User talk:MarkThomas/Archive May 2007

Ken Livingstone photo in London article

Hi Mark, I reverted your edit (this one) because the image you added in doesn't exist at the moment. I don't know if the image was deleted or if you had mistyped the address. Just FYI. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Purpose of your recent edit on United Kingdom

Hi, can you explain why you used the comment added "and member of the Security Council of the United Nations" on your recent edit on United Kingdom? Your edit appears to be wholly unrelated to the comment. Superficially it appears to be a case of vandalism with a bluffed a countrycomment line to attempt to mask this. Do you have any comments on this? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'Day, Mark.

Appearances can be deceptive. I added "and member of the Security Council of the United Nations" because it is a factually correct and relevant statement. Why do you think it is not appropriate in the starting paragraph of the United Kingdom article?

I take the strongest possible exception to your allegation of vandalism. Please withdraw it.

I think you may be really referring to my excision of the incorrect categorisation of the UK as a single country. As its very title makes clear, the United Kingdom is a Union of countries (the UK is a sovereign state composed of separate countries - NOT a single country with a unitary culture, banknotes or stamps and the previous reference (No 10's site) offered no support whatever for the contrary viewpoint!)Gaimhreadhan 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the comments of others

Please do not blank comments left by others unless you are archiving them. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, such as above where you insinuate that I am a fascist. DickClarkMises 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong personal reasons for not wanting Nazism openly propounded on my talk page. If you persist, I will assume you are stalking me for some reason. MarkThomas 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking you; rather, I am attempting to resolve an edit dispute to which we are both party. I have strong personal reasons for not wanting to be called a fascist (like the fact that I am an anarchocapitalist), but our feelings ought not be the focus of our time here. We are writing an encyclopedia. If you don't want editors to leave comments about Nazism on your talk page, don't get involved in edit wars at Nazism. If you want to be collaborative, great, but on this issue you have engaged in name-calling and other uncivil behavior that seems to indicate otherwise. DickClarkMises 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply find faschist "ideas" to be not worth debating. There is literally no sensible debate I can enter into with proponents of it, since the editors in question are incable of responding in the mode of liberal discourse. Anarcho-capitalists maybe. Nazis no. Thanks for discontinuing re-inserting the Nazi justifications. I see nothing wrong with confining discussion about an article to the talk page of that article by the way. Straying into user talk pages is usually an excuse for slanging matches, and this appears to be no exception. It wasn't really aimed at you anyway, but I'm having a busy evening! The faschist view of Nazism and Hitlerism will not prevail on Wikipedia. MarkThomas 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag

Mark, please note that, according to WP:NPOVD, it is appropriate for an editor to add the POV tag whenever s/he thinks there's an NPOV problem. Other editors should leave the tag in place until the dispute is resolved. Gnixon 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Here's a quote from the NPOVD page:[reply]

In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sède....Sede

Hi Mark. Actually I had no idea either way. I changed it to have an è, but then saw throughout the article it was with an e. Thought at that point I'd better change it back and leave it alone. It does appear to be è, however, from the looks of his amazon page....--Adkins 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strasserite Bill

Hi, I already cited Billy for a 3RR a day ago, and he was blocked for 8 hours. So any new 3RR would have to be composed of fresh incidents? I think so. Anyway, feel free to list it as a 3RR if you see 4 new ones. Thanks for assisting in this matter.--Cberlet 13:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

This edit [1] to Billy Ego's user talk page crossed the line into personal attacks. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and avoid abusing other editors in the future. Georgewilliamherbert 18:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being specific enough. This diff: [2] Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly fond of him either, but Wikipedia rules state that discussions, even confrontational ones, have to stay polite. Him being a Fascist doesn't excuse your behavior.

I am hopeful that he will just go away eventually, but in the meantime try to keep it civil. He may also self-destruct by pushing too far himself. The less other people confrontationally involved if that happens the better. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username

LOL, thanks for the compliment. I'm just racking my brain what "past experience with interesting animals in the countryside" I'd have to show off. I suppose stray kittens don't count, do they? - As for the real history of the name, it's actually a bit more prosaic... see User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 1#Username. Hope that doesn't spoil it for you. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested?

Would you be interested in posting here? It may be of interest to you. Jhamez84 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of British Isles in Ireland

Hi Mark, I've left you a message on the British Isles talk page. Just as a quick personal note from my own experience, I understand that opinion in Britain (and everywhere else in the world) is that the term is uncontroversial, but honestly in Ireland its use is quiet rare and normally objected to - however if someone from another country uses it, including from the UK, then its normally fine, because we realise "they don't mean anything by it." I only found out about this page today. They obviously need to be cited in the article. --sony-youth^talk 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

3RR Warning

Hi there. Just a note that you are close to violating the 3RR on the article British Isles. I note that this is the result of a editing dispute and I ask you to take the discussion fully to the talk page and cease reverting or you may be liable for a temporary block. Note this warning is not taking a side in the debate, but is trying to prevent further disruption. Ben W Bell talk 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

UK

Thanks - yup I realise I'm at 3 now. Gsd2000 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]