Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 16 September 2006

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. Misplaced Pages is not anonymous at all, nor is it a place for you to argue or promote your views on religion. Mushin 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try and remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. I'm extremely glad you found your "snippet" amusing. Have a nice day (and remember to sign your comments!). Mushin 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 Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum or soapbox, and your original comment was irrelevant to the article. Thank you. Mushin 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 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 Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point than work to reach a compromise. Please see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes for information on why it is better to edit than revert. Is this attitude really necessary? Please also see Misplaced Pages:Civility if you do not understand why derogatory comments are unnecessary and unhelpful. Mushin 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 Misplaced Pages manual on the difference between Talk and Page. User Munchkin, please attend the WikiCollege and re-learn your Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)