Talk:Mark Ridley-Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Regular article vandalism[edit]

An anonymous vandal is continually removing the (well cited) controversy sections on this article as well as adding unsourced marketing fluff and opinion. There have been at least 4 full section blanks of the "controversy" section over the last two years by anon IPs. Should this article be semi-protected as a result, or is it not enough vandalism to warrant such action? Lexlex (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Ridley-Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


We've had (or not) a paragraph in the "controversy" section about something that never happened: a planned $700K remodel of his office. He announced it; a couple of talk radio hosts criticized it; it never happened. What's enyclopedic about this (or even newsworthy almost a decade later)? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The remodel subsequently never happened so we can footnote that it's on indefinite hold, cancelled, etc. within the article. But it's referenced fact that it was planned and was in the news. Wholesale deleting the section because someone balked and didn't go through with the plan is not the same as the plan not existing. This event did happen and there was proven intent to spend 700k on an office remodel - that's noteworthy I think, no? Lexlex (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, I don't think so, which is why I removed it. And the headline is dramatic: "misuse of funds". He has not been charged in any official way with any misuse of funds; this is a borderline BLP violation. I suggest finding a way to rephrase it -- "some questions have been raised" is the most you can say; and we'd need some comparison with other supervisors' historical use of discretionary funds. How much does it usually cost to remodel an office? How much do supervisors usually spend on self-promotion (such as that stupid Whos Who thing)? Instead, we are flatly asserting misuse of funds (we're not even using weasel words and saying there are allegations.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
My only concern was that an referenced event in the news wasn't deleted entirely. The headline could be "funds controversy" etc. no? Lexlex (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't care that it was referenced. We are Wikipedia _editors_, not Wikipedia _copyists_. As editors, we use our judgement and Wikipedia policy and guidelines to determine what goes into articles and what doesn't. Many things that can be referenced don't go into articles -- we're not an indiscriminate collection of facts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
OK - as an editor I find it interesting and potentially illustrative of the fiscal leanings of this politician, and believe others would as well.Lexlex (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Which introduces your POV -- you are the one concluding it is illustrative of the politician's fiscal leanings. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your position is: a) Wikipedia is not an all-purpose repository, _editors_ (not copyists) should use their judgment to remove needless information; and b) As an editor I should not use my judgement to keep information as it's POV. This would seem to be a contradictory stance. Your overriding contention seems to be: unexecuted plans have no place in Wikipedia, which can be countered by a lengthy entry on Welthauptstadt Germania. The amount of effort you're expending to remove an unflattering entry for a little-known city politician is curious to me. Lexlex (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really a lot of effort! I've just typed a few paragraphs. Feel free to win this one. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 06:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)