of Wikiquote practice. That said your edits to George Galloway here between 21 October 2022 and 1 May 2023 seems problematic given the arbcom discussion and unwise and a commitment not to edit that article here or sitelinked article from it indefinitely unless appealed at an RFC would be a good choice. I remain concerned at the state of the your Prince Andrew, Duke of York article - I would be wise to take the lead of an English Oversighter on a loosely related matter "I'm not going to touch this" but I may try and soften the bias by adding e.g. quotes from Falklands War and perhaps from his ex-wife albeit that may W:en:WP:BOOMERANG on me as some on enWP may have a hidden agenda to keep me blocked for "hiding" people with alleged sexual crimes, I'm a little paranoid in this respect. While this may be pre-requisite to a raising of a discussion at Wikiquote:Requests for comments:User conduct it is best if matters can be satisfied before going that far. For those reading this I (nowadays) sitelink a lot of articles created on Wikiquote and usually don't have too many concerns myself on most if not nearly all of Philip Cross's many articles here; certainly in comparison to some others. -- (nat. British formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 00:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I observe 2wk/336h have elapsed since the above comment without concerns being seconded so I am going to assume your contributions here are not considered abnormal and my concerns above are not considered abnormal. Due to COI concerns I would strongly suggest you refrain from making edits relating to George Galloway, but that is a personal suggestion. I am minded the Prince Andrew, Duke of York article is now in a better state from an NPOV viewpoint. I am also minded this dras a line under the matter from my viewpoint, the community here has had options to have dealt differently with this matter if they so desired. Best wishes and good editing! -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 07:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Great improvement work

Thanks for your improvements to Victoria Amelina. I've used some of your prose in an attempt to improve a rejected news item at n:en:Ukraine: Author Victoria Amelina dies after Kramatorsk missile strike but I still don't think I've does a good enough job. I don't have enough time (or prose skill) to improve that further but I'll have to submit it soon regardless (e.g. in the hour) to avoid staleness. The alternative would be to turn it to a full obituary. If you wanted to try to help at my Wikinews effort you are welcome. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 20:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been slapped for (unintentional) copyright issues at wikinews and I'll have to give up. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Pim Fortuyn

Hello, I see – late! – that you reverted me. I re-reverted you (explained the reason in the diff), but I'd like to add something: It is crucial to use the word "retarded" to translate his quote, in order to understand the whole contemporary commotion surrounding his word choice of "achterlijk". "Backwards" is softer than the original. Synotia (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

VFD with small problems

Hi, the common process for starting an VfD page is {{subst:vfd-new2}}, which will create an deadline for vfd discussion. However, sadly the page your created, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Rolf Harris didn't have the end date of discussion. -‎Lemonaka‎ 16:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, I opened a discussion here.[3] Mhorg (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have responded on the Elon Musk talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Making reverts on MUTP

Hi Philip Cross,

I know you are trying to help me, but I prefer to leave MUTP in its raw state, unless it poses a problem or readers. Am I making sense?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ottawahitech, I will do as you wish. Philip Cross (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the many additions & improvements to women's pages

Hi Philip Cross

Thank you for the many additions & improvements to  women's pages. Also I noticed you have been adding individual women to women lists. Do you think it would be better to create those lists automatically, at least while we have such huge growth in the number of women pages. I would value your opinion.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thousands to do (I assume), so bot(s) would help to complete these tasks more quickly. Philip Cross (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the default sort problem discussion, cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Titles in Roast beef

Hello. Understandable mistake, but those are not article titles, they're editorial descriptions of the context, taken from 'The Oxford Book of English Prose'. I realise I haven't indicated that clearly. Ficaia (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

OK! Philip Cross (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England

I want link the page Isabel I de Inglaterra of wikiquote in spanish with your wonderful work, but i can’t, Do you can link, please? Spanish2322 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Kenneth Grahame

• I moved that quote to The Wind in the Willows, which it is more specifically about. Probably should've said that in the edit summary. But if you think the quote also belongs in the author's page then so be it. Ficaia (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted my edit when I realised Wind in the Willows now has a separate page. Philip Cross (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate mage of Biden and Trump

Your edit summary reverting my edit did not mention anything about my comment related to the inclusion of a person not related to page's subject, nor related to the quotation here --> [4] Do you mind if I change the image, not the quote? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

By all means change the image. Philip Cross (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

ok, thanks. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)