This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mandrake of Oxford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagicWikipedia:WikiProject MagicTemplate:WikiProject MagicMagic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article was nominated for deletion on June 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep on procedural grounds (nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user), without prejudice to renomination by a user in good standing.
A word of caution concerning attempts to deface this pageedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
It's already been prodded once. You can't prod it again. IPSOS (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
You might want to check your own remarks in other talk pages then, in that case. Coldmachine 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
"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. ColdmachineTalk 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
.png){kind=small}
