Talk:Mandrake of Oxford

A word of caution concerning attempts to deface this page

Please note that the IP 64.247.69.74 aka 64.247.68.54 is attempting to remove ALL references to a book published by this publisher from multiple Wiki sites. They have been defacing the publishers article here on Wikipedia as well. Here is the revision history for an article that referenced said book on WikiHow: revision to WH. Click last revision and observe how the reference was removed and re-added about a dozen times. The IP deleted the entire article on the book from Tin Wiki revision to TW. Please see the talk page were I noted their multi site removals talk page. They have even removed references to the book from user's personal talk pages. I believe their recent edits to this page are a part of their bizare campaign against the book. If you look at the history for this article you can see that they edited it multiple times in the past couple of months. -- 71.221.97.60 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Mandrake of Oxford, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Coldmachine 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's already been prodded once. You can't prod it again. IPSOS (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that. I just re-read the Wiki deletion nomination procedure and see that you are correct: if an objection to a deletion nomination is made (and passes) then the article cannot be nominated again. Seems...somewhat totalitarian but there we go. I still question the validity of this article. Mandrake Press is NOT a notable organisation which would merit an encyclopedic entry so why it has one is anyone's guess. Well, yours apparently. Could you please explain your links to this? I see from your username and the related article that you clearly demonstrate an interest in the occult and in particular the works of the Golden Dawn (i.e. Aleister Crowley). Since Mandrake Press publishes in this very same area I would hazard a guess that you have a vested interest?Coldmachine 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know why you are asking IPSOS about this. I started the article. And I don't even live on the same continent as the company. Nor do I sell books. No vested interest whatsoever. Sorry to disappoint you. GlassFET 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just noticed that you also confused this company with Mandrake Press. You do know that they aren't the same, don't you? Do you think that that company also doesn't "merit" an encyclopedia article? If so, why are you only concerning yourself with this article? GlassFET 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking IPSOS since it was he who accused me of being a sockpuppet...I assumed he had motives for casting aspersions against my name owing to his connections to this article. This does not, however, make the point redundant: that this article relates to a company of no particular merit within the world of publishing which would warrant encyclopedic attention. Mandrake Press, as you rightly say, is a different entity: forgive my earlier lack of clarification in the use of this company's name in reference to Mandrake of Oxford (this article). Mandrake Press has a history of publishing since 1929, and since it was founded by an individual of some import (or notoriety depending on your perspective) it can be considered an appropriate entry for historical/contextual purposes (i.e. understanding Crowley's life work, experiences, and legacy). This company - Mandrake of Oxford - has no such associations of value.Coldmachine 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I also note from your own user page that you have an interest in the Golden Dawn as well. Again, I would have to wonder at your own objectivity in this matter as well.Coldmachine 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current Mandrake Press and Mandrake of Oxford have about the same status. They were both simply named in honor of the 1929 company and have no other connection to it. Mandrake of Oxford is slightly older. GlassFET 22:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Questioning a user's objectivity on the basis of their interests is veering toward violation of the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies of Wikipedia. I suggest you desist from these insinuations. GlassFET 22:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check your own remarks in other talk pages then, in that case. Coldmachine 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific. Don't think I've done what you're doing. Please give an example diff. GlassFET 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"you are the edit warrior in this case", "please stop your warring", "you cool off", "edit warring to make a point is just plain silly", from this discussion. Anyway, this is all off topic for this article. Take the discussion to my user page if you have a problem with this. Coldmachine^Talk 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Those have nothing to do with claiming you have a COI because of some specific interest. Bah, you were warring. GlassFET 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No conflict of interest here. Don't work for or otherwise have any connection with the company. IPSOS (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mandrake of Oxford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608041247/http://www.mandrake.uk.net/whoweare.htm to http://www.mandrake.uk.net/whoweare.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721034003/http://occultebooks.com/interviews/MoggMorganofMandrakePt1DE/tabid/75/Default.aspx to http://occultebooks.com/interviews/MoggMorganofMandrakePt1DE/tabid/75/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)