User talk:MarkThomas/Archive Jun 2007

You've made 4 reverts
This is a notice that you made 4 reverts in Nazism. I'll give you the opportunity to revert back, otherwise I'll have to report you. Billy Ego 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not check the page history to see who, but someone did report your edits to this page on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. KazakhPol 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px| ]]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 31 hours. Here are the reverts in question.  Nish kid 64  21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I have clarified that it is a repeation, and as such becomes pomposity. It is already mentioned in the history secion Regards,AJ-India 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark, I frankly have no time to waste with such obvious ignorance of the facts, which hints at a clear bias. This is an encyclopedia, where facts are stated in their right place, with the right measure of neutrality. Repetition is a form of bias, meant to over emphasis a point. Stop being so irresponsible. And honestly, if you persist, I too have no option but to report your behavior. Regards,AJ-India 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a very productive use of anyone's valuable time or expertise to just revert each other on the article pages. That's why we have talk pages where contentious issues can be discussed before edit wars begin or continue. I, for one, appreciate the facility to debate things rationally and perhaps open my mind to a contrary point of view.


 * You have a point about repetition perhaps compromising a NPOV; why not see if you can persuade your antagonists (and others) on the articles talk page of your stance? God bless!... Gaimhreadhan [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]](kiwiexile at DMOZ) â¢ 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. But would have appreciated if the others too (Users MarkThomas & GSD2000) had done so, instead of indulging in reverts.AJ-India 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But do you not see AJ that that is exactly what Gaimhreadhan is recommending to you, eg, discuss first? It's a major change to the article and a significant dimunution of the information about United Kingdom. Would you be (justly) enraged if I went to India and simply removed the text from the Lead that is is "the most populous liberal democracy in the world" without discussion? Might you be tempted if I did that to simply revert such a rude, foolish and undiscussed wrong-headed change? MarkThomas 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For starters, India is a featured article. United Kingdom isnt. By this very distinction, the United Kingdom page can not be treated as uneditable. This is not my first edit on this page. I frequently visit this page, and the lead keeps changing. I recall reading a line stating UK is only second the the US in military and economic might! (which wasnt there a few days prior to that). Obviously, if you were so concerned about a 'significant' change, you would have reverted this edit too.AJ-India 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you get the idea from that you are free to blank non-GA articles at will. Can you show me where that is defined in policy? As regards your second point, personally I would have tried to discuss that but also I suspect this issue, together with the lack of GA-ness and anti-British POV on Wikipedia contributes to a defensive attitude on the part of editors. However, I note from reviewing edits on India that similar defensiveness is visible there in response to edits, some of it from you. All busy and committed editors do this and that on WP. I at least admit when I've done a 3RR! MarkThomas 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So I take it that pro British POV is acceptable. That is why you didnt remove that rediculous line? (for the record, I removed it, again, not as a part of any anti British POV, but because it was grossly incorrect).
 * Reply to your first point, my reason for stating teh distinction (between FA and non FA) was to emphasis on the standard of the article. If you see India, as it is an FA, each line is added post discussion, reason being, it is an FA (see it's talk page, where it is amply stated). United Kingdom isnt an FA. I did not blank out the article.
 * 3RR. Frankly my little knowledge of English tells me that I reverted post the revert of my first editAJ-India 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pro-British POV is not acceptable. But this is my point exactly - if you feel a sentence in the lead of an important article is wrong, why not talk about it first? However, my opinion about your edit, and I suspect others probably share it, is that you know perfectly well that it is factual and that you were motivated by an anto-British POV when you deleted it. That is primarily why I reverted your deletion. If you have good grounds for stating that it wasn't the largest geographical empire, then say so and if you make a robust case, not here but either at United Kingdom Talk or British Empire Talk then I will listen and join vigorously in the debate. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said earlier, the reason was to improve the article. Obviously your non deletion of the line I mention (UK being second), togather with the defence of the line I deleted, hints clearly at a pro British POV on your part. In no remark did I question the fact. I questioned it's repeatition, which implied chest thumping and pomposity. Again drawing the example of an FA, India, see it's lead. India is a Nuclear power. It is a Major power in Asia. Non of these things are mentioned. Not because they can not be backed by facts. But because the article is a part of an Encyclopedia. Both these facts get mentioned in the relevant sections. Just an example. Am not drawing a parellel. But whatever youe intent may be, I re-state that I always edit to improve the article. Not to push a Pro subject POV, which seems to be the objective here. And I work on various articles, in a variety of subjects.AJ-India 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's plausible that we reacted too strongly to your pompous comment. However, I have learned over time to always be suspicious of edits to the introductions of key articles that appear to be POV, so that may help explain my reaction. Also though in your first comment you stated that the line "is irrelevant to this article, which is not about the British Empire's extent, but about the country: United Kingdom" - I would dispute this since clearly the BE is a central part of the UK's history. On your other points above about India, I was surprised when studying the intro that the nuclear power issue doesn't get a mention as it is very important; then again, I sometimes think people are over-fussy about what can and can't be included in a GA and FA and sometimes for muddle-headed rationales. MarkThomas 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I too felt that it (Nuclear power) should be mentioned. But upon discussion it was felt it shouldnt. I left it at that. As for BE being central (or important), I stand by what I said. The same applies to teh Article India. It is not about the 5000 year history of India, but the republic India (you can see the talk page discussion on it). The same applies here. Like I said before, if you had been equally vigilant in removing the line I have mentioned, would have added to the confidence (of the reverts being defensive) on your justification. And that one line isnt a once off case. Ever so often when I visit the page I find some adjective here and there added, to over emphasis a point (sometimes to an extent of falsifying). Stuff like "Major" Nuclear power, for instance. Nuclear power is a state of being. You have it, or you dont.AJ-India 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add, I recall reading somewhere (probably on the talk pages of United Kingdom) why the article failed being an FA, and one of the reasons given by the reviewers was exactly this: Pomposity.AJ-India 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably people living in ex-British-controlled territories view any British statement as pompous. :-) I think hard as it is one must try to separate feelings from facts on Wikipedia. Some at least of your objections to that particular sentence I disagree with. I think you are using the sophistry of distinguishing between Britain and United Kingdom for example, in a way that most casual readers would not. I think the point I am asking you to consider is your own POV where it exists, hard though that is for all of us! I think you make good points about many things but you also have to accept that other people do as well. End of pompous typically British lecture. MarkThomas 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think despite my clarification, somehow it doesnt get through. Non of my edits come from my "feelings" resulting from my nationality or country of origin. If you see the edit history of India, you will see that I hardly edit it. Implying that just because of my nationality I dont focus on that page. My interest is in improving articles, not in pushing my "feelings".
 * Nationalistic feelings exist, and I see that here. But there is a place to express it. Which Wikipedia clearly isnt. The adjectives added here and there, like "Major" etc are clearly a result of a non neutral, nationalistic editing. And like I said, if you are so unbiased, why did you not remove the line I mentioned (UK being second?). Or, do I take it (since you have refrained from answering this one) that you actually believe that??!!
 * To conclude (I appreciate your realisation of the inadequacy of your reaction to my edit), I am not here to haggle over silly adjectives. But would be nice if you think of the real objective of Wikipedia, to provide a good, neutral informative text about a subject. And in this case, the subject is United Kingdom.AJ-India 05:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I think that's the real objective. Welcome back from your block by the way. Exactly which sentence are you questioning if I believe please? I don't recall something about the UK being "second", second at what? Thanks. MarkThomas 08:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The line I mentioned in my earlier comments, but to refresh your memory, I am talking of a line in the lead that read to the effect, that United Kingdom is second only to the United states, in economic and military sense. This was there a couple of months back. Again, to restate (since it escaped yoru eye), I was the one who removed it, and rephrased the paragraph.AJ-India 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You were right to, I would have removed that too if I'd seen it. Pure POV. MarkThomas 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning - Vandalism: Blanking
Hi MarkThomas. Again, please stop deleting references. Your recent removal of references in Cromwell is unjustified. The references removed were from reputable verifiable sources and your "explanations" for the removal are spurious. If you remove these references again I will make a formal complaint of vandalism. Also, please refrain from the POV accusations. Hughsheehy 10:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, cut it out. The reference you re-inserted does not meet Wikipedia criteria for sources. Go ahead with your complaint if you want to - it will be vigorously defended. I'm getting fed up of your accusatory style and false complaints of vandalism as above are against policy too. MarkThomas 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack
Describing my edits as being among "one or two editors [who] persistently dictate the Republican Irish agenda" is a clear personal attack. I have responded to your post on the British Isles talk page. Please retract your comment publicly on that page. --sony-youth talk 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please confine your pointless attempt to have a fight to the talk page of the relevant article, where I have replied. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of you, please relax and WP:AGF. Mark, in my opinion your remark was probably not intended to be as insulting as it appears from a sensitive perspective, but it was over the top and an apologetic retraction is a good idea. The history of the term section has been gradually coming together, and in my opinion the Latin term reintroduced by Renaissance geographers was anglicised in a context where the term "British" had been developing political baggage since late Roman times right through to the Tudors and JimVI. Let me know if you'd like more detail, and I'll try to get back to work on the immediate post-Roman period. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Just checked BI talk page - thanks for your statement giving an apology. There have been some pretty hard line Irish editors in the past, none of whom would accept being called Irish Republican, but everyone now seems to be pretty reasonable. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi MarkThomas. Please stop accusing me of bullying and aggression, or at least be specific so that people can decide whether what I have written constitutes any of these things. Unless you can support the accusations I'll take them as personal attacks and ask administrators for support. Again, also please stop making POV accusations, especially when they are about edits I didn't even make. I would appreciate an apology for all these accusations. Hughsheehy 13:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, "bullying and aggression" is a bit over the top and I apologise for that remark in the heat of the moment. I am not repeatedly making POV allegations against you, other than about your claim on Oliver Cromwell that he committed genocide in Ireland, a claim which is definitely a point of view and whilst you can find many historians to say it, I can (and will once I've had time to stop answering your endless talk page interventions - this is the last time!) find others who disagree. This is not an accusation but a simple content dispute. As to me making allegations about you, how about you apologising to me for these; (1) a non-existent 3RR claim on my talk page, which you changed once I'd got into a state over it, good gamesmanship and (2) the following comment I previously deleted:

"Hi MarkThomas. If you blank references on the BI page again I will report you for vandalism. As per your previous comment you don't need to be warned about WP rules, but it's the polite thing to do. Hughsheehy 12:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)"

in response to something that was (a) not blanking and (b) not vandalism. So we have (1) false accusations of 3RR and (2) false accusations of vandalism.

So I have apologised for my end of it - and I accept that I have got heated up and said things I shouldn't have - will you now apologise for your end of it? If not, then let's just let it rest there, but if you persist with your threat you can rest assured it will be defended with absolute vigor. MarkThomas 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put polite warnings on your user page for what I considered - and consider - to be breaches of WP policies. That is allowed and even recommended.   It is not something that I should apologise for and I don't.  I haven't engaged in "gamesmanship".  Please post your apology on the page where you made the accusation. Hughsheehy 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, they were not polite, and they were not breaches. The fact that you consider them to be so is irrelevant - they are indefensible and I will raise them in any complaint. And when you post an apology on Talk:Oliver Cromwell for this sarcastic and demeaning remark aimed against me: "I apologise to the regular editors of this page for this sequence of edits." I will apologise elsewhere. MarkThomas 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They were polite warnings, as we are recommended to make by WP policy, and whether your deleting of references etc, were breaches isn't up to you or me to decide.
 * As for Cromwell, you have said that this "fight" (your word) started when you reverted a POV edit I made re the Down Survey, which edit I never made and have said so several times. I don't know if the edit I supposedly made was accurate or not, just that I didn't make it. Can you at least look back at my edits and try to honestly see where I made any unsupported edit or are you going to keep accusing me of POV for making citations you don't like?  Hughsheehy 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with edit warring

 * I see you have been dealing with some edit warring with User: ( talk â¢ contribs â¢ [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] â¢ block user  â¢ [  block log  ] ).  In the future, I would highly suggest that you seek out input from a more neutral party, and WP:THIRD or WP:RFC are sometimes helpful venues.  However, if you have specific input regarding policy violations, you may wish to contribute at User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3, where the User there is preparing for an apparent WP:RFC/User.  Smee 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Very useful, thanks. The user in question has also recently been stalking my edits. MarkThomas 07:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Friendly fire?
I just wanted to explain that I didn't mean for this:Reply to allegation of flim-flam designed ... "military career" sound more noble," to sound hostile to you. I'm used to dealing with editors like Justanother seeing my attempts at explaining the truth about this as an attack. I thought you were kinda doing the same thing from the other side, but the title I used doesn't emphasize the "kinda" feeling I wanted to convey and instead conveyed a more "DON'T ACCUSE ME OF SUPPORTING HUBBARD!!!" psycho response. FYI The truth as I see it is that Hubbard had trouble telling the truth about himself. His mistake wasn't thinking he found a sub or shelling a Mexican island. His mistake was trying to fudge the facts on events with several recorded witnesses and historical sources, personally if he hadn't made these wild claims I wouldn't have cared enough to point these things out. Anyway, I hope I haven't come off as a big jerk. Anynobody 09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

British Isles - neutrality of opening para
The original version was hammered out after extensive discussion (see talk:British Isles) to reflect fairly the spread of views on this subject, fully supported by citations. The factual position is that many British sources believe that the term is purely geographic; equally, many Irish sources believe that the term is purely political. Most of Ireland is not British, so it can't be a British Isle. The original version fairly reflected the divergent views held in good faith. "Mildly objectionable" is an April fool joke. --Red King 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's "many" at all - this is a minority opinion even within Ireland. And it was posted on April 2. I suspect the issue here is that you want the phrase "dispute" to stand. MarkThomas 07:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi MarkThomas. I've added more refs to the Cromwell page, but I'd like to ask a question re the BI page.  Can you provide even a single reference to support what you think about the topic in Ireland?  It appears you have strong views on the subject, but please, provide some references and then we can try to get beyond what you or I might "think".  Hughsheehy 11:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In what sense Hugh? Do you mean to support "mildly objectionable" or to not-support the various other versions we were disputing before where people wanted phrases like "often disputed" etc or one I seem to recall which claimed it was widely disputed everywhere? And which references really matter in this context anyway? It's a political dispute about the phrase "British Isles" - we were debating how hotly that is disputed in Ireland. Can any reference from anywhere really help us with such a vague concept? MarkThomas 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean anything that says anything which contradicts the references already offered several times, either the ones that are in the article now or the ones in eric's page of references and which indicate the level of objection. I've said that I believe "often" is an accurate characterisation (or frequently, which was Waggers suggestion) and I have pointed to those various references.  I previously opposed such language because I didn't think there was reference for it.  Now the references support such language.  (and note, I have said I do not support trying to present it as a majority or universal view, although if the RTE reference is produced I might have to change my view)
 * You seem to feel that there is no support for often or frequently or anything like it but you don't offer any reference on the subject, just your own opinion. Do you have any citation that supports your view or is it just your opinion?  Again, you might be right, but so far you aren't offering any reference in support.  Can you?  If yes, please do. Hughsheehy 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, of course, stupid of me, it's all just a big voyage of discovery for you - you stumbled across these references which accidentally support the idea of "many, often, quite, really, frequently", etc and you have to give in, you have to surrender to the factoids as do we all! Puh-leeze. MarkThomas 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't stumble across them. eric pointed them out. If you look back at the talk pages you'll find that I opposed stronger language in the intro because there were no refs, then eric came in with these. (the focus of the page for quite a while had been in the historical sections) The refs that he gathered, and the several others, support what I believe to be the case, that the term is "often" (or similar) regarded as offensive, inaccurate, inappropriate, etc.  I believe it to be the case but I was quite openly opposing saying so until someone provided reference.  Now there is reference.  I'm trying to understand the basis on which you are asserting anything else.  If you can provide references (and yes, perhaps WP is built on factoids) then that view has validity in WP.  So, I repeat my question; Can you provide a single citation to support your view?  Even one?  If yes, please do.
 * Just think, if you found some good references you could prove that I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any evidence being produced. Hughsheehy 13:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we already went round this argument on the main talk page, and you appear to have lost the "battle" in your efforts to insert the words "many, frequently, often", etc or whatever the heck they were exactly on the grounds that the only definitive source that could be acceptable in that context would be a reputable opinion poll. Since as far as we know so far there is no such poll, you had no case. Presumably that's why I get all this from you on my talk page! If you can find such a poll (or perhaps get the IHT to run one!) I would be happy to accept the findings. In the meantime, there seems no point in further discussing this. MarkThomas 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am asking if you have any reference at all and I am talking about it here because I am trying to understand your objection. I now believe that you don't have a single reference and are, frankly, just pushing your own POV without any concern for reference.  I don't understand why, but that's your business. As for Polls, I've talked about them many times on the talk page.
 * Finally, since I don't consider it a "battle", I haven't lost anything. However, I will continue to work so that the text reflects the available evidence, which is extensive.  If you want to help, then provide evidence.  So far it's apparent that you can't.  Hughsheehy 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * MarkThomas, i just posted this on TharkunCollÂ´s page, and it also has a response to a question of yours. "You have both asserted that the objection in Ireland is minority and that the term is used "generally" elsewhere.  You have not provided any refs to support either position, yet you continue to insist that it is so.  Without refs you have no ground to stand on.  Also, there is no maze (which point I will put on MarkThomas user page also), simply a consistent - and so far unanswered - request for citations to support your position."  Hughsheehy 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

IRA killings
You might be interested to see what is happening here Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9 Check my user logs and you will quickly see the agenda here... Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) â¢ 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My incompetence...
Hi there, I managed to generate a ghost userpage (User talk:User:Bedoyere) by getting the Notable template wrong for Guy de la BÃ©doyÃ¨re. His real userpage is at User:Bedoyere. I don't know if you want to shift your greeting there, and put the duff page up for WP:Speedy? Sorry about the hassle. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)