User talk:MarkThomas/archive1

Bias

"The sidebar implies Galloway is part of some anti-war movement."

George Galloway is leader of the Respect Party, which is an anti-war party by its own admission.

"Yet he has recently advocated the murder of Tony Blair"

Galloway said the murder of Tony Blair by an Iraqi whose country Blair invaded could be morally justified in the context of warfare. He did not "advocate the murder of Tony Blair".

"and in the past congratulated Saddam Hussein after his murder of the Kurds".

He made a very flattering speech to Saddam Hussein. It was in no way connected to the murder of the Kurds which the parliamentary records show Galloway criticised at the time. Saddam Hussein was actually helped and supported by the UK and the US to butcher and gas his way to greater power. No bones made about that?

"I have removed it as the presence of the sidebar in this context is pure POV."

Rich coming from you.

Why the naming?

No nothing personal at all, but I feel that anonymous comments can often be unhelpful to a discussion, especially when they happen to be irrelevant to The Da Vinci Code article. Your post could be considered as trolling and as such I thought it should be apparent who posted this comment to other users. Wikipedia is not anonymous at all, nor is it a place for you to argue or promote your views on religion. Mushin^talk 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'm extremely glad you found your "snippet" amusing. Have a nice day (and remember to sign your comments!). Mushin^talk 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Been looking through some of your contributions and found a lot of issues and difficulties. I'm not sure you're the person to be lecturing me!!!

Most Wikipedians often encounter "issues and difficulties" while editing, but it's how we deal with them that shows our maturity. I would like to see examples of where you feel I haven't dealt with situations in a sensible manner? What I actually did was sign an unsigned comment by yourself, which is done regularly by many Wikipedians, and would not normally be considered an "issue". Do not mistake my comments for a "lecture", I am merely trying to illustrate to you that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or soapbox, and your original comment was irrelevant to the article. Thank you. Mushin^talk 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think if you're honest about it, what you did was choose one of several hundred unsigned remarks in the TALK area of the page (not the public encyclopedia - I know that much thanks) and zeroed in on it because you found something about it personally jarring. When I asked "why me in particular?" you had no real answer. You strike me as one of those people who doesn't like to be pulled up and suffers from a slight overdose of arrogance. Now you're responding by making ill-considered edits to my pages. For example, the Jesus bloodline page, which didn't need sub-dividing as (a) it's short and more importantly (b)it's pending a proposed merger with the Rex Deus page, a discussion you ignored in your annoyance and haste to correct me.

No, in fact what I did was notice a change the the Da Vinci Code talk page on my watchlist, and when I checked the comment it wasn't signed, so proceeded to sign it. Why would I find anything about it "personally jarring", I'm an athiest! My answer to "why me in particular" is that I happened to see your edit on my watchlist. That's all.

Regarding the Jesus bloodline article: I made those edits in good faith. There was no merge tag, the article was newly created, and so I knew nothing of a proposed merge. If a merge is being considered, a tag should be placed on both articles (I have done this now). Also, editing articles proposed to be merged is not prohibited, so I have reverted your revert of my edits. I was not "correcting" you, I was improving the readability and flow of the article. Large bodies of text don't read as easily as those broken up by sections. You shouldn't take edits of your articles to heart - it may seem like I had a 'grudge' by editing the article, but in fact I thought it was good and just needed a couple of adjustments.

I don't wish to argue with you - I do not suffer from "a slight overdose of arrogance", and to be honest I find that comment quite offensive. How about we just work to move these articles forward from now on? Mushin^talk 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that you (a) removed the merge proposal - see now you've put it back having noticed at last! and (b) the order is disrupted and you haven't re-sequenced the references. Perhaps Mushkin you lack the skills at editing you need to adopt a corrective attitude. Edits reverted. MarkThomas 14:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? There was never a merge proposal there...is that supposed to be some kind of joke? If you wish to re-sequence the references then it is much easier and more constructive to edit that particular section than revert and lose the other edits I had carried out. It appears you would rather disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point than work to reach a compromise. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for information on why it is better to edit than revert. Is this attitude really necessary? Please also see Wikipedia:Civility if you do not understand why derogatory comments are unnecessary and unhelpful. Mushin^talk 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal was in the discussion. Try studying what's gone on with a page before gung-ho editing. You could also do with consulting the Wikipedia manual on the difference between Talk and Page. User Munchkin, please attend the WikiCollege and re-learn your Wikipedia. MarkThomas 15:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if there isn't a merge tag on an article then editors aren't going to suddenly assume there may be a proposed merge and thus check the talk page just in case. There isn't time to check the talk page of every article before editing. And regardless of that, it doesn't matter whether there was a merge discussed or not - that's irrelevant! "gung-ho editing" - ever read WP:Bold? Your childish insults are beginning to become tiring. Mushin ^talk 16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Robinson

Dear Mark, don't get me wrong. I don't want to take anything away from him but we should not call him historian or archaeologist when he isn't. He is an actor and a TV presenter. He might be interested in these fields, but that doesn't make him a scholar. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I understood that - but he's also a pretty strong public presence of archaeology and history in the UK, and having met him a couple of times, a tremendously knowledgeable guy. He's also much more than an actor; for example he was on the NEC of the Labour Party for some years. So I just felt the Baldric thing is a slight put-down. :-) MarkThomas 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

George Galloway

Your 'Gallowayista' characterisation is laughable, and presumptuous. At least the relevant section of the article is now factual though, which I welcome. Guy Hatton 17:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to bring mirth to a few hard-lefties Guy. :-) MarkThomas 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's OK then :-) Guy Hatton 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for adding the Wikilinks. I would have done it myself, but I was on my way out of the house in a hurry at the time. Guy Hatton 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

S'OK - then noticed that strangely the Scottish Daily Record has no page. Going back to Galloway, do you think overall the page is too long now? I wonder if it's getting out of hand, too many people eager to point-score, not that I would ever include myself in that category. :-) MarkThomas 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP before making further unsourced negative edits to George Galloway. Viewfinder 02:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

RC

Hi. I’ve noted your recent edit in the Antipsychiatry article. I have a friend here in Mexico who is an absolute expert on RC (Re-evaluation Counseling), about which we have talked a lot, even in the radio. My friend has never told me that RC was based on Dianetics. Can you point out some source please? Thank you. —Cesar Tort 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. I think your starting point would be the original Dianetics books, particularly Dianetics - the Modern Science of Mental Health, 1 which you will find uses many similar concepts. An excellent article at 2 compares the phrases used in Dianetics with those developed by Harvey Jackins. Jackins took the core theory of Dianetics and simply re-named (in some cases did not bother to do just that - he carried on with terms such as distress, discharge, dramatization, emergence) or slightly altered them. By the way, this is not to denigrate Jackins, whom I consider a great thinker, but to show the truth, for some reason official RC hides this as did Jackins himself to all but a close circle of intimates. The reason being that L Ron Hubbard had fallen into severe disrepute and HJ did not wish to be associated with him. Jackins hid this from some of even his closest circle in RC, perhaps with some wilfull ignorance on their part. We are talking about clever, talented people, so it is fair to assume they know but prefer supporters not to. HJ left Dianetics in 1954 or 55. Later, Scientology declared RC "Suppressive", eg, an enemy of Scientology and some attacks on RC, particularly those of sexual allegations, are thought by some to be organised efforts of Scienos. (they do that kind of stuff). Many conversations with intimates of HJ have however convinced me on a personal level that he was sexually predatory with women in RC, and I have good knowledge from trusted people that he raped at least one young female counselor. This has also been hushed up. The methods of RC are great but they kind of have this hidden stuff about origins and Jackins' behaviour - my purpose on Wikipedia is to tell the truth and hang the consequences. The truth must out and then people will be working from a stronger basis, not from lies. Don't trust the official version of the origins of RC given in Present Time, etc of course, many RRPs and ILRPs know these to be a propaganda glossing of the facts. MarkThomas 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- thought I'd chime in here, in case it's relevant. I don't know precisely what the association is between RC and "co-counseling", but Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky lists co-counseling as a derivative of Scientology. I've got no dog in the fight as regards RC or co-counseling but having looked into it from the other end (hi again, Mark!) I thought this might be a helpful source. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antaeus good to hear from you again. I believe we have held this discussion before, but to be precise RC is not a spin-off of Scientology, it is a derivative (much altered and perhaps improved and "made to work") of Dianetics. Jackins split with L Ron in 1954 before Scientology existed. MarkThomas 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What a shocking revelation about Jackins! Thanks Mark. I hated Jackins since I read in one of his pamphlets how he admired Mao. And yes, Antaeus: I read A Piece of Blue Sky and really loved it, but I never thought of such a rooted connection. Today I plan to do some “touchups” on the Antipsychiatry article. I’ll leave the RC info. Mark: do you mind if I remove the Dianetics connection? For some wikipedians it looks like straw man citation to attack the psychiatric survivor movement, which is not religious. —Cesar Tort 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew HJ Cesar and hate would be a strange reaction - he was very lovable but had a lot of faults like anyone. I think the Mao thing was part of his history as a labor organizer and general leftish guy, but he was also down on Mao's mistakes, so there was complexity there, however he was into Marxist-style manipulation when it suited him. I think it's more that he kind of took a superior attitude to newer people within the organisation and "non-leaders" so he kind of ran (and RC still kind of runs as) a 2-tier organisation or even 3 tiers, with very knowing people on the inside, then a circuit of less knowing people who kind of feel they know, and are just a bit manipulated and then a wider orbit of essentially not-knowing people. This I think was not deliberate but kind of arises out of the Dianetics / L Ron Hubbard culture of cynical manipulation, so it came out that way even though HJ broke with LRH. The Mao thing was HJ's attempt to hang his hat on another great leader, and at one time he even professed great admiration for Stalin! Something he later retracted. Don't mind if you remove Dianetics mention, I understand the point you make about straw man. By the way your "expert" friend in Mexico is probably not as expert as he thinks - the only real people who know the whole history and inside track of RC are in Seattle and one or two other places, and they keep it to themselves. Beyond that we have the internet which now keeps us more informed than many an RC'er used to be! MarkThomas 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eu Map

If you can find a better map to put on the article please add it to the discussion page. rockall is part of the uk and so ar loads of other teritories such as bermuda. but fro them to be shown up on the map would require either a special zoom in of just them or a giant map. I thank you for putting the idiots right on the talk page I hope you can continue your constructive contributions.--Lucy-marie 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What tosh, Bermuda is a British overseas territoriy and so is not part of the United Kingdom. Neither are Overseas Territories part of the EU. It should be noted that The Isle of Man is also neither part of the UK nor a member of the EU. Conversely French overseas posessions are part of France, and so places such as French Guiana are in the EU, French Guiana is displayed on the map of the EU seen on Euro Bank notes. Alun 05:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly a lot of people don't quite get my particular sense of humor. I hope you do. Thanks for your comment. Mark. MarkThomas 12:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

get my particular sense of humor. ... Irony? or just a typo?Jooler 07:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my US origins slipping through, well spotted. Hoping for a wikimap of Rockall overwhelmed me temporarily. MarkThomas 08:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My kind of picture. [1]MarkThomas 09:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen I don't care any more I mean Rockall is too small to be seen on the map any way, and if it is part of Ireland or denmark then it is the EU anyway Fabhcún 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Led Zeppelin, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Anger22 11:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hello, please don't delete other users' comments on the basis that you don't like them or don't agree with them. This runs afoul of Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette in general, which is what we should strive to uphold when we're dealing with abrasive or uncivil editors. Thanks. :-) -/- Warren 08:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you prepared to ask the same of others removing mine? MarkThomas 09:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a nanny or a mediator.... I'm only offering you this friendly reminder because I feel the time I'm taking to remind you isn't wasted time. -/- Warren 11:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I think you selectively offer your reminders to people with whom you disagree. MarkThomas 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop manipulating wikipedia pages with incorrect statements. 84.202.62.49 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As you don't have a talk page or an identity, and don't say which page, I can't respond user 84.202.62.49. I am certainly not seeking to manipulate anyone, just to convey facts accurately, and your statement here is against Wikipedia assume good faith policy. Can you say where I am manipulating? MarkThomas 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now checked and I see that you're complaining about my reverts to your alterations to the list of football teams on the England:Sports page. This is a very frequently altered list which obviously serves as a battleground for rival fans, each of whom is keen to have their own favourite club or clubs listed. Sadly, Wikipedia does not function as a noticeboard for sports fans, but rather as an encyclopedia and the aim of this is to show the main (eg, best known and most notable) teams; the list is fair and extensive and it's a real minefield to open it up further. You need to understand there have been literally hundreds of edit attempts on this one little paragraph. I think it's best to stay the way it is and most other people on WP seem to agree judging from the number of reverts. So this is not manipulation, just protecting the integrity of popular Wikipedia pages. MarkThomas 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

re: co-counseling

Hi,

sure, go ahead, I had never heard about any of them before, but I read in the RC-article that it was an organisation on cocounseling, so I suggest you correct it there also.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's both an organisation and a movement. Co-counselling is just a movement. MarkThomas 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

London article

It was fine until you came along and started ruining it. (removed swearing by user Wsj2005 here. MarkThomas 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Please sign edits by using four tildas after your name Wsj2005. The above statement (I've edited out the swearing to preserve some decency on my talk page) is enough alone to get you a long ban. The edit you did was not fine. You had London down as the world's leading financial centre, which is clearly incorrect, as that is New York. The rest was ungrammatical. I suggest you read some Wikipedia Help Pages on how to edit pages, and also go to blogs or other outlets if you just want to score points against either London or England, rather than doing phony edits on pages on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an intelligent factual description site. MarkThomas 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

THE CITATION I PROVIDED GIVES PROOF THAT LONDON IS THE WORLD'S LEADING FINANCIAL CENTRE - WHY DON'T YOU READ THE PDF???????

And why can't you be bothered to observe basic WP etiquette? Anyway, the document you refer to makes no such conclusion; for example the conclusions section 6 on page 57 equates New York and London as global financial centres, immediately contradicting both your baseless assertion in your edit and your comment above. Have you finished? MarkThomas 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

England

Hi, just a note to let you know that you are reverting the England page so it includes the same sentence twice. I'm in agreement with the unsigned editor; your sentence is already included in this article in a better paragraph. I'm assuming good faith that you didn't notice this. Hope this helps clarify his position. Jhamez84 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Help disambiguating

Hello, I've seen you've been editing UK related articles, and there is a current need to help disambiguate the term British. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, British is the disambiguation pages with the most links (by far), and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages. So if possible, please take a look at the links, and try to disambiguate the links to a more correct location. It's actually pretty easy, and most get disambiguated to United Kingdom. If we could get 10 or so people doing 50 links a day, we'll be done in no time. Thanks in advance , -- Jeff3000 03:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Know your enemy!

Mark, I wish to spend some time strengthening the Galloway page in an attempt to make it more accurate, less ‘loose’, and to give a fuller flavour of what Galloway is actually about. I wish to include information that is fully substantiated and without bias. It is a biography of someone who is constantly in the news. As it happens, there is a great deal of criticism and bias of Galloway about – so much in fact, that a great deal of what he is repeatedly saying (and he is a certainly ‘message driven’ politician) is not being accurately reported in the UK – and yet he is a man with many millions of supporters throughout the world, especially residing in the Middle East - which I do hope you agree is of great significance.

To me, the world really doesn’t need more ‘Galloway Police’ – there are an abundance around already and they are more vocal, more reported and more generally accepted, as far as I can see, then his supporters. Wikipedia itself, however, simply must display his life and arguments accurately. Wikipedia simply has to include his major arguments I am afraid, as he is a message-driven politician constantly seeking, and finding, the public eye. Accuracy is all I am personally interested in - people can then make their own minds up when they see the full picture.

Few can be neutral about someone like Galloway, but we here can still be objective – and if we can’t, we shouldn’t be here. I have not yet spent any time posting as I am still unsure about Wikipedia. The main ecycopedic pages cannot be a place for bias, only for accurate facts and I worry that my time could be too easily wasted. For me, people should be allowed to draw their own opinions when they read simple, hard, substantiated facts.

Looking at your history of additions, you did well, I thought, to include one of Galloway’s notorious comments to Saddam Hussain (although his response to the constant criticism he unsurprisingly receives on this matter ought to be added) - but calling him a Stalinist (albeit not on the main page) and also claiming he is not part of an anti-war movement, shows simple immaturity and- your evident bias-aside- clearly proves that you are not reading up on your chosen subject - Galloway, his present and his past.

I must say that laziness is a big ‘no no’ - you simply HAVE to be informed of your subject in a place like this – sorry to use caps – but this simple fact cannot be stressed enough! It is just life and involves work, which, in this case, will involve listening to the voice of (and reading around, both for and against) someone you don’t like. It is not for you (or anyone else) just to throw tomatoes, like blood-boils.

Many people like myself are holding back from adding things here just to make absolutely sure of accuracy and also, in my own case at least, I want to feel happy that my efforts won’t be constantly messed around with unfairly. Can you assure me that you are only here to improve upon things and not - without research and good reason - here to take other peoples hard work away? And can I leave you with some advice? It is always a good idea to ‘know your enemy’. If you want some links, there are plenty at the bottom of the page you keep editing!

I must suggest a thing or two… Galloway is a fervent supporter of Muslim peoples and much of the varied Muslim culture – he is actually married to a Muslim doctor. Why not find out what he thinks of Islamic Fundamentalism? And I mean going beyond Galloway’s outspoken solidarity for the victims of Blair’s war and understanding of their extremities of their anger (his rationale for the infamous comments). And when you come again to his meeting with the barbaric Saddam Hussein – why not find out what the ex-friend-of-the-West Saddam (friend from the time Galloway was protesting his crushing of the Kurds) really thinks of Islamic Fundamentalism? Neither great fans of Al Quieda, I think you’ll find, nor Sharia law. Not so simple, World politics.

Coming from an entirely new user created for the sole purpose of talking on my page and making changes to the Galloway page, you might say I'm under-impressed by the strength of your arguments. Thanks also for the lecture on laziness, I will bear that in mind! MarkThomas 07:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gutter-sniping

Go and read WP:NPA, and refrain from posting the kind of bullshit about me (or anyone else) that you recently indulged in. And no, I'm not about to 'censor' my own talk page, so you can drop that foolish assumption too. Guy Hatton 08:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But you have repeatedly personally attacked me in the main page, both in comments and in the talk page Guy, and above you even go to the lengths of creating instant new fake users (or if it's not you it's a pal!) to try to talk me out of attempting to block your extreme POVist pro-Galloway factionalist editing, which as we both know is entirely intended to try to game Google and place the Galloway line in front of casual web browsers. Keep up the good work! By the way, I think I recognise the phrase "gutter sniping" - straight out of Stalinist charm school, right? MarkThomas 10:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning Stalin?

I am in fact a new user (obviously, surely?) - I notice now I could have used a signature and timestamp after my post above. Your suggestion that I am the chap above or his pal is presumptuous and not too bright at all, whichever way you look at it. You are in a world of flesh and blood people here and yet you seem regard us all here as – well, as you say it, Stalinists. If, in fact, you do see me as a new member – then who are you to say what my 'sole interests' are? I have just joined Wikipedia, yes - but I assure you I have not just joined the world. You seem to be thinking extremely narrowly – I notice looking around that you have complained elsewhere too of someone being 'new' - well everyone here had to start their work at some point, whoever they are. Quality must surely be the criteria to for judgement and as I have previously explained, it is my worry that I’ll be wasting my time playing ping-pong games here that has essentially been holding me back from contributing, at least before I think my stuff is as attack-proof (ie well balanced) as possible, which is no bad thing of course, but a lot of work. As it happens, far from being concerned with just this article, I am working on another biography (of a journalist and writer), which will be a new page for Wikipedia as I have found to my surprise that no-one has tackled the subject before. It will be up soon and is related to the anti-war movement, so you might like to have a peek- especially if you are concerned about Wikipedia credentials. It will be more than just a 'stub', but will no-doubt will have plenty of room for further work by others - and useful work too, I do hope.

Before you cry aloud over my obvious interests - certainly they include current affairs (yes, and currently the anti-war movement). It really does upset me when people appear to belittle the subject – so often they are belying a particularly simplistic, over-riding POV. War involves terrible human suffering and I say again, it is a complicated world! Be careful, be sober- people are dying. It frankly frightens me to know as I do, that students are using Wikipedia as we speak as a source general knowledge, while it is being constantly 'amended' by people who often seem to be behind them educationally (and I am not suggesting that as editors we need university educations – just well informed arguments that can be attained by properly educating ourselves).

I do see a number of things about this article to criticise (and I would agree that his most significant quotes should not be lost, un-argued, in the quotes section - like his offensive/formal salutation to Saddam Hussain/Iraq on the notorious Money for Oil/WMD-related visit to Iraq), but I’ve seen nothing yet, certainly in the general layout, that is actually biased in Galloway’s favour. Informing people of the main points of his agenda (which ironically it barely yet does) is what this page, at least in part, has to be about - mainly for the reason I gave in my first post: Galloway is a message-driven politician and is part of a massive world-wide ant-war movement which simply exists whether the people against it like it or not. We simply must endeavour to be balanced and balanced in the right places, or the whole article will just look a mess. By the way, ask yourself if you are bothered about that (the article being a mess)– if you are not, should you be here? Passions may run strong (I am sure yours do), but all of us must have faith in people to formulate what we each see as the right opinions - when absorbing well-balanced arguments. It might surprise you that I’m not asking you to remove your POV altogether (without passion, I believe, we are nothing) – a great deal can actually be put into an article like this when the relevance is stated clearly and the point is placed properly. --Matt Lewis 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your obsessive POV pushing on George Galloway page

To be honest pal its getting tiring. I hold no brief for the man but you are attempting to make the article crudely biased. I think your choice of words is often inappropriate, your constant reverting isn't the right way to proceed either. When you do engage in chat you make personal attacks against the people's who try and moderate the bias you seem intent on introducing. Please take a step back. Thanks for listening --SandyDancer 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark, your latest edit to this page was in effect a revert, in that it reinstated material deleted by the previous editor. That was your fourth revert in less than 24 hours. Please read WP:3RR again, and stop breaking it or you will be blocked by administration. All this comes on top of breaches of WP:BLP. Frankly it would be better for all concerned if you discussed your controversial edit proposals on the talk page, editing the main article only after agreement has been reached with the authors of any reasonable objections that follow. Viewfinder 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vierfinder - is this aimed at me of Mark Thomas? --SandyDancer 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I have just clarified this. Viewfinder 10:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Literature section of the United Kingdom article

Hi. I was just wondering why you've been reverting the removal of Irish writers from this section? Given that the wording is "from the United Kingdom", I don't think they really belong. Cordless Larry 08:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I guess to me that's the whole point - the UK is wider than just England and Englishness. I know obviously that it does not incorporate Ireland or Irishness, but on the other hand, I think the boundaries can be blurred in cultural matters and that very many people would associate Oscar Wilde with Englishness - one only has to think of Lady Bracknell and handbags to have a picture of quintissential Englishness. Swift is perhaps less certain, but I think if you were to ask what country Robinson Crusoe came from most people would say "England" and of course he was part of the Tory govt and in his time Ireland was part of the British Empire for good or ill. So I think you are taking rather a hair-splitting approach to it if you don't mind me saying so, I won't keep fighting it ad nauseum if you revert but I suspect others might and I will draw attention to it in the discussion page. The UK is home to many many international writers and many "English" writers have elements of foreign backgrounds. I am inclined to be relaxed about it. MarkThomas 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comments at the UK talk page. Cordless Larry 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion

So, what do I have to do to qualify myself to give my opinion? You did not answer my response on the George Galloway page. -- Tompsci 15:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazism

I see you've also stumbled upon Flamingo's rewrite of Nazism. I can't quite work out what has happened here, but the more I see, the more suspicious I am. Flamingo seems to have added a lot of rather dubious statements, and removed facts. His edit summary was very misleading. Do you think this merits a reversion? Yandman 08:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of it suspiciously pro-Nazi, particularly the bits I've edited - others actually are very good factual and historical writeups. It's the kind of contribution a fan of David Irving might make - lots of good info mixed in with some really slimy suggestions, for example, the socialist origins of Nazism. For that reason, I've been reluctant to do a full revert, as there were also defects in the prior version and there is some well written stuff in the new one. His reluctance to discuss though suggests a full revert. Tricky. MarkThomas 08:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should revert. Phrases such as "was criminalised by the allied powers " in the intro, as well as the editors constant reminders that Nazism can exist without Hitler, sound suspiciously neo-Nazi. In any case, much of it is unsupported. Yandman 09:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang on Yandman - it was me who interpolated "was criminalised by..." etc in an effort to NPOV possible distortion in the change! See my further edit on that one - have now put "was declared a criminal organisation..." etc, an important piece of history I think. MarkThomas 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may reply: No, I am not, thanks for asking, I am rather a Christian Democrat and Environmentalist. Last night I didnt have the sources with me, they dont include David Irving, but I was writing in Hannah Arendt (rejection of bourgeois culture), Ernst Nolte (rejection of Marxism etc), Bernd Weisbrod (embracing violence to fight democracy and pluralism (how is that pro-Nazi)), and I am sorry i cannot remember the two most important researches i wanted to quote, give me till tomorrow. Anyway, yes, Wikipedia itself has a summary of various Nazi, i.e. national socialist movements in other countries, and although there was no other Nazi government outside Germany until Hitler-Germany invaded it, it should be allowed to compare the national socialist movements in order to learn from the comparison why that happened. Arendt and Nolte had the opinion that Nazism was not a unique German movement, implying that people should be told possible developments in the future in order to prevent another Reich, wherever to form. It is definitely not pro-Nazi to say that the Versaille Treaty was received in 1917 Germany to be a "humiliation". The rage and violence between extreme groups of the far right (using more violence) and the far left (using less violence) made violence, according to Weisbrod and others. Was it Wappmann or Wallmann (I'll look it up tonight) who rejected the idea of Nazism being a fascist movement, in the reply in the 90s like Michael Mann tried to form these aspects into a definition, the very concise "a transcendent and cleansing nation statism through paramilitarism", see [2]. Getting sources tonight, Flammingo^Parliament 12:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the view that Nazism was not uniquely German is self-evidently true, for example, one only has to look at the influence of Mussolini and the Italian Brownshirts, but the NSDAP specifically was obviously German, and I'm afraid I think it's just revisionism to suggest that the worst acts of Nazism such as genocide were not specifically German inventions, although they of course had many willing helpers in the Baltic, Balkans, E Europe, etc. MarkThomas 16:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazism ad hominem?

On your comment "I think very few would argue that Nazism directly arose from socialist disatisfaction, what about it's close links with Ludendorf and the Freikorps for example??": Yes, the Freikorps was an important ground for the Nazi movement, especially the embracement of violence as adequate political means. The past few years, some historians I will quote tonight analysed the impact of that and the source for fascism/nazis; Ludendorf for old Prussian militarism, Freikorps for the new kind, are just one of many ingredients. See Michael Mann. Just do stop calling me a Nazi or for single mistakes "badly grammatical" , it's not funny or a good basis for discussion. Yes, it should be possible to make that paragraph easier to read, though i didnt change much of the wording --Flammingo^Parliament 12:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK understood Flammingo, and apologies if I inferred incorrectly your political views. It's just a big change to a key WP page and may need more work and discussion; see the discussion on the Talk:Nazism page and please contribute to that. Grammar corrections are routine on Wikipedia and should not be taken personally; everyone has their own view, however I did correct what I see as some serious errors in your text both in flow and meaning. I reject the idea outright that Nazism was essentially a project of revisionist socialists; you seem to agree further down in your changes (which I don't disagree with) that it was essentially a revision by Adolf Hitler of a small right-wing party into a mass-movement of nationalist ideologues and the disaffected poor and middle class centred around the personality and views of Hitler, no matter how absurd or incorrect. MarkThomas 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at The Lord of the Rings

Hi there. Thanks for spotting the vandalism at The Lord of the Rings which you reverted here. That IP address actually carried out three acts of vandalism, not just one. You reverted the third one but not the second one - this was still present in the version you saved. (Someone else reverted the first one). Something worth watching out for, as you may already know. Reverting to a version by an IP address is always a tell-tale sign that there may be more vandalism to clear up. Anyway, I've fixed it now. Carcharoth 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of discussion page of user Zero0000

You removed my comment on the above mentioned userpage, that is not the way to do things, and you also seemed to try to sneak it in with tagging it as a minor edit. Dont do that again. Ulflarsen 11:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

?? I was correcting the vandalism you did to mine. Don't do that again. MarkThomas 11:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Looked like you did it to me MarkThomas... I too noted you had deleted two comments from Zero0000's talk page marked as a minor edit ... are you saying you did this in retaliation to Ulflarsen doing the same to you???? --SandyDancer 12:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I was trying to re-introduce my comments into the text after they had been mistakenly deleted, something I was then leapt on for. MarkThomas 12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR on George Galloway

You have already reverted four times on the George Galloway article withnin this past 24 hours. Be aware that if you revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period you are liable to be be blocked temporarily for breaching the Three Revert Rule. Thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true, there were 3 on that item. I will challenge this. MarkThomas 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cripes! It's all kicking off! I'm keeping my head down personally. To be honest I am not 100% sure what MarkThomas did really should count as 3RR. After all, at the end there he was reverting to MY wording, and I am one of the people who disagrees with him, and one of the folks he is having a dispute with! He added something provocative which I don't think belonged in the intro. I deleted it. He reverted my deletion. I edited it to adopt a compromise position, which he said on the talk page he was willing to go along with. Someone deleted the whole thing again. He reverted to my compromise proposal. That's how I see it. --SandyDancer 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I also tried to get biased user Irishpunktom to note that on his talk page, but he ignored it. MarkThomas 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of the compromise, which I will be happy to comment on when you quit making personal attacks on me and other users, and irrelevant POV attacks on Mr Galloway, "the policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period". This was breached. Viewfinder 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mr Galloway" - were you kneeling when you typed that? MarkThomas 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

Considering you ignored me, and reverted the article a fifth time, I felt I have no choice but to file a report on the WP:AN/3RR board. Apologies. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

incivility

YOur reaction to the above has been somewhat discourteous, and while I did report you for a 3RR violation, I did warn you on your fourth revert. You went ahead and made a fifth. Threatening to stalk users does not bode well. It can be seen as a form of harrasment, please don't be like that. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And in future can _you_ please take the trouble to read the discussion page before making important edits? The truth will be told eventually about Galloway by the way, regardless of your attempts to suppress it. MarkThomas 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on September 25 2006 to George Galloway

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 8 hours. William M. Connolley 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield

The 85.226.68.215 edit to Sheffield looked like a legitimate typo correction. I assume you just mis-read it or something. --VinceBowdren 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did - my mistake. Thanks for correcting it (again!). MarkThomas 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakeel Goulthorp on Coventry

Thanks for the comment. The reason for the reversion was notability - the fact that Goulthorp is also referenced on the Bedworth page doesn't really establish notability. Nor is there an individual article for that person at Shakeel Goulthorp. Furthermore, the name only gives 5 ghits, and the Coventry and Bedworth contributions both came from the same IP range. Hence, I really don't think that notability is established. My inclination is to delete from both articles. DWaterson 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd heard of him. I would be inclined to leave it and see if others disagree. Mind you, there are probably plenty of well-known Coventrians not on the list and it could do with expansion. MarkThomas 12:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold textThankyou, Mark. After reading your input I'm grateful. Shakeel :)

Birmingham

It's been a long while since I've been on Wikipedia, as I've just had access to a computer today. I do support the "Birmingham" page being instead on "Birmingham, England" though. But, if I had thought it to be really needed, I would have consulted others before acting upon it, since this is such a large page. Besides, I live in North Alabama and tend to stick to editting that region. I see no reason why I would have move the Birmingham page. Yes, I do see that my username is listed in the history of "Birmingham, England", as to why it is there, I do not know. But, as I said, I have been in Atlanta for a week, visiting with family, who does not have internet.

Also, from the looks of it, the person, whoever they are, that used my UN, did a nasty job of moving the page. AlaGuy 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Syrthiss 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored the above. MarkThomas, removing NPA warnings is a form of vandalism, do not do it. •Jim62sch• 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Syrthiss warning was unmerited. I quote from the NPA guidelines: "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. " I see that you contribute to the William Connolley vanity page and therefore that motivates your revert of my removal of Syrthiss incorrect and attacking comment. Thanks. MarkThomas 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ok.

Anyway, re the funny warning you left on my page:

Good if you find user Jim63sch, leave it on his page. Also, Sparky, you're wikistalking -- that's a bad thing, could bet you banned. BTW, it's vitalism. Vitalis is a hair ointment. ROFL. •Jim62sch• 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas, if you propose that William Connolley page for deletion I will support you as it is clearly vanity. You have a point here. You are just going about it in very much the wrong way. --SandyDancer 10:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment SandyDancer, I agree really but the mutual backslapping club of admins have defended that absurd page in 3 previous votes so unless a whole bunch of right-thinking editors can be assembled to defend Wikipedia against this idiocy, it will be in vain, hence one feels one can do little apart from attempt to satirise the process. MarkThomas 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I offer no opinion on the William Connelley page issue, but it has already been discussed here and the result was keep. Viewfinder 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Foodbankdinner.jpg

Hi, I obtained the permission of the image owner to upload it, and said so. Can you say why you deleted it please? Thanks. MarkThomas 13:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi MarkThomas, I assume you're talking about Image:Foodbankdinner.jpg when you say "Ali Hewson image". Wikipedia doesn't allow "used by permission" images - please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission has examples of how to ask for a GFDL license for images. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 19:38Z

Gau(leiter)

I had to restore the only source on the page, which I used myself, and it's not a 'Belgian' site but an .org which systematically treats political history of all states, and has a huge (unfortunately separate, not clearly attributed) bibliography. If you know of other relevant sources or even used some, please add them as well. Fastifex 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the page needs a lot of work, as I've said in the discussion. Did you link to the correct page in that site? I see you've made use of it (and then been challenged) elsewhere in WP. Maybe it's about linking to the correct page - the page you were linking it too from the Gauleiter page is about the history of Belgium specifically. MarkThomas 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia on Steely Dan

Hi Mark. Don't worry, I didn't delete any of the trivia I just moved it into other articles. For example, I moved the You, Me and Dupree trivia into a new article Cousin Dupree where it belongs. I enjoyed the trivia myself but Steely Dan is in the process of becoming a featured article and one of the criteria is that it must not have a trivia section (at least a long one).

Thanks for your concern, if you can improve the Steely Dan please do so. MarkThomas 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) << This last comment I did not make. MarkThomas 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

William Connolley

FYI, Ed Poor wrote the original Connolley article. WMC has made some edits to the article, correcting errors and providing a picture. He has not engaged in self-promotion of any kind. This is not a vanity article, and the self-ref to Wikipedia which you added is against guidelines. We are fortunate to have such a notable scientist contributing to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's strange, if he's so "notable", how few Google hits he gets - I even asked a friend who works at the BAS about him and the friend seems to think he's researcher there but no more notable than many others. What exactly are you basing your association of "notability" on? MarkThomas 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Google is not the Be-all end-all of notability, surely you realize that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that patronising remark, I think I do. I note that you haven't responded to the actual question. Perhaps though we should just drop the vanity publishing guidance as it clearly has no effect. MarkThomas 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to sound patronizing, I was in error if my phrasing appeared so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley - WMC didn't write it, that's the crucial bit. Friends of his didn't write it. It doesn't violate vanity. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim Jackins

I deleted his page because it was an expired PROD. I figured if no one had removed the tag within the 5-day delay period, he couldn't be *that* notable. I haven't got a personal bias or anything, I just nuke whatever's on PROD. Re-creating it is acceptable under current PROD policy, but I think I'm going to move the page back to "Tim Jackins," rather than "Tim (Timothy) Jackins", mainly because people are more likely to search for the former than the latter. ♠PMC♠ 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny

"That's why you don't contribute to discussions." Yeah, it's not my place to hunt a discussion when someone reverts twice without pointing to one. I went to the one you linked and responded accordingly; perhaps you linked incorrectly. --Golbez 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

About Fastifex

I've noticed you had a quarrel with notorious, thick-as-a-brick disruptor Fastifex. I've postee request for advocacy to make him repent here

• Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Attilios

Maybe it can have your support. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea!! I've read that persistent disruptive editing and hampering other users work is sufficient to obtain the block. However, can I asky you to start the blocking process? I've surfed the policy pages, but never exactly found where to proceed from. I will be eager to support the move. I hope this nightmare will end soon. --Attilios 10:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, MarkThomas! I am the advocate who has taken up Attilios' case, and would like to make the same request to you that I did to him. If you could avoid writing to Fastifex for a little while while I talk to him, I'd appreciate it; see Attilios' talk page for my longer explanation. Thanks! — Editor at Large^(speak) 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC

In answer to your points on my talk page.

• a. I guess your right about the spelling but u could try to correct it rarther than just delete the text.
• b.My text was backed up by two respectibal sources, it was not point of view and certainly wasent point of view when compared with the paragrapth above. Furthermore judging by your edits your hardly a voice of reason and have a tendancy to simply delete anything which doesent soote you.
• c.If i had put it on the talk page it would have got lost in a sea of dibate and never acted upon.

In my opinion it is nothing like as bias as the paragraph above it, and either both should stay or both should be deleated. Thanks.--Boris Johnson VC 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

lol-your right i have to admit-i am dyslexic. However that doesent really have much too do which what i have been saying. Presumably you woulden't mind if i reinstate the paragraph with improved spelling and gramma. You could help me with this if you realy want to. --Boris Johnson VC 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ok then, i will readd it, feel free to try to make it more neutral point of view--Boris Johnson VC 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion

Permission nbeeds to be for anyone to use it under the GFDL rather than just wikipedia.Geni 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put the image on commons you need to go through the procedures on commons. If you want to put an image on commons into a wikipedia article you do it the same way that you would link to an image on wikipedia.Geni 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:180px-Korob.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:180px-Korob.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Qualixxx 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:180px-SylviaKorob.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:180px-SylviaKorob.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated edits to William Connolley

Because your blanking was clearly vandalistic in intent, and exempt from 3rr for that reason. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please stop. If you continue to vandalize the article you will be blocked. Your behavior is clearly in retaliation for William's block of you. Such retaliation is both juvenile and unproductive. Please try to learn from your block, edit civily and discuss matters on talk pages. You seem to have good edits and are clearly capable of being a productive editor. JoshuaZ 08:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the fact that I make many good edits elsewhere might say something about the quality of this page? MarkThomas 09:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism - just doing what many, many editors have tried to do there - inject a little realism into a vanity puff page which only survives due to pressure from an administrator cabal. If you get me blocked for this, it will only underline the nature of this cabal in action. MarkThomas 08:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blatant WP:POINT violation and frivolous blanking are both blockable offenses. To say nothing of disruption. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You say it's frivolous. It isn't - there is nothing notable about W Connolley and therefore this page should not exist at all. However, as administrators have repeatedly blocked it's deletion, the only sensible thing to do is to edit out the parts that are not notable. In doing so, I and others are acting in line with WP guidelines. I will take this one to Mr Wales I think if there is more interference from unprincipled editors since the whole thing is a gross violation of WP etiquette and guidelines. MarkThomas 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeals to Jimbo are generally viewed as wikilawyering; see his talk page where there is a messagebox which clearly states: "If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute: Please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum." Further, as Jimbo has stated in the Nature (journal) interview: "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense" I seriously doubt you'd get much from Jimbo, as your pursuit of your view of this article about a well-published scientist is merely yet more "nonsense." Finally, if you really want to rid Wikipedia of vanity or puff pieces, why not do RC patrol? You'll find lots of borderline biographies, such as Phil Woods, or even Joel Gardiner. Your insistance on some "administrator cabal" is nonsense. The page has been on Afd three times, and three times survived. Your campaign is very much a violation of WP:POINT, and I advise you to find other places to focus your efforts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for vandalism [4] and removing referenced material [5].--MONGO 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Further reading for you and others can be found here--MONGO 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And I am now going to up your block time for attempting evade the block. If you think the article should be removed AfD it when your block expires. If you have specific objections to content on the article then discuss it on the talk page. JoshuaZ 17:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On your return

...please consider this: you have arrived at a bad place. You have been disruptive and grossly incivil, and that is simply not going to be tolerated. Hopefully you will, by the time you read this, have calmed down and be ready to resume productive editing. If, however, you have not, and are tempted to go back and wage war again, please be advised that it is a battle you cannot win, which will almost certainly end up with you permanently banned. Having looked back at your contribution history, I don't think that's what you want. You appear to enjoy editing Wikipedia and have added much content as well as spending time on worthy tasks such as removing silly vandalism. So I hope you will be taking the wise course and staying calm.

Everybody has an off day, few are without at least one block in their block log, and you must by now realise that a block for 3RR violation holds no shame, it is pretty much automatic and very common even with long-established editors when they get fired up about a subject, but you have plenty of options open to you via dispute resolution if you feel you have a legitimate complaint against William. These processes can be complex, and there are people at the association of members' advocates who can help you if you need help. Or you can flag down any passing admin and ask for guidance. In the mean time I advise you in the strongest possible terms to steer clear of William, resist any temptation to retaliate, and to quietly get on with the business of building a great encyclopaedia, as you have in the past. Guy 14:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

There's only so much you can say before you start to insult the reader's intelligence. Present the facts once. I didn't neutralize the intro, I removed a poorly worded sentence that added nothing. --Golbez 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)