Talk:Mandrake Press/Archive 1

--81.157.73.83 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)IPSOS Rules OK : Article text removed as it is unreferenced and without citations. Removed 'Current' as blatant commercial promotion and ultimately meaningless without the main section

Why Split It

It is a page about Mandrake Press. You'll end up with two stubs?

Rather than visit this page and mess it up completely with admin clutter why not stay a while and ACTUALLY contribute to it.--81.157.73.83 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There! some references . . . care to make a contribution?--81.157.73.83 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS

Please leave well alone. There is no need to split this small page into two. The page is about publishing companies called Mandrake Press . . . both old and new! Both publish(ed) similar material by the same authors.--81.157.73.83 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to this page please do so but otherwise please go and annoy someone else with your constant negative editing. We need content not wiki-clutter . . . if there was a substantially long and confusing article I might agree with you but until that time is reached please leave this page alone. If you want something to do go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask -- I see you've been asked by admin to tone down the comments on your user page . . . now there's a good place to start.

IPSOS . . . more!

I have researched this further and there is no need to disambiguate this page! The page is about publishing companies called Mandrake Press . . . both old and new! Both publish(ed) similar material by the same authors. It is not like the word Mercury = planet, record label, Freddy mercury, etc. etc. Readers expect to find a page which talks about a publishing company called Mandrake Press — what they find is precisely that with an explanation that one operated from 1929-30 and the other one founded in 1988 is still going today!

Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

Well, since you feel entitled to unilaterally remove the split tag without waiting for input from other editors, I have followed WP:BOLD and split the article. We do not blend the modern Golden Dawn orders in with the historic Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn either. The reason is that there is no documentable continuity of the use of the name. Including the old company in the article about the new company is simply a form of promotion. It also obscures the fact that there are no references for the current company. Of course, third party references for the modern company will be needed in order to establish notability. IPSOS (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Book of Tobit

The bit about the Book of Tobit is unclear. What Book of Tobit? The apocyphal one? Some more recent book of poetry by an author of the time? Or what? IPSOS (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The content of the book is irrelevant but it is actually the apocyphal one? The book was announced for publication, a Prospectus was issued and at the time of the 1985 exhibition no copies were believed to exist i.e. it was believed that the book was never printed! Since that date 3 copies are now known to exist — one in an Australian library and two in private collections (one of which is mine).--81.157.73.83 01:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Split

I don't think the two articles needed to be split. First of all, there is no ambiguity in the two; both publishing companies are one. Secondly, neither of the articles is long enough to be separated. On a side note, I doubt if the current Mandrake Press is notable enough for its own article. I think it merely merits a mention in the original article. The article Mandrake Press also currently reads like an ad, not an encyclopedia entry. Another problem is that the 1929-founded company is the more important company, and the way it is now, the current Mandrake Press has a higher priority. It is more likely that when a user searches for "Mandrake Press", he or she has the 1929-1930 company in mind. Yes, we tell you to be bold, but we're supposed to build consensus too. Please discuss this issue here. —Anas ^talk? 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Both publishing companies are NOT one. There is no historical continuity. If the current Mandrake Press is not notable, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the historic article. I would have been happy to build consensus, but the anon kept taking the split tag off so other editors would not be aware of the issue. It was that intentional interference with consensus building and the lack of any other input which left being bold as the only reasonable option from my point of view. IPSOS (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Fine, concerning the current Mandrake Press, should we settle this here or take it to WP:AFD? From the content of the current article, there is little more than promotional information. What are your thoughts? —Anas ^talk? 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If a user was looking for Mandrake Press, it would most likely be in connection with either Aleister Crowley or DH Lawrence, the modern company is relevant having published works by both. Besides the combined article had been building slowly over a long period of time. Splitting it and dumping the modern stuff is not very sensible the material was in context and the article served to explain the difference (and lack of direct connection) between the two companies. However, the current Mandrake Press publishes many works by Austin Spare and all of Gerald Gardners works and has published many fine limited editions.

An encycopaedia is a source of information . . . there was nothing really wrong with the article before IPSOs vandalised it. After his destructive efforts what are we going to be left with? Why didn't IPSOS actually spend some time and contribute something to improve this article rather than focussing all this energy (which now involves others) into destruction of it. The bottom line is . . . is Wikipedia a better for place with this sort of editing . . . I think not.--81.157.73.83 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith. Please read WP:AGF and stop making personal attacks. I am doing what I think is best for both the article and the encyclopedia, despite your malicious and policy violating comments. IPSOS (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are both forgetting the purpose of this discussion. Stop commenting on each other's actions and focus on the content. Does any one of you have any reliable secondary sources to assert the notability of the current company? Also, I'm still unconvinced of the split; even if they are two different companies, they are directly related and not much information is available to warrant an article for each. See New York Tribune and New York Daily Mirror for example. —Anas ^talk? 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The current Mandrake Press is a specialist publisher with a firm fanbase (I'm one) I also have a complete collection of first editions of everything the original company ever published. In addition, you may wish to note I also started the article for the original company — the section on the current company was added by others although I admit I have edited and tidied it up from time to time.

A little history : The current company's first book published in 1989 was by Aleister Crowley. Many more Crowley volumes were published over the subsequent years culminating in the controversial O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick. This precipitated a legal case between the Caliphate O.T.O, the owner of the company Anthony Naylor and John Symonds (Crowleys' literary Executor) for breach of copyright. The court ruled that the Caliphate O.T.O. had purchased the copyrights from the Official Receiver (Crowley died a Bankrupt). The case was settled out of court and the company ceased publishing works by or about Crowley immediately thereafter.

Current company output : The most recent release was a limited edition publishes on 15th May 2007 called Austin Spare : Black Magician — it's sold out already! (information from Caduceus Books in the UK who handled the release) Other limited edition books published by the company rapidly go up in value — a copy of Existence was also sold by Caduceus Books last week for £125 only a year after its publication at £75

Mandrake Press currently publishes all of Austin's Spare's works and many other titles about him, the complete works of Gerald Gardner plus a range of diverse titles covering authors such as Florence Farr, John Dee and Charubel.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the current range of books are all designed, typeset, printed and bound in-house. The quality of work is such that other companies such as Neptune Press (Adventures in Limbo) and the Society of Esoteric Endeavour (Grimoire of Pope Honorious, Devils and Spirits in Two Books) use them to print their own fine limited edition works [verifiable from the publishers].

To include much of the above would be tantamount to commercial promotion and the issues surrounding the Crowley Copyrights surely belong in the Crowley or OTO articles? I therefore believe that the information in the article (before the split) is sufficient to explain to the reader the difference (and lack of direct connection) between the two companies.--81.157.73.83 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough said. I have merged the articles again. Split should've been discussed first and not the merger. If you are still convinced a split is needed, then discuss the split again and build consensus. Thank you. —Anas ^talk? 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Split

I still believe the article should be split. I ask the other editors to please leave the tag in place for at least a week or two to garner opinions from other editors. IPSOS (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

•Why do you want to split it? •Is it your ultimate wish to remove the reference to the modern company •Which material is, in your opinion, a direct quote, is likely to be challenged or material that you personally wish to challenge? •Explain the sort of reference you would expect to see in order to verify this section •Please explain why you are so determined to make a stand on this particular article because in the last four days you have edited some 300 articles and of those 47 are without any notes, references or citations (and some are quite large articles). Why did you not bother with those?

I've already said why I want to split it. Because they are two different companies. Each and every company requires its own article AND has to support its own notability. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and other articles of modern Golden Dawn orders are not allowed to be merged into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn because there is no historical continuity. This is precisely the same situation that is going on here. A modern organization has taken on the name of a notable one in order to implicate itself in its predecessor's notability. It's a marketing ploy plain and simple. If the modern company is notable enough to merit its own article, fine and good. If not, it doesn't deserve a mention in this article either. Do you perhaps have a conflict of interest with respect to this article? If you do, WP rules suggest you should not be editing it at all. IPSOS (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NO SPLIT

Why do you want to split it? The Revival section is so small it would not stand on its own so I have to ask you, is it your ultimate wish to remove the reference to the modern company.

Furthermore, you have again added the tag for no references etc. I read the guidlelines and they clearly state

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.

So please explain why you have needlessly included the tag. Which material is, in your opinion, a direct quote, is likely to be challenged or material that you personally wish to challenge? I can see no reason for the tag to be kept without any further evidence from you regarding any potential dispute over the Revival Section.

Please explain the sort of reference you would expect to see in order to verify this section without commercially promoting the company and or its products? --81.157.73.83 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about what I am asking

Why do you want to split it?

Is it your ultimate wish to remove the reference to the modern company

Which material is, in your opinion, a direct quote, is likely to be challenged or material that you personally wish to challenge?

Explain the sort of reference you would expect to see in order to verify this section

Please explain why you are so determined to make a stand on this particular article because in the last four days you have edited some 300 articles and of those 47 are without any notes, references or citations (and some are quite large articles). Why did you not bother with those?

--81.157.73.83 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you've been vandalising my user page. And because the article is not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. And you are incorrect about WP:V. It is not just for quotes. Every statement in the article must be verifiable to a third-party source. Any editor may remove any informaton that isn't. As it is the whole section on the modern company can be removed by any editor at any time. IPSOS (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Revival Section

Removed the tag as I have referenced the formation of the company with verifiable data and linked the name Mandragora to a page which asserts that fact.

That's not a reference. You need third-party references to support notability. Also, our WP:EL external linking policy does not allow 1) text links from the body of the article, 2) multiple links to different pages of the same web site. Since there is already a link to the main page in External links, I've removed the Mandragora link based on these two policies. IPSOS (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Split

I do not think this article should be split for all the reasons outlined above, also, an admin has had a look and agrees it should not be split. Given that no further arguments for splitting have been raised, surely the admins ruling must stand. I would however like to point out that one of IPSOS's reasons for the split is based on some sort of personal conflict ("Because you've been vandalising my user page.") and this article now appears to be being used to conduct some sort of vendetta against the anon user (and possibly the current company). Either way, surely an article is not the place to deal with this problem so lets just leave it how it is. David 85.210.212.145 06:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the anon is using multiple ip addresses as sockpuppets. Why is it that the "editors" of this article are all ip addresses? IPSOS (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet and nothing to do with me! Where is your evidence of such Why do you make everything so negative and accusatorial. Why don't you contribute to the article rather than detroying it. Wait for due process - you asked for one or two weeks to garner the opinion of other editors. Give others time to develope the article. You have flagged it stating you think it needs improving so leave it at that . . . let others do the improving if you won't but don't go round deleting everything. Your latest edits on this article are tantamount to vandalism. Why delete the Book of Tobit material -- it was fully explained to you on the discussion page so why didn't you improve the article rather than just delete the material that confused you?--81.157.73.83 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Some information has to be removed. The information surrounding the Book of Tobit will not be added unless verified by reliable third party sources; I understand these maybe hard to get, but otherwise this will be considered original research, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. As for other information, like the mail-order service, a citation is not necessary; the information is not likely to be challenged. Please keep the "nofootnotes" tag, and bear in mind that it is there so that others may improve the article. This discussion is starting to become a good candidate for WP:LAME. —Anas ^talk? 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to stir anything up but I would like to make the following point. IPSOS asked for consensus regarding whether this article should be split or not, I reviewed the information available and came to a decision. All I did was add my opinion to this discussion page – I didn't even touch the main article – and the next thing I know I'm being accused of being a Sock Puppet. Just so everyone is clear, the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation and had IPSOS bothered to spend two minutes to run a WHOIS query on my IP address and the other person's IP address he would have seen that we're using two different ISPs. Please remember that while it may appear that unregistered users are trying to hid something, they actually have less anominity that registered users. David 85.210.231.207 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags

Please stop removing the split tag and the request for citations. I've opened an RfC for comment on the split issue. The only cited information about the new company is its bare existance. The rest should be removed unless third-party sources can be found. IPSOS (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

YOU removed the split tag. I replaced it, Anas deleted it. I suggest you defer to the Admin decision.--81.157.73.83 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have special privileges in content disputes. Please see WP:DR for dispute resolution processes. IPSOS (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I only removed it because the anon restored it. You, IPSOS, were the one to remove it initially. And please anon, do not keep on pointing out that I am an admin; administrators are normal people with a few extra buttons, and have no prerogatives. I would like to remind both of you that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. —Anas ^talk? 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

and yet IPSOS has reverted your edit three times in 24hours and is that acceptable? How can we build the content if he keeps destroying it with robotic applications of guidelines which he interprets as 'immutable rules'. Your own example of New York Tribune is an excellent case. Whilst I and others are slowly trying to build this article it seems IPSOS is only interested in removing the existing content.

Summary by 81.157.73.83

IPSOS has openly admitted he is using this article to carry out a personal vendetta because I edited his USER PAGE

"Why do you want to split it? . . . 81.157.73.83 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)"

"Because you've been vandalising my user page. . . . IPSOS (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)"

The IPSOS user page has offensive and aggressive material on it (The Problem with Wikipedia) and as such brings Wikipedia into direpute. The two issues should not be confused and this article should not be made the battleground!--81.157.73.83 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on my edit to another user IPSOS wrote

"Yes, I know. It probably means I'll end up an administrator, as I see they are the ones who get their user pages vandalized the most. :-) IPSOS (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"

IPSOS removed most of my comments on his talk page and then archived his talk page to permanently hide them and prevent others from accessing them! IPSOS has been asked a number of times in the past to tone down his aggressive editing and to tone down his USER PAGE.

Responses to RfC

As this page is a mess, I'm creating a new section for responses to RfC. After reading the page, I note that 81.157.73.83 is a single purpose account and wonder whether there is a conflict of interest here. GlassFET 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an assumption . . . I choose not to have a User Account at this time and my IP address changes frequently.--81.157.73.83 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your choice, but don't expect to be taken as seriously as an established editor who has edited a diverse range of articles. GlassFET 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are biased against my 'skin' as you judge not the issue or content but demean me because I am a user identified by an IP Address. OK — now I have an account will you take more seriously--IP-81-157-73-83 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, against your contribution history. Fine if you have a static IP, but if you have dynamic there is no way to tell whether you are a single purpose editor or not. GlassFET 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GlassFET

I think that the article seems to be intended simply to promote the link to the new company at the bottom of the article. The new company appears not to meet either WP:CORP or WP:V as it has no references. All information about the new company and the link should be removed. As for the old company, I'd say that its notability is borderline and that the article would not survive an AfD. More supporting references should be provided. GlassFET 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

more references will be provided and more information if only I and others were left to get on with it. I note you share an interest in the Golden Dawn like IPSOS -- perhaps a bias lies therein?--81.157.73.83 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What's stopping you? Nothing that I can see. And being interested in the G.D. has no bearing on whether a company meets or does not meet WP:CORP. How could it? GlassFET 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Time and destructive editing by IPSOS. BUT you lose sight of the issue! IPSOS has made this article the battleground because I dared to criticise his destructive and aggressive editing and the offensive material on his user page. This article is not the real issue!--IP-81-157-73-83 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any destructive editing on his part. As for aggressive, your editing looks just as aggressive and your comments on this talk page are much more aggressive looking than the other users. Just FYI how you are coming off. I personally don't care what a user puts on his users page. Frequently these things are of the "if the shoe fits" category. Do you feel personally insulted? If so, why? GlassFET 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are shifting the discussion to attempt to engage me in a discussion of my personal views not the broader issue. The issue with the USER PAGE is clear

Wikipedia:Five pillars — Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Assume good faith Civility and etiquette. Mutual respect is the guiding behavioural principle of Wikipedia.

The IPSOS user page content is expressing a view directly opposed to these fundamental principles.What a user puts on his user page is important if it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Remember, IPSOS has openly admitted that this article is the battleground because I criticised his editing and the offensive material on his user page. The content of this article is not the real issue!--IP-81-157-73-83 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The user page is not directed at an individual. Thus I don't see how it violates anything. In any case, this talk page is not the place to discuss it. This talk page is for discussion of the article. Your problems with another user's user page are out of place here and are a complete red herring with respect to this article. GlassFET 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is the place to discuss it because IPSOS has openly admitted he is using this article to carry out a personal vendetta because I edited his USER PAGE

"Why do you want to split it? . . . 81.157.73.83 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)"

"Because you've been vandalising my user page. . . . IPSOS (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)"

The RFC was initiated for the wrong reasons and after IPSOS had just reverted the article three times in a matter of minutes! --81.157.73.83 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC is simply a request for comment from uninvolved users. As it looks like there are only two editors involved in this article with a third admin trying to mediate, it was completely the correct thing to do. Now please STOP DISCUSSING PERSONALITIES it is a waste of time. I will not respond to any further discussion about another user or their actions. Only about the content of the article. You keep harping on rules but won't follow the spirit of WP:NPA yourself. Bah. GlassFET 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have since created an article to promote another company which is competitor to Mandrake Press Ltd. That brings your own views, motivation and support of IPSOS into question.--81.157.73.83 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop making accusations against other users. I only discovered the company by seaching for Mandrake Press on Google. There are more sources for it than the former. Continue in the vein you are pursuing and I'll take the issue to the administrators. This is exactly the type of accusation which is against policy. GlassFET 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Emnx

Summary or multi-stub pages: Several small topics of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings. Although this is similar to a disambiguation page, the disambiguation notice should not be put here, as the page doesn't link to other articles closely associated with a specific term. As each section grows, there may come a time when a subject should have a page of its own.

So IF you MUST keep the original, keep the two together! If you keep the original you need to distinguish between the two companies called 'Mandrake Press Ltd.'

Your additions strengthen the argument to split. IPSOS (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete

This has to the lamest edit war on Wikipedia! and it is now being used to promote a link to a 3rd company Mandrake of Oxford with even less notability than the first two! This supposed article and the newly created Mandrake of Oxford article should be deleted!--Emnx 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the new Mandrake Press is notable enough to be included in this artilce, then Mandrake of Oxford is notable enough for its own article. Care to disclose a conflict of interest? You seems to be yet another single purpose account involved with this article. IPSOS (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear you seem have confused yourself with your own arguments. My point here was that the entire article should be deleted, I added a delete tag which YOU then promptly removed. So, taking you on good faith (and other editors who have expressed a favourable opinion) I added some material provided on the talk page with a few additional references etc. to bolster the article. I am now confused as to which side of the fence you are on Delete | Keep.

From a NPOV could I perhaps suggest that you refrain from accusing everyone of nefarious activities as it actually reflects badly on you. It would be helpful if we stuck to the issues — I am especially intrigued why you are so motivated to make this article a battleground following vandalism of your user page. Whilst I agree that it should not have been vandalised (and I do not wish to become embroiled in the arguments relating to the content therein) I do think you might take your fight elsewhere and let the rather more serious editors who have expressed an interest in this article develop it.--Emnx 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not your "dear". Also, I have never accused anyone of anything, I have simply asked for voluntary disclosure. I find it interesting that I receive no denials, only misdirection. Hmm... IPSOS (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

. . . and a diversion from "why you are so motivated to make this article a battleground following vandalism of your user page" so please stop commenting on other's actions when your own actions are so blatant and openly admitted on this page.--Emnx 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that does it. You are clearly a sockpuppet of the anon user and I will be opening a formal report. IPSOS (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another diversion and another accusation! <sigh>

Keep

This is an intriguing article with several references. I'd like to know more, esp. that bit about the Book of Tobit.-BillDeanCarter 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, without splitting, and (as always!) expand with further references. All this information belongs together. If the two companies had sufficient material on each of them to make this a larger article, there might eventually be a reason to split. For now there is sufficient continuity (in name, location and activity) to justify a single article, even if there is no strictly legal continuity between the two entities. I had it in mind to be bold and just remove the 'split' tag as vexatious, but it's clearly led to so much debate that I'm leaving it for now... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To Emnx

Why is is always the "other person" who has to discuss on talk page. You haven't. The fact of the confusion of two companies in the same country, one in Oxford and one in Oxfordshire, is simple common sense. You don't remove again without lengthy discussion. IPSOS (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why revert an edit without discussing it first. You reverted my edit without discussing it? I note you are busy building the newly created Mandrake of Oxford article and supporting it's supporting pages so why not contribute here? I have asked you a number of times to contribute but all you do is revert and remove. Why?

Finally if Eric Brown lives in Oxford and Eric Smith lives in Thame - where is the confusion? Mandrake Press Ltd. is not Mandrake of Oxford - I see no evidence of confusion between the names. Mandrake Press Ltd. is located in Thame -v- Mandrake of Oxford's location is explicit in it's name. As long as both names are used correctly on Wikipedia there is no confusion.--Emnx 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To Emnx: You have made a very great mistake in your assumption of multiple identities. While I agree with you about the content of the article (that it should stay as a single piece) your conduct is reprehensible. The ends do not justify the means. Frankly, I think both you and IPSOS are behaving badly here, but I'm afraid your own tactics have completely undermined your argument. I shall take a while to reconsider whether I need to change my vote to 'split'. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The content is what is important here not my actions or those of IPSOS with a grudge! If you change your mind then you play into the hands of IPSOS . . . and content becomes irrelevant as you are playing the rules and procedures and losing sight of the purpose we are actually here for. I just want to get on building an article without IPSOS reverting and removing everything.--Emnx 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, speaking of grudges, just why were you vandalizing my user page anyway. And why using an IP address? Have a tangle with me or User:Buddhipriya who you've accused me of being? You seem very knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Did you have a previous account? Is it perhaps a blocked user account? IPSOS (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There you go again making accusations! Your user page is offensive! You have been asked by a number of people to alter it including at least one admin who said

"The content of the section titled "Problem with Wikipedia" in your user page might be considered offensive to some Wikipedians. It is also likely to bring the project into disrepute. I understand that you should have latitude to express your opinions in your user page, but please, can you tone it down a bit?"

Only ever been an anon user and never been in a dispute. An occasional editor, without an agenda, for quite a few years! So now my dear IPSOS PLEASE calm down, act in good faith, stick to the content and stop using this article as your battleground which you have openly admitted to so doing.--Emnx 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[sarcasm] yeah, we've heard about that a few times. [/sarcasm] And note that you've been told that the article talk page is not the place for bringing it up. Still waiting for you to discuss the actual issues with the article without making it into a personality dispute. IPSOS (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You raised the issue here and you evade answering the question and continue the dispute. You are the admitted protagonist here not I.--Emnx 09:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake the pair of you, take this discussion to one another's user talk pages and get it off this article talk page. If one of you took the decision to retain a dignified silence it would immediately make the other look like a silly ranter, but I doubt either of you will take that option... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm done. I may be slow, but it has become clear that Emnx doesn't really want to discuss the article, but only wants to continue to grind an axe. IPSOS (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of split/retain opinions

I won't bother to rehearse the arguments, as anyone who wishes to can read them above. I realise Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I could only see one person arguing in favour of a split. I think the views expressed on this issue were:
In favour of splitting:

• IPSOS
• GlassFET

In favour of retaining as one article:

• Emnx and aliases
• Kim Dent-Brown
• Anas

No opinion expressed on split:

• BillDeanCarter

On this basis, there is clearly no consensus for the article to be split, so I suggest the status quo should prevail. I shall remove the 'split' tag from the main article forthwith (of course if anyone feels I have misrepresented their position, they could make an immediate revision!) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I have to choose between split or no split, I'd come down on the split side. Changing above summary. GlassFET 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - anyone else want to nail their colours to the mast? (With a reasoned argument, if you haven't posted before...) Please add to/amend the summary above if you wish. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving in content from deleted article

I just reversed an attempt to move content into this article from the one that was deleted. If you want to contest the decision here to exclude this material (which wasn't merely a matter of counting heads) then please take it to WP:DRV and ask that the decision be overturned. The problem of lack of independent sources remains whether the material is in a separate article or merged into this one.--Chaser - T 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The same issue (lack of adequate references) is also true of the modern "Mandrake Press" also improperly included in this article. I've removed it as well. They should either both be included or both removed. Neither are the original historic company. GlassFET 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with GlassFET's decision here, but I'm not going to do a straight revert without discussing it here first. As a relative ignoramus about the whole Mandrake story, I found the original article (including the 'revival' section deleted by GlassFET) to be informative and helpful. I have a couple of books by I-H-O press and didn't realise that they were the 'modern' Mandrake, nor that there had been an 'original' Mandrake in thew first place. The article did make clear that there were two companies, that they published within a similar domain, but that they had no lineal connection. This was helpful information which did not seem to me to be either advertising or POV, or any other objectionable thing.

I understand Chaser's objection to importing the Mandrake of Oxford stuff to avoid a deletion debate (although frankly I'd have left it alone, to complete the picture!) But I do think the most recent deletion of content should be reverted. The article is poorer without it. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no connection with, or knowledge of, the personalities and companies involved. I write as an ordinary user of Wikipedia who found the original article useful, and the present version less so. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is that the modern Mandrake Press has no better sources than Mandrake of Oxford did. This is the reason that puppetmaster Emnx objected to splitting the article. I have no objection to restoring both companies. Hell, I started Mandrake of Oxford after getting involved with this, searching for references for the modern "Mandrake Press", and finding many more references to Mandrake of Oxford than for Mandrake Press. IMO, Emnx had a conflict of interest, his original intent was to promote the new Mandrake Press, and that was so urgent for him that he used sockpuppetry to try to delete the article about what he considered a competitor. I say both or neither. And you are probably right that both is better. They were both inspired by and continue to publish the same sorts of books as the original Mandrake. We should not promote one at the expense of the other. GlassFET 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer for both to be restored. What should I do? Revert it? Something else? IPSOS (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference: (1)revert the deletion of the modern Mandrake Press material, improve it with better sources. (2) Add a Mandrake of Oxford section under the 'revival' header (new material, not a copy of the deleted article) and make sure that has defensible references too. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)