User talk:MarkThomas/Archive Mar 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Liam Byrne

Saw you caught the sneaky edit, which was mentioned in the Guardian. It was up for almost a month. Are you that fella off the TV?--Shtove 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Alas no Liam, I am another Mark Thomas - but I also think he is a good chap. And I also spotted the Guardian piece. MarkThomas 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair page vandalism

Thank you for informing. I will take care if vandalism continue to happen. --Bhadani 19:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment on RC page

There's an assessment scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. It's fairly subjective, but it at least gives a general guide on how to rate articles. The class of an article is pretty easy to determine since there are special processes for GA- and FA-class articles. Re-evaluation Counseling hasn't been granted GA- or FA-status, so the highest class it could be is B. Importance can be harder to measure, but I will point out that it is measured relative to other articles in the same WikiProject. Therefore, an article could be given a High rating in one WikiProject and a Low rating in another. In general, major concepts that would be covered in a basic psychology class are usually given Top or High ratings. Mid ratings are generally given to concepts that are covered by most psychology institutions in more advanced classes and are well-known among psychologists but probably not to the general population. Concepts that are not well-known, even to psychologists, or are not emphasized in academic studies of psychology typically get low ratings. This doesn't mean that it's not important, only that it's not as important as other psychology articles. I chose to give it a low rating because Re-evaluation Counseling doesn't seem to be a well-known organization among psychologists, nor is much emphasis placed on in academic studies of psychology. In comparison, note that key organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have Mid-importance ratings. Of course, rating articles isn't an exact science, so you can feel free to change the rating if you want. If someone doesn't like it, they can bring it up on the article's talk page, and consensus will determine the result. —Cswrye 19:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a Christian, although I don't think that affected how I rated the article. I'd never heard of Re-evaluation Counseling or co-counselling until I saw their articles on Wikipedia, and I didn't notice anything anti-Christian about them when I skimmed over them. I admit that I am looking at my assessments from the perspective of mainstream psychology, but I think that's appropriate considering that it is for WikiProject Psychology. Unfortunately, the project isn't very active, and there are only a few people actively involved in assessing articles. Someone else did most of the work setting up the system and doing some initial evaluations, but I've done most of the work tagging articles as part of the project. I was actually very reluctant to assess articles until recently because I didn't want to get involved in any controversies, but there is a growing need to prioritize articles. Assessing articles is sometimes hard because every article is of High importance to someone, but if every article were rated High, there wouldn't be any reason to have an assessment. I try to rate them as objectively as possible in comparison to similar types of articles, but my tendency is to rate articles lower than other people to compensate for the fact that most people who are interested in an article will rate it higher than the article merits (which is what we I/O psychologists call leniency error). The assessment system for this project hasn't been around long enough for there to be too many arguments, but there was a major dispute about NPA personality theory that even attracted the attention of some off-wiki groups like Slashdot. Someone rated the article FA-class and High-importance in spite of the fact that it had failed its featured article nomination. I argued that it should be A-class and Low-importance. They agreed on A-class, and we compromised on making it Mid-importance, but someone else nominated the article for deletion on the basis of it being non-notable, original research, and a conflict of interest (the author of the article was the same person who developed the theory, and some of his associates admitted to using the article to promote the theory). Of course, once it was deleted, the assessment became an irrelevent issue. —Cswrye 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Hassan: not a place to digress on the cult controversy

I more or less expected such a reply. My removal of well-sourced statements is consistent with my principle that general statements belong in a general article and not in a biography. For example, general criticism of Marxism is off topic in an article about Fidel Castro. Same for Steven Hassan that should not digress on the cult controversy. The cult controversy should be treated in the articles cults and new religious movement, not (selectively) repeated in Steven Hassan. Andries 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add what criteria Hassan uses to identify a cult. I support mentioning such information in the article, but I oppose comparisons made by the Wikipedia editors between lists of cults unless they are made in reputable sources. Otherwise it is original research. Andries 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet in the piece you deleted, there were references to sources that make precisely such comparisons. MarkThomas 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that it is only the Wikipedia editors who compared these sources. That is inappropriate. If these sources compare their list to that of Hassan then I apologize for removing the information and I will self-revert, but from what I have read this is not the case. Andries 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing - I am describing the references in the material to other widely read sources of information about what constitutes a cult. Since Hassan's website is widely used as one such source, I feel that Wikipedia readers could do with having information about other such sources. I deliberately chose academic sites and sources from universities as references to avoid any suggestion that I was using some sort of Scieno-driven front organisation as a source, for example. I note that you haven't responded in any way to my original request that you confirm if your reaction to this piece was about suspecting cult activity - yet I do get the feeling from your various responses that this is indeed the case. If so, please say so openly so we can all see where we stand. MarkThomas 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am aware of a lot of criticism of Hassan that I share to some extent. The question regarding my removals is whether the information that I removed was on topic or not. May be some rebuttal from targeted groups can be added, but certainly not from a Scientology smear website, but from a far more moderate and more on-topic Unification Church website. Andries 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Kate Beckinsale. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Yamla 15:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Shakespeare

The whole article needs lots of citing up. But that particular paragraph I added some cites to, and it's necessary to be clear what parts the cites cover, or it's misleading, because people will presume the cite at the end of the sentence covers it, which it does not. Adam Cuerden talk 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if we want this to become a featured article. Anyway, anyone can edit Wikipedia: if we don't show that experts believe it, we end up with the situation where a crank can come along, write plausibly about, say, how Shakespeare's Cardenio was, in fact, the basis of "A School for Scandal", and, if he manages to fill it with enough bluster it might be very hard to prove it wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Borders of the Roman Empire

Hi Argentino, did you create the map on your (excellent) borders page? It does contain some errors, including showing Ireland as having actually been colonised for a while (it wasn't - just a Roman trading post - by this standard India should be included!) and the furthest-reached borders into Germany go much too far, or are at least very speculative. It is also now wrong on the Scottish border, recent confirmed archaeological work shows much greater Roman incursion into Northern Scotland than was previously stated. Would you be interested in working with me to modify it if it was you who made it? Thanks! MarkThomas 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you click onto this link to wikipedia commons it shows that this user did create the file and that the rationale for the inclusion of ireland is listed in the file summary. Since it is public domain, you should feel free to edit it with any reasonable improvements etc where you are certain of them. I may be working on this image myself shortly to make the limes clearer in lower res thumbnails and de-emphasise irrelevant modern national borders - PocklingtonDan 11:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful information, thanks, I will take a look at both! MarkThomas 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On being an admin

Being an admin does not make one superhuman. And perhaps Republic of Ireland and Isle of Man should be changed as well? Give a coherent logical (not emotional) argument for why the most common language in a region should not be listed first. Logic should be given precedence, as this is an encyclopedia. Polls have only limited use on Wikipedia—one should not resort to them every time there is a conflict. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I was a little harsh. It was, however, only a variation on the common poll !vote of WP:Polls are evil. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute mediation

Are you interested in participating in an informal mediation regarding the Adolf Hitler article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-18_Hitler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.64.6 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Osirian/Osiran

On reflection, you're correct. All I can really say is that I believe there was a good reason at the time to stick to the "Osirian" spelling but I can't really remember it now. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We probably all take canonicity too seriously :) Anyway, I've changed it and put up a note on the Talk:Pyramids of Mars page to see if anyone is going to weigh in on it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Username (MarkThomas)

Hello MarkThomas, unfortunately the username you have picked is inappropriate as it might be mistaked for Mark Thomas. Please consider changing it. You can do this by following the instructions at the Changing username page or by just creating a new account. Note that changing your username will allow you to keep your current edits credited to you. If you do not change your username, a Wikipedia administrator may block this account. If you feel this message is a mistake and your username does not violate the rule, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. . Asteriontalk 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark, please have a look at WP:RFC/NAME and Wikipedia:Usernames. Personally, I have no problem with your username but given the subject of the articles you edit (UK politics, etc), there is a chance for confusion. I guess that you could make a little more obvious that you are not the same guy (i.e. adding a comment like "I am not Mark Thomas" to your userpage. Regards and happy new year, Asteriontalk 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Cheers, Asteriontalk 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commanders of World War II(references)

You have shown interest about "Commanders of World War II". We have had some discussion [1] about referenceing it with Oshah, but im not sure what's best solution.--Staberinde 12:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You reverted to the same map. That is 3RR (or in your case, 4RR). TharkunColl 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that are vandalism. Adding a new map presenting the same information as the previous map is not one of them. Actually since based on your talk page comments[2] the POV problem is that he doesn't want the UK associated with the EU, I'm not sure what your concern is at all, since the new map more clearly defines the UK as being in the EU. --tjstrf talk 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As he pointed out, it could be standardized either way. I'm trying to be objective here, and when I consider the two maps on their actual merits I see no pressing reason to pick either. His statement that the projection style on the first map is way off is a minor but real advantage to using that version, and most of the maps on the project as a whole use that style rather than the atlas themed maps. Claiming the map is a POV push attempt when the image title screams PART OF THE EU is silly. As for reasons of my own, what reasons would I possibly have? I don't edit United Kingdom or European Union. --tjstrf talk 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you read back through all his past comments, he hates having the UK identified as part of the EU. The subsequent green EU map was a sort of half-baked attempt to de-harmonise with the rest of the EU pages given that he couldn't get a fully de-EU'd map through against blizzards of disagreeing editors in previous attempts. MarkThomas 17:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the same map in United Kingdom as MarkThomas does, but a recent edit to this page was reverted with this edit summary: revert. 3RR exemptions are only for blatant vandalism. That's not so, 3RR exemption also applies to reverting unsourced negative material about living persons, see WP:BLP. Viewfinder 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I also remembered reading that they are justified in defence of a better Wikipedia, which is what I was trying to accomplish in this instance. MarkThomas 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Any side in any genuine edit war, with good faith on both sides, could make that claim. Viewfinder 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's what is hypothetically the justification required for ANY revert. The purpose of the 3RR rule is to be concrete and unpassable except under the most limited of circumstances. --tjstrf talk 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourg

Drop your crusade, and don't change that map again. Your edit was in disagreement with what has been the policy of WikiProject Luxembourg since those maps were first unilaterally introduced. Bastin 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. There's no crusade - this is just making Wikipedia better by harmonising EU pages. The WikiProject Luxembourg policy must presumably come below the need to show all EU countries properly on Wikipedia. Thanks. MarkThomas 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The article on Luxembourg comes rather firmly within the remit of WikiProject Luxembourg. And, as the founder of WikiProject Luxembourg, and one of the main editors of the article on Luxembourg, you'd assume that I'd know. Let me stress that one last time: Luxembourg. Bastin 09:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the "need" to show all EU countries "properly" not include showing their actual size? TharkunColl 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a project for harmonising EU pages? Thanks.--Shtove 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if there isn't, surely there should be?! MarkThomas 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Luxembourg or Lux plus one other should not be the only EU country articles on Wikipedia that have a map not showing the EU and Lux's position within it. Can we have a discussion based on objective criteria about it? The issue is that (1) the maps editors re-insert are similar but but remove the EU (2) infoboxes are not only to do with the article you are on at any given time - they also contain information about related groups of pages (3) the maps are harmonised across all EU countries so that any casual browser of EU pages can immediately see how they all relate and be reminded that they are all in the EU, which is the most important international organisation those countries belong to. Other views? MarkThomas 10:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as Luxembourg The Netherlands does not have and does not want the new map as it stands now. No consensus is reached either in the WikiProject Countries nor on the Netherlands talk page. The argument that the change is made from harmonisation of EU coutries is an invalid argument, you migt as easily state that all other countries should go back to the old look (that would also be harmonisation and even more that would be Worldwide harmonisation). I see no reason for a EU style different from the rest of the world, and it seems the Country Project agrees with me. Arnoutf 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom map

reply, thanks/wangi 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair anagram

Any particular reason why you took this out please? SmokeyTheCat 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Hey, hey, no reason to get angry. Instead of getting into an edit war, if you feel that your changes are in line with wikipedia policy, take it to the talk page. Don't worry, be happy! -- febtalk 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the edit war continues, I'll take it to WP:RFPP. --Golbez 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is neither rude nor incivil, and is the only one I have left you. You seem to either have me mixed up with someone else, or a huge persecution complex - I hope it's the former. As for we're the only ones having an edit war, that's like saying "Only Germany and Italy were having a war in WW2", ignoring the fact that the UK and US were, too, involved in the war, even if they were the 'good guys'. --Golbez 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And you will fail - there's no way it will be fully protected for any length of time. You and Hanum have a shared POV which you defend - for some reason you both want Hitler's crimes to appear less than they actually were. Anyone trying to oppose you is obviously going to get attempts at steamrollering from you. MarkThomas 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well first, i'm not taking sides in this, as it seems like all three of you have broken 3RR, and really I don't care. The reason I posted on your page is, first of all, because you are the one in fewest numbers, and thus it's easier to try to appeal to you than to them. Secondly, your edits seemed slightly unencyclopedic (although not undeserving, it's fairly obvious he's an evil bastard). There's no reason to get upset about this, what should've happened is you posted on the talk page before you added anything, and if you did, you shouldn't have added if there wasn't a general positive consensus. -- febtalk 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did - the Talk page contains a discussion with my fairly detailed contribution on it. Golbez and Hanum confine themselves by contrast to a few words of badly argued nonsense. I would be grateful if you could spare the time to read the opening section and make comments yourself. Which part of what I'm attempting to include do you find unencyclopedic? Thanks. MarkThomas 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished reading the talk page. I don't feel that you've truly talked enough of it through to complain about their actions just yet. Not to mention, i'm unsure if it's really nessicery, as someone else said, Hitler doesn't need any help in the looking evil department. Golbez and Hahum seemed to just be trying to mediate, and didn't seem to have much of an opinion on the matter. In the meantime, i've reported all three of you for 3RR violation, as you all seem to have violated it, and hopefully an administrator can at least straighten this situation out. It doesn't really seem to be worth bickering about. -- febtalk 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't trying to mediate - they are trying to remove useful material systematically. Where is the 3RR you allege I have done? MarkThomas 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I said they seemed to have been, as in before this silly edit war thing got started. On the other hand, your additions to the article are more of an attack than they are information. I don't see how anyone could say that "left europe devastated" is useful information compared to what's already there. However, I did find those percentages interesting, if there's a WP:RS for it you could add that into a section on WWII aftermath. Again, I'm not taking sides. In my eyes, there's problems on both sides of this fence. You have a tree hanging over, and they want to trim it. You think it's trunk is in your yard, and you like it, they think the limbs are in their yard, and it's in the way. Of course, you don't want them to trim the tree, and they don't want it hanging in their yard. You could both be better neighbors if they wouldn't trim your tree, and you would try to move your tree so it wasn't offensive to them. Or something, i'm not that great with metaphors -- febtalk 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring and incivility at Adolf Hitler. Please see [3]. Dmcdevit·t 09:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo order

When that article was first created, Birmingham's photo was first. This is the natural order because B'ham has been regarded as the second city since WW1, it is in fact the second largest city (which, despite your claim, is the only objective criterion available), and each paragraph of the article mentions B'ham first. TharkunColl 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)