Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Dostoevsky

Hello John,

I posted my views on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive2. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I can not see any samples, nor do I know what you mean with "brilliant" prose. There is quite simply no "brilliant" prose. One would find that formal language is "brilliant", other American English, and other British English. If you find there are distinct prose issues, then I would be happy to hear a few samples. However and nethertheless do no harm and are quite helpful in some cases. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your attempt to change the criteria. My opinion stands all the more strongly. --John (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, are you judging the article or the criterions?--Tomcat (7) 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am judging that the article does not currently meet the criteria; that is what FAC is for. --John (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Naval History

Aye there, 'John', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Misplaced Pages in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13

Regarding Technical 13 (talk · contribs). The blink was removed after User talk:Technical_13#Fix your signature; would you be able to review User talk:Technical_13#A_few_things... and User_talk:Launchballer#Your_Signature, to see if you could suggest any suitable next steps of guidance. —Sladen (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Let me think. --John (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fired a shot across their bows. I very much hope that will be sufficient. --John (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a decent shot. T13 had a go at me about my sig earlier, and then opened a dispute resolution case about it! I was tempted to deploy the cute puppy, but I feared T13 would not cope well with irony Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI. Pretty sure it's a revenge nomination for some TfDs I filed (see T13's talk page). He appears to think that I have a vendetta against him. I don't; I just think we hit both "competence is required" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" some time ago. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

John, thanks for that. Hex: I am beginning to wonder. T13 was defending the ~33 Article-space edits in the last couple of months as being a good start for a beginner—yet at the same time there are ~200 non-Article-space edits in the last couple of days. Perhaps T13 will take a break as hinted, return as ShoeMaker and turn over a new leaf. —Sladen (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I think I will leave it at that for now. If there is anything else I can or should do, please let me know. --John (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm so sorry to have to ask you about this - particularly as it probably falls foul of WP:STICK. You said on his page that if there were any more signature related shenanigans regarding him you'd block him indefinitely. A couple of his edits at Template talk:Usbk involve him chastising mine; please do what you feel necessary.--Launchballer 00:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him and raised the block at AN/I for review. --John (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm not planning to touch it, but there's a possibility that T13's latest unblock appeal might not be turned down unilaterally (depends on who's reviewing it, I suppose) - since the reviewing admin will probably want to check with you first, you may want to add some comments at his talkpage. All the best. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think I have anything to add to my AN/I report and my comments at the user's talk page. I may change my mind. --John (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I very much agreed with your indef in this case, but I thought I'd let you know I've unblocked. With any luck the block (and the conversation that followed) has served as an adequate clue-adjustment tool in this case. If you disagree then feel free to reblock. I appreciate that there is a degree of irony here, which didn't occur to me until after I'd hit the button. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me, if you really think that there is evidence of learning on Technical's part. Maybe with the right support this user could become an asset. Irony? How do you mean? --John (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheepish ...

After your excellent efforts at Middle Ages, reducing my bloat, I've gone and added a bunch more - needed to cover women, a bit more on social life and some stuff on Jews and coinage. I *think* i'm all done now. I hope. Maybe. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah. Think you could take another look? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to. It's a beautiful article and I have learned a lot by reading and copy-editing it. I look forward to reading the new material. --John (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It looks fine. I had a few wee hacks here and there. Nice work. --John (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

Hi, John. Do you plan to finish your review of Uruguayan War? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I will give it a proper review in the next 24 h. --John (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

John, please don't forget to finish your review. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a hard taskmaster Lecen. I apologise for the time slipping away; I would have done it had bloody Maggie not gone and died after Malleus and I wrote a GA on her. I am looking now and will complete before I go to bed, even though I have an interview tomorrow. There had better be a Barnstar in this for me when it is finished! --John (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar? That's all? lol! You don't have to do it today, of course. Just don't forget to finish it before the nomination is closed. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, will finish tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John, you told me that there were were a couple of questions still pending. What are they? --Lecen (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Will finish tonight. --John (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have struggled to get to this. I haven't forgotten and will get to i as soon as I can. --John (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Civility and infoboxes

Hi John, I noticed your comment on Ceoil's page and just wanted to mention in case you've not been aware that this has been an ongoing issue that as far as I'm concerned has elicited nasty behavior from other editors as well for more than a year. I for one would like to see the editors who use tactics other than swearing also receive a comment. For instance, I wasn't impressed that someone left a comment on my page asking me to do something about Ceoil's and Giano's spelling in a recent infobox conversation (imperfect spelling that apparently happened while I was logged out, but somehow I seem to bear the responsibility); although a minor incident, it's the reason I've decided to stop editing until this issue can either be resolved or at least stop being such a timesink. Anyway sorry to butt in but I thought I'd mention that I've been seeing a lot of baiting at best. I'm well aware that swearing merits a comment, but you're also well aware that there's behavior that's much more nuanced, stubborn, etc., that wears down editors and finally drives them away. Maybe now this is at AN/I someone will take notice but I fear, as usual, the bad language will trump all the rest. Anyway thanks for listening and best. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand what you are saying here. I would be very resistant to taking further action against Ceoil on this issue. --John (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation

Hello! This message is to inform you that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

–pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Eve Hewson

Why did you removed the Personal Life Section from Eve Hewson's article and James Lafferty as her partner from her infobox?? Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP. --John (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC

John, I'd be interested in a review from you on this given it's apparently had another copyedit since its last FAC, and has attracted a good deal of support this time round but not, I believe, from outside the gamer community. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look tonight. --John (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have responded. --JDC808 ♫ 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I too. There is no need to ping me here unless a while goes by and I haven't responded. Be assured that I have FACs watchlisted. --John (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

When you get a chance, can you have another look? Addressed a couple things. --JDC808 ♫ 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a further look, probably this evening. --John (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that. Could you take Graham's advice on board? I'll be happy to look at a renom, but make sure you ask everybody or nobody next time. --John (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, will do. --JDC808 ♫ 17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Harrison FAC

Thanks for your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2. I've recently made a series of edits to the article that I feel have helped flesh-out "Harrison the man". If you can find the time, Evan and I would greatly appreciate it if you took another look. GabeMc 22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will need time to properly read your changes. I will do it as soon as I can, probably in the next 24 hours. --John (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John! GabeMc 23:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ping! GabeMc 22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Denial (Sugababes song)

Hi, how are you? I was wondering if you were willing to comment on the FAC for Denial (Sugababes song) which is here, as the review has gone quite stale. If you are not willing, please ignore this message Till 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have a look. I should have time later today. --John (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John. Till 06:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, after all these days I finally realised what you meant by . I have added it to the article. I hope you don't mind but I removed my ditzy comment on the FAC and wrote a new one out of embarrassment lol. Till 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to look again today. --John (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your good work on Margaret Thatcher, with thanks to MF. :) Drmies (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, both of you. --John (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder John where all those who are tripping over themselves to edit Maggie's article were when we were grafting away at it trying to restore its GA status. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's "The Little Red Hen" all over again. --John (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was building a fence! (And tomorrow I'm going to tear it down so I can straighten one of the crossbeams--that I put it in slanted kept me up all night.) Drmies (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The nonsense over at Maggie's article is driving me mad, so I've had to take it off my watchlist. Maybe when things quieten down after her funeral I'll take another tentative peek and see what damage has been done. One thing's for sure though, it's further away now from ever regaining its FA status than it was yesterday morning. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I don't blame you. All these people are well-intentioned. It's not nearly as bad as I feared it might be. --John (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If they're well intentioned, where were they when there was work needing to be done? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Little Red Hen" effect again I'm afraid. If I get time I might write an essay, shortcut it to WP:LITTLEREDHEN. Would you help me? --John (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a great one for essays I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I've only written one. This would be my first proper one. We'll see. --John (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to resist the initial shock attack, but you've done really well in the subsequent trench warfare. I do bitterly resent though being accused of having any sort of agenda with regard to Margaret Thatcher, other than to present the facts in a balanced way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's bitterly funny to me as well. If you knew me in real life, and especially if you had known me in the 1980s when we are talking about, the idea that I was a supporter of Thatcher would have you rolling on the floor. Apart from anything else, there were probably more vampires in Scotland than people openly supporting her. Even fewer now. I've often cited it as an example of how we can take our political hats off when editing. I demand that she be treated fairly as a biographical subject on our glorious crowd-sourced project. It isn't anything to do with whether I "like" her or not. I wish people could see that. If, hypothetically, one wanted to traduce her name, one wouldn't do it by insisting on deep coverage of some yahoos celebrating her death as an old lady, would one? --John (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually met my (now) wife on a student rally against the withdrawal of school milk: "Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher". The demo was an interesting insight into how the media manipulate events, and after we were turned away from Parliament because of some ancient law or other we had a great evening watching Emerson Lake and Palmer at Imperial College. A great day, and an even better night. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you must have a couple of years on me. I attended the anti-Poll Tax demonstration, not the big one in London that turned into a riot, but the relatively calm and civilised one in Glasgow the same day. --John (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe more than a couple. By the time of the poll tax riots we had a house in London, so I was very keen to see everyone pay their fair whack, not just me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of one I heard during my time in America: "A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested." One changes over time. I think I have mainly just become much more cynical about politicians, of any stripe. Still, it's the only game in town. --John (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've always been cynical. I only went on the demo because I'd seen Ruth around and I thought it might be a good way to hook up with her. I really couldn't have cared less about the government's policy on free school milk, or on anything else for that matter. I was just there for the craic as the Irish say. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that some clot has opened a GA reassessment on Maggie's article right in the middle of all this recent bollocks. Some people haven't got the sense they were born with. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. Isn't it on hold until the hoo-hah has diminished? Given the hatred and controversy she inspired, I am not all that surprised. It is entirely natural (though unfortunate and anti-encyclopedic) that those who hated her in life would try to do her down on Misplaced Pages after her death. --John (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, yes we must respect the deceased at all costs. Congratulations with achieving new heights of selfconratulatoriness and holier+than thou attitudes in this thread. Im sorry to have to bring in reality to rain on your parade.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking to me? Or did you accidentally post in the wrong place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs)

I think Maunus is talking to himself and his imaginary friends. You can't actually put a GA reassessment on hold, so really it ought to be withdrawn by the nominator. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the current state of the article John? I'd be voting to have its GA listing removed myself in that condition. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

William Karel's film about Margaret Thatcher

What is so bullshit (as you like o put it) about the film? Really don't understand what the problem is, sure could have gotten a better source, but nonetheless, a docementary film that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria was never part of the Soviet Union, the past tense of "burst" is not "bursted", and on a Good Article we prefer English language sources. Please don't keep adding it. Instead, seek consensus in talk. --John (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your name

I'm curious . . . I see from your User Page that you've been editing since 2005, when the site was about four years old. Was the name "John" actually still available at that time, or have you assumed an abandoned name? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you ask? --John (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know, it seems like it would have been one of the names grabbed up very early by the first editors of Misplaced Pages, and since the site was three or four years old when you joined, it just seemed incredibly fortunate that it was available. Didn't mean to pry, I just thought it was kind of neat. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I used to edit under a different name, and then I used the usurpation process to take over this one which had been registered but not really used. What about you, did you have any other names or accounts before this one? --John (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Links in quote

Hi John, I noticed your revert of a couple of wikilinks I provided for the Margaret Thatcher article. I thought the 'butter for guns' wikilink was quite helpful, is it policy not to have links within quotes as I've not heard anything to that effect? Cheers Hillbillyholiday 14:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's at WP:LINKSTYLE. --John (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yet another technical page that had escaped my noticed. The guideline is typically vague on the matter, but I'm not too bothered either way if the wikilinks are included to be honest. Incidentally, the 'butter for guns' stuff has a rather interesting history and has even been the subject of a famously sarky artwork.. All the best - Hillbillyholiday 14:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article seems far from vague. We do have WP:IAR to fall back on if you feel strongly about it or if other editors disagree. --John (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I overstated it a tad by calling it 'typically vague', but this guideline could be taken to mean that in an article (like Thatcher's) where there simply isn't room to expand on the subject matter elsewhere, it would be ok to put the wikilink within the quote. It can be useful and there doesn't seem to be any harm done (except aesthetically maybe). Perhaps I will raise the matter, I'm still something of a greenhorn round here and no doubt will go about it in my usual over-eager hamfisted manner. I doubt it is a major concern of yours, but may I ask if you personally think wikilinking within quotes is objectionable? Thanks again for the pointers btw. Hillbillyholiday 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I am torn on this instance. The usual problem we have is that articles get overlinked; I frequently find 10 or more repetitions of the same link in articles I am copyediting. These are also typically zero-value links like English, United States and United Kingdom. Beginners often link every instance of everyday terms like these. The effect then is to distract from and thus dilute the value of the important links. In the case we are talking about though, I can see value in providing the link. Perhaps we could provide it in a footnote, thus allowing the interested to click through and find the origin of the phrase, without the uninterested being distracted by something that is highly peripheral to the story of Britain's first female PM. Let me think about it some more. In closing, please do ping me here if here is anything I can do for you; Misplaced Pages can be quite a steep learning curve and I have been here a while. --John (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Steep indeed, i didn't have a computer until last year! I really appreciate you taking time out to debate the finer points with me - funnily enough I wouldn't have even got involved with the Maggie article had this not been one of my first contributions to wikipedia in the heady days of, ooh.. six weeks ago. It may well appear like I'm bringing scraps to the table with that little edit, but I was (and still am) a little frightened of even searching for some of the Saudi/BAE 'connections' in depth. Hillbillyholiday 20:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice suggestion. I suggest waiting until the immediate hoo-hah over her death settles a bit and maybe we can pursue it. I apologise for missing your suggestion first time round. --John (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Decorative images

I'm curious: Why is it only with me you'll revert war over the long-standing images you removed without consensus? You aren't imposing your will consistently and things are currently a mess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to remove them, you need consensus to replace them. They breach the guideline and it's become clear they don't do anything except decorate. --John (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem confused. Firstly, you do need to find a new consensus should your attempt to change what has consensus be challenged by a revert; guidelines don't empower you to do otherwise. Secondly, nobody's proposing to replace the images. And, thirdly, you didn't at all address what I said above: You have continually reverted me when I reverted your unjustified removal of those images, but have not reverted others when they did the exact same thing as I; now some articles have the images and some don't. You're definitely coming across as a little tyrant, but the aforementioned makes it almost look as though this has become something personal for you, rather than about improving Misplaced Pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Hi John, I owe you an unreserved apology for a comment I made about your review here. I retract it and hope you will forgive me. I can't fathom what caused my stupidity, unless it's old age. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've seen a lot worse. Don't worry about it. --John (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feature Article

John, alcohol laws of New Jersey was made a feature article. Thank you for your help. We are petitioning to have it placed on the main page for a day - Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really pleased for you. Well done. --John (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the ARBCC notice to RobinLarson. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, only doing my job. Let me know if I can do anything else. --John (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've obviously been a bad influence

. See you at ANI. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, quite possibly. I dare not say more right now than I'm walking away for a few. --John (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I hit a wall, or was in danger of doing so, at the utter twattishness of people arguing abut what Marr meant when he said Thatcher increased personal wealth by 80%, without having any sources of their own, just an attitude. We've also got someone cutting material from the lead as unreferenced which is referenced in the body. Tell me honestly, Malleus, have you ever seen me behave in such a brain-dead and cuntish way on someone else's hard-written article? --John (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a reason I edit dead guys and horses... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

    John and I worked on this at least in part because we anticipated that this kind of thing would happen when Thatcher died. God knows how much worse it would have been if we hadn't. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Honestly? No, I haven't. We haven't always agreed about some minor points of style, but we've always been able to reach a compromise without resorting to pistols at dawn. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reality check. --John (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

      I see you've also been accused of not being willing or able to collaborate, something I get accused of all the time. Which always makes me laugh, because I've probably helped more editors get their articles up to snuff than any other editor in the history of Misplaced Pages. How could I have done that if was unable or unwilling to collaborate? Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

      What fucker said that? I thought our work on the MT article was an ideal of collaboration, but I suppose we're running into the Randy from Boise effect here. It turns out everyone is an expert on Thatcher now. Oh well. --John (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for interjecting, but as a novice here (and a right curious dickens) i've briefly scanned over both of yr inputs for a few days as you seem to know what's what around here (without being admin which i have my opinions about ), and i gotta say you both have my utmost respect. John's already been very patient with me on this page. And Malleus, sorry for not introducing myself properly earlier, it's not that i'm remotely bothered by swearing - see this article that I wrote 99.9% of which was on the main page today!) it was the personal nature of it all, but i'm beginning to empathize a bit. Maybe in a few years I'll be cursing all and sundry here! Hillbillyholiday 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

John is an admin, it's me who isn't. And I don't curse everyone here, only those who deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

wahooooops! no offense John. Malleus i obviously don't think that you curse all and sundry. i had my reservations at first is all - but anyway, more to the point, your 'style' is not my business until directed at me, and even then you can say what u like. That was why i was apologizing. All the best to the both of you. Hillbillyholiday 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe you read some of that guff about me hating all admins, and naturally thought that John couldn't possibly be an admin as he and I obviously get on. The fact is though that there are probably at least as many admins I'm on friendly terms with as there are who hate my guts. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All the best to you too Hillbillyholiday. No hard feelings, and try in my absence to restrain the worst garbage over there. --John (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Had a peak at the legacy bit we were discussing, really you don't want to know John, it appears ok-ish (but more vague) at first word-wise, then u see there are not one extra reference for a paragraph. The editors feel they have consensus. it isn't so important us to deal with it right now, there are plenty of others out there who might query the 'facts' so let them have a crack and come back when it looks so terrible you can prove the guys editing it are useless, and if they do do a good job then that's great. I'm genuinely ducking out for a day or so this time - Real life awaits i'm afraid. Hillbillyholiday 19:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• While I have you both here (sorta kinda) - which should go to FAC first - Middle Ages or Norman conquest of England? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Norman Conquest of England, no question. The scope of Middle Ages makes it inevitable that you'll get bogged down with people complaining about what is or isn't included. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Norman Conquest per Malleus, but either really. They are both very good. --John (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  NC needs a copyedit. John's done one on MA already ... but both of you could usefully ce NC and still not catch all my yankeeisms. I WILL take MA to FAC. (And starting on the 15th, I'll be deep into Crusades for the Core Contest...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Typical bloody woman. You ask for advice and then go and do what you were going to do anyway. Reminds me of my wife's "Would you like to stop for a coffee?" as we're driving down the motorway. I've learned not to say "No, I'm fine", as what always follows is "Well, I want to stop for a coffee!" Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Well, I am going to take a coffee break from that article. There are some cats shitting in my garden, and I don't know how to stop that either. At a certain point it becomes better to walk away and do something else for a while. Thatcher will be dead a long time. We can get it back to GA later, once these people have lost interest and moved on to another thing that interests them. --John (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  I used to keep a loaded water pistol by the kitchen window when we had that problem. Sorted it a treat. "They don't like it up 'em, they don't like it up 'em". Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  We're on the first floor unfortunately; I'd have to camp out to do that effectively and it's too cold. I thought of trying to get some lion's dung as apparently that works really well. Hard to get hold of though. Did occur to me to use a Claymore mine as well but that would be overkill. --John (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Hey, I didn't ask "which should I take to FAC"... I asked "Which should I take to FAC first..." .. you both are experienced males, you should know how to parse woman-speak by now! And I don't know how you two stood Thatcher - I'd have blown my stack by now... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  I did blow my stack, which is why I've left it to John until after the funeral. I took the initial shock attack, and now John's engaging in the follow-up trench warfare. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm recuperating away from the front line for a wee while away from the poison gas. --John (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Cat shit? A Super Soaker with lemon juice would've been my first suggestion, but if unfeasible a small heap of sand in the corner of the garden is more preferable to a cat. When my little pussy was in heat, i had so many manky-toms breaking in, i had to (well, i didn't have to) set the cat-flap to trap them inside (my bathroom), and then i'd give em a quick dunk in the bath and lob 'em out the window.. - Tippi Hedren

TY

I noticed both in my watchlist and on Malleus' talk that you have been diligent in keeping the quality of the Margaret Thatcher article at the highest possible levels. TY for that. — Ched :  ?  18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've had to walk away for a while as I was getting so incensed by the ignorance and bad faith being exhibited there. I suppose I will go back in a few days and see what kind of a mess the campaigners there have made. The good version will still be there in the history. Meantime, if you are interested you could protect the article to prevent more damage; it's a very prominent article at the moment and it's a shame its quality is being eroded. --John (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (2)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Without your highly valued insights and edits at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2, the article would not be FA today! Thanks so much for all the encouragement! GabeMc 20:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Aw thanks, that's really nice of you! And I am delighted we finally got it through. You did most of the work and deserve most of the credit. --John (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, its really not about the credit for me. What I enjoy is the teamwork and seeing an article at its best. I sincerely thank you for being so encouraging. As I mentioned to Malleus, Misplaced Pages can at times be a cold and thankless place IME, so your encouragement and advice during the FAC (and elsewhere) was invaluable. Cheers! GabeMc 20:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same way. I really enjoyed working with you on it. It was quite a difficult one to get right, wasn't it? I am delighted with how it's turned out. --John (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure was a tough one, but in a way that just made promotion all the more sweeter! I also enjoyed working with you John and I hope we can do more collaborating in the future. GabeMc 21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Beanfields

How's it going? The 80% discussion's started up again. As important as the wealth info is to people, i don't think i can bear going over it again. Staying with Thatch though, do you know much about the Battle of the Beanfield? For the cops who had just been decking hard-working miners, the chance to deck "crusty jugglers" at the Beanfields was an absolute dream.. I know some people who were there, who had their newborn (a kid named 'lay-by') showered with glass as the police went nuts and smashed the fuck out of his home. Luckily they didn't burn it down like some others had done to them. Shocking clips on youtube - in an ideal world this would be as well-known as the miner stuff, but even now people have little sympathy for the new-age traveller community. Hillbillyholiday 10:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPS. Yes, a truly disgusting episode in modern domestic British history. And one which, at the time, seemed to typify the attitude of the Thatcher government to what was then starting to become (what is now called) "the underclass". Apologies for this soap-boxing, but I think Hillbilly is right. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All you need is good sources. Pretty sure the Grauniad covered it at the time. Ian Dury wrote a great song about it. I shall return to the discussion when I feel ready, but like Malleus I have little tolerance for know-it-alls and POV-pushers trying to turn a well-written Good Article into a scandal sheet. Meantime find some sources. YouTube won't even slightly cut it; serious newspapers or academic books. I am sure they are out there. Remember the article is about Thatcher, not her government or general events of the era. Are they still arguing over what "personal wealth" means? --John (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

r.e. 80% > Sort of!

r.e Beanfields. Glad it's not forgotten at least. I will definitely get round to finding pertinent sources for the Beanfields when I get more time. Hillbillyholiday 10:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Itinerant Child" (although not a single, as was intended). Yours, Mr Love Pants (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the one! He was a great loss; I was much sadder about his death than Thatcher's, not that my feelings amount to a hill of beans in the great scheme of things. --John (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with you about 101% there, John. Ian's personal Thatcherite epitaph maybe: "they turned my ramshackle home into a burning wreck, my one-eyed dog got a broken neck". Yours, Normo Tebbs (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO the trouble with linking events to Thatcher and others like her, is the extreme unlikelyhood of finding a direct quote or document issuing 'criminal' orders straight from the horses mouth. This problem is rarely addressed in the study of History, only recently gaining notice. The term "Deep politics" covers this, and other issues in the (bean)field. Hillbillyholiday 10:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All we need are good sources that make the link. Try and find them. --John (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(On June 5th, 1986) "..Margaret Thatcher told the nation that her government was "only too delighted to do anything we can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys." gotcha! A few months the Public Order Act 1986 "made trespass a criminal offence and stated: "Two people proceeding in a given direction can constitute a procession and can be arrested as a threat to civil order".>BBC news website "This was the final nail in the coffin of the British free festival movement - effectively stopping the "new-age travellers" and festival-goers in their tracks.">BBC news website Without getting into synthesis issues yet, i think i can justify the inclusion of some of this into the article. maybe later, though, when it all calms down. Hillbillyholiday 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"they turned my ramshackle home into a burning wreck, my one-eyed dog got a broken neck" Love this Martin! Hillbillyholiday 11:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree there could be something there worth mentioning when the vultures are finished. --John (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Did someone mention know-it-all superstars?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh/GA3

John, it's been four weeks since you started this review, and said you'd be back to do it in detail, but you haven't yet returned. If you are still interested in pursuing it, can you get started soon? If not, we can put it back in the pool for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I completed this. Thanks for the reminder. --John (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's almost completed. The review is still open until you've placed the FailedGA template on the article's talk page. If you've never done this before, the instructions are on the WP:GAN page under the Instructions tab, and a fair ways down the page. (It explains about template parameters and the like.) Many thanks for getting back to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You've rumbled me, this is my first time. Thanks for keeping me right. --John (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've failed hundreds of GAs, so if you ever need any help in the future you know where to call. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought a bot would take care of the trivial matters once I was finished the hard bit of reading and critiquing the article. I should not have reviewed it, having extensively edited the article (though not I think substantively). I will do better next time. Thanks to both of you for the support. --John (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And it's a good moment of humility for me; even having been here for a good few years and thinking I knew my way around, here's an area I've never been to. Thanks again, both of you. --John (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

But you're an administrator, you're omnipotent. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hah, if only! --John (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hartebeest

Hi John! Long since you interacted at the FAC. Any more comments you would like to make or would you support/oppose? I hope all your comments have been answered, so please decide on this soon. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've supported. --John (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So we've both been reported for 3RR now, what a surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Although mine relates to Andrew Marr; what do you think of using the Daily Mail to source controversial material about a living person?! --John (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much. I wouldn't use it to wipe my arse. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well exactly. As a tabloid, it's been kicked to touch by numerous WP:BLPN and WP:RSN discussions. I blocked someone earlier today for repeatedly adding some negative material sourced only to the Mail, something that as you know I very seldom do. Strangely enough, I just removed another bunch of bullshit sourced to the same rag from Mark Thatcher. As regards our once-great GA, I haven't swung by in a few days. Last I saw there were people there arguing (I kid you not) about what exactly "personal wealth" meant. I dread to think what they are doing to it in our absence. --John (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not "negative material", it was the subject's own reflections on his actions, freely given. It was, as you are fully aware, not originally added by me, and had been on the article in question for nearly two years. It was sourced to the Mail because that was the newspaper that conducted the interview. Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Maggie for some time either, and I don't intend to again until her funeral is done and dusted and things have got back to normal. We can assess the damage then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The good version is still there in the history. --John (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So please tell me...

Improving Iain Banks

You have been one of the most active contributors to Iain Banks. As you may know, he is going to pass away in the near future :( Perhaps you will be interested in the initiative to improve his article as a parting gift from us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. How do you propose to take it forwards? --John (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What is needed is for somebody to take some time, read through existing sources / find new, and expand the article; in particular we need a section about his works (critical reception and such). Not that much work needed, actually... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:ANI#Talk:Margaret_Thatcher.23POV-section

Adam Cuerden 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. What an assholish move. Luckily I slept trough it and completely missed it. The only effect this will have is that I will give even less credence to your arguments, Adam. --John (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)