Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkThomas (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 2 August 2007 (Rockpocket: response to the Cromwell reference issue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms Template:Userpage otheruse

/archive1 = Archived material from 10 May 2006 to 10 November 2006.

Harvey Jackins

I don't know if I have an axe to grind. Harvey was a friend but we fell out over politics (he really did think Staline was a good thing, like many of his generation). I am concerned about the allegations of sexual misconduct, because I know he wouldn't have, but mainly because it is so easy to accuse, so hard to defend on this sort of question, which is why it is the subject which is chosen. Don't have a lot of time but will look at it. I think it was especially bad the beginning where it said "Harvey said that he had been attacked but someone else said he hasn't and in general you can't trust what the guy says." It's not encyclopedic.

But my edits were quickly done, so I don't defend every bit of them. John Mullen

Hi Mark Did you receive my proposed edits by mail ? John

hello Mark I see you have done a lot of work on the Harvey Jackins article over the months. Thanks for that - I haven't had time to look in detail, but reading it through it seems to have improved. Johncmullen1960 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Zionist conspiracy" comment at Talk:Adolf Hitler

I just wanted to let you know that the "Zionist conspiracy" comment at Talk:Adolf Hitler was made by abusive sockpuppet impersonator Ameriquə (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not by the legitimate user Amerique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). szyslak (t, c)

RfC

Hi Mark, you may want to leave your post for the RfC in the discussion area and/or sign you name to "users who endorse this summary" (if you agree with it). Otherwise it may get lost on the talk page. --sony-youth 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

I'm working on an Article at the moment, and will turn to the Great Irish Famine at a later stage. Cecil Woodham-Smith's The Great Hungeris the source I was referencing. Regards --Domer48 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The one published in 1963? I think there's been a lot of revision and change in academic views since then. I don't have a copy to hand although I read it a long time ago, but I don't recall it referring to pre-famine investigations other than those into the condition of Labourers as part of the Poor Law and Corn Law reforms, is that what you are referring to? Eg, the ones that were Britain-wide? MarkThomas 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alice Roberts image

Just wondering if you made the page for Alice why not get a photo off her and put it in the page?

Jules JulianHensey 19:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
(moved from user page)--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jules, I did, and the powers that be removed it! To be honest, it's so flippin complicated filing an image at Wikimedia now that I can't be bothered. MarkThomas 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, please stop

Mark, I notice that despite repeated requests, you continue to breach WP:NPA. You have now accused me of "blatant Anglophobia and hostility bordering on racism" on another editors talkpage User talk:Gold heart. This is clearly an abusive attack and is completely untrue. The irony - that all this abuse is coming while I'm defending allegations of incivility (which you support) - is amazing. Please stop it now. Right now. (Sarah777 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Nope, the statements you made are listed on the RfC page and they are very characteristic of the comments I made, which I fully stand by. The question is - will you withdraw them? MarkThomas 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark do not revert Sarah777's copying of sections of your user talk page. Under the GFDL you have released the rights for her to reproduce that material freely, and policy does not support you here. You are being extremely disruptive. Given your incivil baiting on User talk:Gold heart and the RFC talk page where I had warned you previously, I'm blocking you for 24 hours. ⇒ SWATJester 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh, his block has expired but he still can't get back on. I've lifted the autoblock and the regular block both just to make sure. I haven't spoken to him since then but yeah the last email I got from him he could not get back on. ⇒ SWATJester 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. Aren't autoblocks supposed to last for only 24 hours? And I apologize to MarkThomas for my mistake. —Kurykh 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it seems to work now - no idea what was causing it. Thanks both of you for your help. MarkThomas 07:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA warning

Stop attacking other editors per Talk:Great_Irish_Famine#Genocide. Next time you will be blocked. Tyrenius 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the comments you removed on ANI

Your edits removed comments by myself and SWATJester on the ANI thread you opened. Do not delete other users comments, please. SirFozzie 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Since it looks like with regards to the ongoing issue, nothing will be solved until ArbCom gets involved, I have created an ArbCom case about the ongoing issues with Great Irish Famine and its editors. SirFozzie 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Misplaced Pages, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here, formally, since you've already done so informally. Thanks!...Gaimhreadhan • 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) PS: Feel free to suggest any other conscientious editors that may assist in the process...

Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate

As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 14:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you "Mark Thomas, Director of the BBC North Project" ?

This isn't you is it ? Mark Thomas, Director of the BBC North Project. Sprigot 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, but well discovered Sprigot! Are you a private eye in your spare time? :-) MarkThomas 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No - I'm a pedant and didactic. Any chance of a bit of a cease fire / Armistice / truce on the Second city of the United Kingdom article ? See my POV on my Talk Page - Second city of the United Kingdom. Cheers Sprigot 18:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:-) I would be up for trying - good to have your interest, in the past that article has been dominated by a small group of intensely pro-Birmingham editors uninterested in NPOV and so it's been quite a struggle. I do think it should exist and could be a lot more interesting - we were reaching towards that previously but I have also been very sidetracked by a POV campaign in the Britain and Ireland related articles generally. I would assist you with reasoned discussion on this one. The chief difficulty in the past has been persuading TharkunColl and AndyMabbutt that Manchester is a real possible as Second City - people brought up in Birmingham are often unaware that this view is possible. There was a sustained campaign on this in Brum during the last 30 or 40 years. Unfortunately the rest of the country, as shown in the recent poll, disagrees - I think it's remarkable given the POV-domination of that article that the current material on the existence of the poll has stuck! MarkThomas 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"poorer and more "slummy"" - is a bit low isn't it - why not just go for direct name calling. Sprigot 15:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming from a Manc it's probably intended as a compliment. TharkunColl 15:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a US citizen living in the UK, TC - I think we've had this convo before! I have lived in both Birmingham and Manchester as well as London and I like to think this gives me a unique perspective. I actually like Brum a lot but don't think it's the second largest - if you spend a lot of time around both cities, you get a very strong view that Manchester is second, it's just so much bigger in terms of culture, facilities, media, transport, etc. This is nothing against Brum, just stating the reality really. And Spigot, you are right about the slummy comment, but I was just kidding. :-) MarkThomas 15:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just the problem, because in terms of population Birmingham is bigger - by a very long way - and everything else is just subjective. I think it took a long time for Brummies, who tend to be quite easy-going in most ways, to cotton on to what the Manchester PR people were up to, but when they did they were justifiably outraged. The example of Chicago is much better - LA is now much bigger and more important in all sorts of ways, but at no time has it ever tried to usurp Chicago's traditional designation of Second City. And to add insult to injury, Manchester is still less than half the size of Birmingham! And to think, Birmingham actually helped Manchester in its Olympic bid! Its actions in this matter are just seen as grubby and dishonourable by most Brummies I'm afraid. TharkunColl 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right about the PR people, but isn't that the PR game - those guys are paid to be b*stards! But on the population thing, that's really just you're POV TC and I know this seems an unshakeable fact for you, but it really is not the case that M'chester is half the size of B'ham and I'm sure you know that in your heart. Try driving up the A6 from Buxton to M'chester City Centre and then repeat the claim. It might sound hollow! They are both very big conurbias and the reality is there isn't much between them in population. But it's a hollow argument and you keep rehearsing it. It's hollow because the 2nd City is about much more than popn. It's a cultural belief, a governmental perception, a historical issue and a sliding dynamic phenomenon. The empty arguments about which suburb is in or out offer no solution. The article should reflect all this. Why exclude stuff you don't like from it? Let all the arguments be in there! That's Misplaced Pages. MarkThomas 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because Brummies have less money/facilities doesn't mean that as people, our much greater numbers count for less. Your statement is class-ist, and Brummie-ist IMHO. At least if I am critiquing Manchester I don't criticise the people, just mention the infamous amount of gun crime and prostitution.:)Merkinsmum 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm Accident Of Birth

You wondered who I am, well I doubt you know me but on my user page it gives you a brief glimpse. I like to think of myself as a lover of history and like to educate myself on past events that were glossed over in school history lessons. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. And I'm also a believer in the Moon Landing

Accusations bordering on Libel

MarkThomas, please withdraw your remarks on the Cromwell discussion page. You are essentially accusing me of POV edits and vandalism. I want an apology immediately. Deleting my request is pointless. The request is made and will continue to be made. Hughsheehy 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a clear breach of WP:LEGAL and I will be requesting a perma-block on user Hughsheehy for it shortly. MarkThomas 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just nonsense. Accusations of "libel" are by the way legal threats which are blockable offences. MarkThomas 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, again, please stop accusing me of POV, etc, on article talk pages. You have repeatedly accused me of POV with no justification, said that I've made edits when I didn't, said that I've deleted references, etc. It is tiresome. Please have the courtesy required by WP:Civil, WP:NPA, etc.. As for me making "legal threats", it's laughable. I have asked you to apologise on Misplaced Pages. I repeat the request. Also, stop deleting my requests from this page. Hughsheehy 13:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been round all this before Hugh and I already know it's a total waste of time attempting to enter into a proper discussion with you, since you have no interest in it. You have an extreme fundamentalist POV in regard to the British and Ireland and there is no sensible rational view we can evolve between us. Stop making legal threats as above or I will report you and you will end up perma-blocked. No further discussion will be had and I will not respond further. MarkThomas 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, please do report me. Please. Saying your remarks are libelous is a tad different from starting legal action, which I haven't. Meantime, I repeat my request for an apology for your unjustified accusations of POV editing and vandalism. Hughsheehy 14:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the comments I made and they are all perfectly correct. This can be seen in the ever-shifting sands of your manouverist counter-arguments currently going on on the talk page of the article as you gradually are forced into a retreat. One day the article will be rendered NPOV and you will be forced to back down. I suggest you get out of the way sooner and save us all a lot of trouble and emotional strain from your constant whining. MarkThomas 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've agreed to apologise please make the apology both here on your talk page and where you made the accusing remarks recently, i.e. here. Hughsheehy 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

<Reduce indent>Making evasive and conditional apologies on my talk page is insufficient. Post your apologies on your talk page here and where you made the accusations - and don't go deleting it from your own talk page either, as seems to be your habit for any . Also, WP:Legal does not apply as I have not made any "legal threat" against you and have already said this clearly. I have said that I want apologies on Misplaced Pages for your unjustified accusations of POV editing and vandalism. Hughsheehy 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, you have made an accusation that I am libellous which is a clear breach of WP:LEGAL and I am now forced to complain about that and will. Please stop this nonsense Hughsheehy - you know perfectly well that this is nothing to do with my conduct and everything to do with a content dispute about which you have very strong feelings, regardless of you acknowledging that. MarkThomas 08:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, this is not a content dispute. This is a behaviour dispute. It could be a content dispute if you were being civil and producing references to support what you say. You aren't being civil and you don't provide references. You merely accuse me of POV, you make statements about my edits that aren't true, you insist that the citations I provide are somehow POV and you delete them, or if you don't delete references i added you mischaracterize them, etc. I would like you to stop doing this in the future and to apologise for doing it in the past. Hughsheehy 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we've been all round that before and frankly it's getting very wearisome. I provided alternative referenced material, you and other Irish editors disputed the references, the author, the material, etc, etc, and reverted and reverted. I have also challenged past references of yours and you act as though personally offended when that happens. Your POV is completely clear, Misplaced Pages is not just a battle of the references and you denying that you have a POV is frankly pathetic and demeaning. MarkThomas 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

24 hours for trolling Domer, and your various comments elsewhere. You deserve a longer block, considering your history, but I figure 24 hours is all I can stand to give you. Don't worry, I will bring it up with John and Rockpocket and any other admin you care to want to bring it up with, so you can rest assured that the block will not be a rogue action by someone you consider to be "pro-irish", no matter how much baloney that is. SirFozzie 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. Tyrenius 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Or just anything you could think of at the time SirFozzie - obviously the comment to Domer was good-natured banter. Interesting though that you first suggest an RFC on me to Hughsheehy and then once it's posted give me a block. All totally impartial of course. MarkThomas 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. I see no "obvious good-natured banter" there. - Alison ☺ 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block and I tell you if you continue to stir things up on your return you can look forward to a much longer block from me. WP:CIVIL is especially important on contentious topics. Laughing at someone who has been blocked is in no way good-natured banter. Improve, or leave, please. --John 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment to User:Domer48

Goading comments like this are totally inappropriate. Similar to a certain other editor, you have also been repeatedly warned about incivility and goading, aggressive behaviour. You also have an extensive block history for incivilty and baiting other editors. Consider this, too, your final warning - Alison ☺ 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like SirFozzie got in before me. Well and good, I certainly endorse that block - Alison ☺ 15:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell

Hello Mark. Another editor has expressed concern over your removal of references from this article. While I appreciate you have gone to some lengths to explain your edits in edit summaries (and I am not familiar with the article, so I can't comment on the content itself), we should nevertheless think twice before removing supporting refs unless they are clearly false, misrepresented or misleading. References are a good thing, after all. I feel that, at least some of your removals, do not fit that criteria. For example, this edit is justified by "alas, no mention of the word genocide to support the reference. Deleted". However the deleted reference appears to say,

The massacres by Catholics of Protestants... were magnified for propagandist purposes to justify Cromwell's subsequent genocide."

I can only assume you made an error, since the justification clearly does not tally with the action. In addition, you remove a reference for using the term "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide", because they are not the same, then claim ethnic cleaning should be mentioned. It surely makes much more sense to add the term "ethnic cleaning" to the sentence and leave the reference in, then, rather than delete a good and relevent source (by your own words)? Don't you agree? Please reconsider these edits like these (especially the first one, which really should be reverted), as well referenced material is much harder to find than to delete. Thanks. Rockpocket 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Rockpocket. I did make a mistake on the one you refer to and will add it back. However, reading your comments to Hughsheehy, I see that you regard this as bad behaviour by me and an alleged repeat of previous bad behaviour. This accumulation of "bad behaviour" reports arises from a chain of misleading and misunderstood attacks on me by Hughsheehy, Domer48, Sarah777 and others connected to my attempts to de-POV articles related to British and Irish history. Many of the edits I made have stuck, but in the process I was subjected to what amounted to fusilades of attacks, some of them very deliberately and cynically misleading and a determined attempt to game admins. See for example Sony-youth's comments on this under "SirFozzie and favouritism" in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence.

In the actual article, the massive chain of references that variably support the genocide claim are way, way over the top and I think if someone else were editing this down other than myself you would not have commented. I don't have a "history of reference deletion" as claimed by Hughsheehy on your talk page. The previous one he gets worked up about me deleting he misrepresents as a reference deletion when it was no such thing. What got this started was there used to be a sentence in the Cromwell article that claimed the Down Survey stated that Cromwell had devastated the population of Ireland, or words to that effect, allegedly supported by a reference. I deleted the sentence and the reference because the Down Survey says no such thing and the reference was to a contemporary interepretation of that historical source.

I do appreciate that it might look to a passing admin as if I am damaging sources, but what I'm actually trying to do is get an element of NPOV into what is a very contentious issue. The Cromwell invasion of Ireland is a cause-celebre within Irish history and an extremely emotional and politically-laden saga. It is an object of faith with many Irish nationalists and others that Cromwell was the destroyer and mass-murdered in Ireland. Yet many mainstream historians do not agree or take a more moderate opinion. It is very difficult to argue a negative; some historians, mainly in the Irish tradition, or from the US, argue that it was genocide. Others do not say this, but there is no book counter-attacking the "genocide theory" because it is not a theory that would widely be taken seriously by many historians.

In summary, I am trying to edit from an NPOV perspective and getting a great deal of flak for it. MarkThomas 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)