User talk:Coningsby/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * It seems you have been here a while. I'm glad you've decided to set up an account, I think you'll find it enjoyable. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and the information, User:Evilphoenix :) - Johnbull 13:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party (UK)

 * You wrote in your edit summary that "Cameron is not a conservative like Bush; firstly he supports civil partnerships, Bush tried to ban them." That's not true, Bush wants same-sex marriage banned in the US. He supports civil partnerships, i.e. civil unions. -- HowardDean 00:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, I realised I was wrong not long after I posted that when I went to check the wiki article. However on the Talk page for the Federal Marriage Amendment page it says Bush, if he was still Governor of Texas, would not support civil unions.Johnbull 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Links on Salisbury Review
Could you please consolidate the external links a bit? One is even repeated twice in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 09:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

English Reformation
Quality article creation! And fast, too. Have some Qs/possible edits, but will chuck 'em on the Talk page for your knowledgeable opinion... :-) JackyR 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, go ahead. :) - Johnbull 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi John
You might find this code useful for your talk page --Oli 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC):
 * I have no idea what that means, sorry. I'm not an "Old Harrovian".--Johnbull 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were someone else I knew with your name who also reads poltics.--Oli 07:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thatcherism
Hullo, I moved around much of the article and added a picture of ol' Margie. Tell me what you think.-- The ikiroid  23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me!&mdash;Johnbull 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- The ikiroid  00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Miners
Hi John. I dont accept that my edits are biased, perhaps you have never seen coal or been down a mine and are not familiar with the culture? Im not taking the piss, and im not anti Tory either. But a lot of what i write is documented by a lot of ex miners,the NUM and the left wing press. For instance, if i wanted an opinion on Harrow,i would ask a harrovian maybe?Ukbn2 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Just a thought mate.

Swing Needed
Hey Johnbull.... I know what you mean about the swing calculation on the next UK election article.. The difficulty comes with the boundary changes, because the new seats can only be worked on through local election votes, projections and guesstimates. The Conservatives would need a 10% to turn over the majority.... doktorb wordsdeeds 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I see, thanks.--Johnbull 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative party (UK) changes
Hi JohnBull, You got me on that "weasel words" charge in the Conservative Party article. I was trying to clear up what i thought was a poorly written section and didn't have the time to hunt down a good citation. I guess my real point with "devolution" is that Labour is trying to talk out of both sides of its mouth, and does not want true devolution, for that would mean a permanent Conservative majority in the Commons. Suggestions on where to insert that tidibit would be much welcomed.... --longlivefolkmusic 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not personal--I did not check who had added it--but I thought the sections claim that they supported a devolved English parliament was factually inaccurate. Labour criticism (from Alistair Darling) is in the same link if you wanted to add their criticisms in the same paragraph.--Johnbull 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701
Thanks for your edit - I wasn't sure how to word it. Before I changed it the section about debate was very ambiguous and difficult to understand. Well done, you fixed it! Paddyman1989 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers! :D --Johnbull 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Keith Joseph
Keith Joseph became a Neo-Liberal in the early 1970's and Neo-Liberalism was a growing group in the Conservative Party, this is not a NPOV, this is a hard fact - it is not a negative term and actually is far more descriptive than right wing which can mean a whole range of things including people who follow Socialist economic policies but are more socially conservative - the position of a growing number of Conservatives in the 1970's and 1980's was that the Welfare State had failed and Big Government had failed and Keith Joseph believed this more strongly than any other prominent Conservative MP, Mrs Thatcher indeed subscribed to the mission of rolling back the Frontiers of the State and Keith Joseph believed that state intervention in Industrial Policy, in Welfare, and except for monetary policy generally in the economy was inevitably doomed merely to make things worse however well intentioned those embarked upon it might have been. Neo-Liberalism is a positive ideology aimed at eliminating failure.--User:Lord of the Isles 19:47, July 30, 2006


 * The article on neo-liberalism itself calls it a "pejorative" label; I do think it is negative. I don't think Joseph has ever called himself a "neo liberal" but he has certainly called himself a Conservative. The fact that he thought himself only a true Conservative when he converted to free-market ideas is telling since it implies that corporatist Conservatives like Heath were on the Left of the party, which is true. Generally, those in the party who held socially liberal views believed in corporatism whilst those in the party who held socially conservative views believed in free-markets (this includes Joseph). Saying Joseph was a candidate of the Right is accurate and the article already makes clear that he held monetarist views, so I don't think people will be confused as to what the term means.--Johnbull 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whig history
"The use of cavalry in warfare was discredited by the mechanical killing methods of World War One" Would you say that is POV? --Dweller 08:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No.--Johnbull 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

The page I am referring to is Edward Heath. &mdash; Timwi 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:207.67.146.31 has also broken the 3RR rule, you'll warn User:207.67.146.31 too? User:207.67.146.31 is persistent in removing a nickname from the article because User:207.67.146.31 does not agree with it. User:207.67.146.31 tried to have a discussion about it on the talk page but has since given up trying to reason about it and has failed to engage in many points I raised.--Johnbull 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnbull simply stated that "The nickname is staying" so it seemed pointless to talk further. However, I understand that he also has strong views on the subject and have suggested a compromise.

The inclusion of every personal attack made against any politican would clearly be pointless. I am not arguing that Heath's European policies remain controversial only that it is not true that most of those who disagree with the UK's entry into the EEC believe him to be a traitor. The combined total of hits "edward heath" and "ted heath" on google is 518,000. The number of hits for "traitor heath" is 232 giving a percentage of 0.044%, clearly a minority view. I remain of the opinion that the "traitor heath" comment should not be included, however, as you clearly have strong views the other way I would be prepared to compromise provided that a reference is made to it being a tiny minority opinion.

Margaret Thatcher
Hi Johnbull. You've been here long enough to know that reverting is dismissive and uncalled for in this situation. Arwel Parry made a good-faith edit. Treat it as such.

I'm going to make the same edit. I'm happy enough to disagree with you, and would be pleased to continue the discussion on the talk page - but if you are going to change my edit please be courteous enough to provide an edit summary which does not include the word "revert".--Bookandcoffee 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Instead of delete it, archive it" on Classical Liberalism
Nothing was deleted. I moved his comments to the bottom and put his signature beneath them, so it was clear that they weren't my comments, for easier readability. Take a closer look. Robocracy 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, on the contrary, it appears that you deleted a great deal of my comments in the Classical Liberalism article? Robocracy 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the page before you edited it, and this is your edit. It is clear you deleted most of the talk page.--Johnbull 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ack!! Sorry about that. Thanks. I didn't mean to do that. I hit the edit button, just to edit that one section, but I must've accidentally copied and pasted over everything, without noticing. Strange.

Anyway, it looked like you just reverted my edit (which makes sense), but I made the edit because someone put an unsigned comment in the middle of a comment of mine and, I was responding to their points. When you reverted, everything I put in was gone too. You can check and see what I mean.

Sorry for the confusion. Robocracy 11:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher
Sorry about that. It was an attempt to remove some vandalism from the infobox which went wrong. Dovea 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :) -Johnbull 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's Tomb
Thank you for your constructive and reasonable edit, which has been cancelled by another user. I have reverted your edit and explained why on the discussion page. (Meaders 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

Regarding edits made to Johnny Guitar
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Johnbull! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Coventry Four and Margaret Thatcher
Wikipedians customarily discuss amendments to biographies on the relevant talk page before making them, especially if a deletion of a section is involved. You say that the Coventry Four has nothing to do with Mrs Thatcher. How do you justify this bold assertion?Phase4 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete a section, just a minor part of one. I actually added information on Margaret Thatcher substantially to the same section lower down as well, which you deleted. On the Coventry Four, I can't see what relation it has to Margaret Thatcher. The article has a woolly-worded unsourced paragraph on Botha's visit to Chequers and a sentence further up the article on an "alleged intervention from Downing Street", also unsourced. Unless there is a reliable reference that the Coventry Four is related to Margaret Thatcher and is relevant to a biographical article on her I can't see that it merits mentioning. None of her biographers have sought fit to mention the Coventry Four either.--Johnbull 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is you took unwarranted action on the biography without firstly discussing it on the talk page. You can't see that the Coventry Four affair has any relation to Margaret Thatcher, but what if others disagree – and feel that the Coventry Four, having been mentioned without any particular difficulty over the past year or so, ought to continue to be included in the article?Phase4 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed it ages ago but then you reverted that edit as well: I am now trying to rectify that by removing irrelevant information. In fact you have failed to justify having it in the article, despite being asked.--Johnbull

Over to you for some belated humble pie-eating!Phase4 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Iranian seisure of Royal Navy personnel
Sorry, clicked wrong userpage.

Premiership of William Gladstone
Hi Johnbull. You are off to such a great start on the article Premiership of William Gladstone that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)