User talk:Lachrie

English Armada
Hi, Lachrie. I've just seen your improvements to English Armada - good job, and thanks for the references and notes. We're still not quite 'there', but you've covered most of the distance.--Shtove (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: The Royal High School - Anonymous Editor
That anonymous editor just moved the "Academic" area above "Uniform" area. I think that's appropriate. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the anonymous editor deleted two sections. Look more carefully. You should be aware that this article has already been blanked by these anonymous editors. Lachrie (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that. I just compared the last edit they made. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to splitting the article, I just don't want correct information to vanish. Lachrie (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Three revert rule
On the 12th of March you reverted information on the Harold Macmillan page 4 times with 24 hours. Please don't do this - if you disagree with something take your opinion to the talk page as I asked. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The requested reference was provided in the edit summary. The secondary and tertiary sources are being openly misused by the anonymous user, and as even the temporary inclusion of prurient and unsubstantiated gossip on these pages is unethical, I would ask that you be good enough to revert the page yourself. Lachrie (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The only book I have about it presents the info as non-scurrilous. I haven't seen the other two books, though Horne as an official biographer is unlikely to be neutral IMHO. The best place to deal with this is on the talk page - then a larger proportion of editors can give an opinion. If you keep quoting sources though - you're likely to win this:) That's the way forward. Malick78 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's being unfair to Horne, who was given access to the Macmillan papers on condition he didn't publish until after Macmillan's death, to avoid any embarrassment to the living. Horne was entirely frank about Boothby's bisexuality and Lady Dorothy's extramarital affair (which was a great source of embarrassment, but hidden from the general public until Horne published his book). Horne alludes to the obscure, much later Eton rumour, but concludes it was 'almost certainly' baseless, while Ball is actually even more critical and adduces a slanderous intent, whose agenda this encyclopedia can't be intended to advance, by repeating it, even as an extremely dubious item of childhood trivia. Cullen's book is a tertiary source written on a different subject; on Macmillan she is dependent on Ball, so her opinion, whatever it may be, must be held as less authoritative than either Ball or Horne, who both discount it. Lachrie (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Cullen, true enough she's tertiary, but her reading of the material can actually be considered more trustworthy than ours - since it is a published view rather than our personal one. That said, the presence of rumours is still a subject that can be mentioned on WP - as long as it's not about a living person. Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Our reading of Cullen is no more trustworthy or authoritative than is our reading of Ball and Horne, but as secondary sources Ball and Horne are to be preferred, and they discredit and discount the rumour, which was late and obscure. Including what appears to be merely a malicious slur in a short article obviously would be to give it undue prominence. Lachrie (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair
Hi. Please see my points on the talk page. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lordship of the Isles
Saw your redirect of the D&D region, understand your reasoning and I will not revert; but understand that reality does not take precedence over fiction just because it is reality. The fictional Nicholas Nickleby probably takes precedence over a real person of the same name. In the case of Lordship of the Isles, the number of people who have played D&D in the Greyhawk setting and know about that Lordship of the Isles--say conservatively 10 million in the US alone--might outnumber the people who know about an ancient Scottish kingdom of the same name. Just wanted to make the point that what I think is more important because it's important to me doesn't necessarily make it more important to the majority of people. Guinness323 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's more notable; the claim isn't tenable. The most you could say is that for a handful of hobbyists the name of a setting is a minor detail in a game. Frankly it's doubtful if something that's little more than an entry on a fantasy map deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Millions of Donalds and MacDonalds alone can trace their name and line to the real lordship, the largest outside royalty in the British Isles, and for centuries it played an important role in the political history of Scotland. To make the comparison is to trivialise history. Most D&D players surely would agree. Lachrie (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Errr... Have to disagree with your last statement. Having had close contact with many hundreds of D&D players over 30 years, I can state with certainty that many care more for their fantasy campaigns than history. History is merely what was, while D&D is an ongoing act of creation. Not saying that's necessarily a healthy mental state... Guinness323 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of largest empires
Hi Lachrie, i've noted that you have been working in that article, but you are working things which was done in the past; the version of 22-May of Beeswaxcandle was good, then the work of months was totally destroyed. --Bentaguayre (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The present version is an improvement on the version of 22-May of Beeswaxcandle. This is because many more of the figures now have a common source. In a comparative article it's much better to rely on comparative figures from a single comparative source so the method of measurement is as consistent as it can be. Otherwise what will happen is that some people will go hunting for the highest estimate they can in separate sources and there will be no way to compare the methodology and relative reliability of the respective sources being used for individual estimates, with the result that any comparison in the article will become much less reliable. We have to discourage original research. Lachrie (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Great and Middle Power
Hey, for your sources on Great and Middle powers, do you have any newer sources, hopefully from the 21st century. As I think it's better to use sources from 2000 + to refer to the powers of today (we might have old sources in the Middle power article which will need to be fixed, but I'm pretty sure it's not in the great power article). Plus, there's no need to mention Canada and the other countries as small powers, as it's pretty insignificant, as that's the only article I've seen refer to them as that. Plus, there's no article on small power, nor is one needed, as they're usually refered to as regional power, middle power, great/major power, superpower, and hyperpower. Deavenger (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we're talking about the post-Cold War era and there hasn't been a real paradigm shift in international relations in the last decade or so. If it helps I'm sure I can find more recent references to add as well which will make the same point. Small powers is the term used in the source so it's better to respect that usage than to impose our own original interpretation on the source. If we're going to be specific about which great powers are also ranked as middle powers, we should do the same with middle powers also ranked as small powers, to be consistent, so I'm going to revert. There should be an article on small powers in which they can be included as well. Since most countries are small powers, collectively they're hardly insignificant, so it makes sense to do so. And obviously, regional power can mean either a middle power or a small power. Lachrie (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A sentence like "It has also been argued that certain nations are not strong enough to be middle powers" is too vague to convey any useful information, so we should definitely restore the examples cited in the source itself. Lachrie (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. but, I think that instead of saying they're are often considered great powers, I think it would be more NPOV to say sometimes. Though I see Russia and China refered to as Great powers more then middle powers, and vice versa for the UK and France, I think saying sometimes would be more NPOV. Plus, I'll have to get the map changed to include Russia and China in dark red. Plus, I don't think in the map that we need to mention that Canada and other countries are sometimes considered strong small powers. As the map is just to identify the countries (at this moment) that we have sources for that are considered middle powers, and middle/great powers. Until we decide to color in the strong small powers (though, most countries that are considered small powers are probably considered middle powers in the middle power page), we should just say small powers outside the map for now.


 * If possible, try to find some more recent references to make the same point. Okay. If we're going to an article on small powers, please use sandbox 2 on my user page to prepare the article before it's created, to prevent possible speedy deletion, or having a half finished article up. Also, I think we need to talk to other members on the Power in International Relations wikiproject on if we should create the article (after we get the basics done on my sandbox). Because these power articles are places for huge POV pushing by nationalists. I would consider countries like India and Brazil more along the lines of somewhere in the middle of great powers and middle powers in this day and age (but that's my opinion, not to be put in articles as Wikipedia is not what we think). However, I think that if we make the small power article, we should only mention what the academics and experts call strong small powers. As you said, most countries are probably considered small powers, and we don't want to go on and list a hundred countries. But we can talk more on this when we start working on the article. Also, I think that regional power can refer to middle, small, great/major, and superpower as it's about the region. Agree on my ideas for the small power page? Deavenger (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Often" is more NPOV than "sometimes". "Often" is also correct. Most sources that still use old-fashioned terminology with military overtones like "Great Power" usually refer to old-fashioned institutions like the UN Security Council and its permanent members. We have to be cautious in our use of terminology. Russia is at least occasionally referred to as a great power, usually on account of its nuclear weapons, rather than its resource-based economy, which is subject to awkward fluctuations. I don’t think we have the rigorous statistical evidence to claim a significant variation in the frequency, so unfortunately we’ll have to include Russia and China on the map, or it will inevitably be open to challenge. Our criteria have to be rigorously consistent, otherwise people with an agenda will come along and be able to point out obvious discrepancies. Since there’s no unanimity among authorities, the map has to reflect that. The same goes for middle powers also classed by some foreign policy specialists as small powers: they should have a lighter color, too, otherwise we’re breaching NPOV by presenting a false consensus about the identification of middle powers also considered by other authorities as small powers. A little more work now means much less work later, as people will have less grounds to contest the article's claims and revert it back and forth. A small power article should be as comprehensive as any other, and any contention over membership of the small power club can be handled by citing appropriate sources, as we've done here, but we can talk about that later. Lachrie (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going to be coloring the countries a different color, we should wait till after we have the small power article so we have the list of countries down, and do it all at once, instead of doing it multiple times while we're making the article. Because if I understand correctly, most of the countries that we have listed as middle powers right now could be called by foreign policy specialists/political scientists/academics as small powers, while we have the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany, and Japan as middle/great powers. And right now, we have atleast 4 countries which could be listed as small/middle powers. So we could have the countries also listed as great power as dark red, the middle power only countries as the red now, and light red for countries described as small powers also. Deavenger (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we’ve opened a can of worms here. Authorities who classify nations as significant as Canada as small powers must presumably classify great powers as middle powers. That means the middle powers that aren’t also great powers will almost certainly also be classified by them as small powers, so nearly all the middle powers will end up as disputed—like the great powers, apart from the US—which is anyway considered a superpower, and therefore something else. We still end up with the same power relationship on the map, only with the great powers being classified as middle powers and the middle powers being classified as small powers. I suppose a shortcut would be to point out that middle powers are sometimes considered small powers by those who classify great powers as middle powers. We still end up dividing the map up between greater powers and lesser powers, in effect, between great powers and middle powers. After a lot of work, it doesn’t really move us forward, unless we restrict the map to middle powers about which there’s not that much dispute, under the modest caption of "Nations often considered middle powers". The map becomes a map of middle powers, albeit considered small powers by those who classify so-called great powers as middle powers. Then we don't have to write a separate article (at least not right away). Either that or we have a more complicated map, including the great powers, all of which but the US are disputed. And as a superpower the US isn't necessarily included among great powers anyway. Lachrie (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution for us to do is keep the map as it is now (except add Russia and China). We write on the map nations in red are often considered middle powers, while the dark red countries are also often considered great powers, and the article already explains that the overlapping lists show that there is no consensus on the power classification. Deavenger (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On reflection that seems easiest, and we should include in the caption that middle powers are sometimes classified as small powers by authorities who classify great powers as middle powers (e.g. Chapnick). Lachrie (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that we should say that the overlapping shows that there is no consensus. those academics say what we think are great powers as middle powers because they think they're middle powers, not great powers. Or they believe that great power is for ancient powers. Because we list them as great powers on wikipedia does not mean the author thinks they are great powers. Deavenger (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, and we should say the same about the contested middle/small powers. Middle powers are sometimes classified as small powers by those who classify great powers as middle powers. Meanwhile, I'll revert to the previous main text because I think the sourced examples are needed so that the sentence conveys at least some useful information about the middle/small power debate. Lachrie (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Lachrie (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine the way it is now
 * Only real question I have is that the article defines India, Canada, Argentina, and Belgium as strong small powers. I would think that atleast India, Canada, and Argentina are considered middle powers. But, would that mean (going by small powers), that countries such as Morocco, Chile, and Pakistan are considered just plain small powers? Deavenger (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't stated explicitly in the cited source, but it sounds like a reasonable inference. On the other hand, other authorities do consider Morocco, Chile and Pakistan to be middle powers, so I suppose it's always well to bear in mind that terms like great power, middle power and small power are shorthands which can easily obscure large power disparities among states consigned to the same broad category, and not to read too much significance into such labels. Lachrie (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're going to start a small power page, we need to find more sources listing small powers. As I know for sure that Canada, India, and Argentina are more powerful then Morocco, Chile, and Pakistan. And most academics will agree on that. Deavenger (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll get some sources together as time becomes available. The New Foreign Policy by Laura Neack has an interesting discussion about small powers in international politics and their relationship to collective security, and includes among the successful examples of small powers Israel, South Korea and Kuwait. The author sees small powers as a category related to developing countries, and an important one, as it "contains the majority of the world's countries". The Power of Small Powers by Ulrik A. Federspiel has a detailed discussion of Denmark as an example of a small power. The fact we don't have an article on small powers is actually beginning to look like a serious omission. Lachrie (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Try to start constructing the page on my sandbox #2. Strange though, I would think that countries like India and Brazil are somewhere between becoming a great power and a middle power. However, that's my opinion, and several academics. And academics are split on classifying most countries. Deavenger (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll make a start when I can. Unfortunately I can't do it immediately, as I've still got my hands full with other projects. Lachrie (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

regarding Smith Jacqui_Smith
from your edit...

"Controversially, the list included outspoken American talk radio host Michael Savage, who said that he would sue for defamation over his inclusion on the list"

He didn't sue did he. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC))


 * See this Telegraph report: Jacqui Smith sued over shock jock accusations Lachrie (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And this from The Times: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to fight shock-jock Michael Savage's lawsuit Lachrie (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * fair enough, although I doubt if if it will come to anything, If you want to add the cite and add that he is according to reports about to sue.. I am more than happy to include that ..just that it should not be too dramatic. in a neutral sort of way. best regards (Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Cool. That reads well. Ta.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Historic defeats
Is a bit much in the lede, wouldn't you say? Actually the way that they were historic was the very low turnout, in what way do you see these results as historic? (Off2riorob (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)) In my opinion historic results was pov pushing by the press and you can't say that without explaining the situation surrounding the results and the very low turnout and the fact that the tory share of the vote fell by more than labours, in europe. And the surrounding exceptional conditions, eg, the expenses scandal, a major factor in the results..it is too complex to add historic..poor is enough in the lede. (Off2riorob (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC))


 * No, the results are a statistical fact. Quantitative history is measurable. Complex causes could be used to exclude almost any statement in the lead. Poor result smacks of obfuscation and POV-pushing. Napoleon in Russia in 1812? A poor result! Maybe, but also a gross understatement. Lachrie (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, please tell me...In what way exactly are they historic results? (Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC))


 * No need. Follow the links to the cited sources, and all the other media reports on the results. Asking other editors to restate easily obtainable facts at length is an unreasonable imposition. Lachrie (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am asking you..for your idea of what is historic about these results..(Off2riorob (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

no comment eh..well here is your edit summary ..statistically-verifiable loss of seats of historic magnitude...what does that mean? that they lost more seats than ever before? (Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC))


 * I am saddened by your lack of discussion here. I have removed the excessive negative comment from the lede and I respectfully request that you do not insert similar overly negative comments again. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC))


 * I was busy. As has been explained repeatedly, it's your edit in the "lede" (sic) which is misleading and ought to be reverted. Lachrie (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know how much thanks you deserve for your work on the Margaret Thatcher article. I began the process of reconstructing the article, adding citations, and expanding the Prime Minister section, resulting in the article's attaining GA status. Though not perfect, I am 100% convinced that the article was much more improved than where it stood prior to my overhaul.

Unfortunately, the article's misgivings have been highlighted in recent attempts to portray it as a complete trainwreck and the epitome of a POV article. Okay, so the article wasn't perfect and there is still work to be done, but your work over the last month, especially the last week, has been truly spectacular. And you're not receiving the thanks and gratification you deserve from others at the article. Some post snide comments which contain unspecific "suggestions" to make the article more "neutral", such as one recently posted below yours; they do not help the article. I'd rather not get too heavily involved in the recent POV discussions (to save my blood pressure from rising, among other things), but keep up the good work and if I can be of help, please do not hesitate to let me know.

My best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. People with strong opinions and a shortage of facts seem to want to turn the talk page into a forum. It's a sideshow. The priority is to ensure that the hysteria being whipped up there doesn't encourage the haters to use a claim of consensus for change on the talk page as cover for cutting sourced facts from the article, which I think is what happened yesterday. Lachrie (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice edits. --John (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Childish copycat response to my own warning Lachrie (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, then do the adult thing and answer my "Special Relationship" talk page requests. You know, if you don't reply in five days, then the edit hold will be appealed.  So there is some work to be done between now and then.Mythbuster2010 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this...
Let's start with three objections from you. Please list them and some cogent reasons as to why you object. Provide an alternative edit if you would like. Also feel free to list any sources of mine that you find sub-par. Can we start with this, for now, and for a start? Mythbuster2010 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That Mfd
Lachrie, you will see that I have withdrawn my vote for deletion of the 'Music of the United Kingdom' project, and propose the abandonment of the Mfd: I am persuaded by your point that its deletion would be prejudicial, or create a negative nationalist bias. Clearly that is the spectre which my misgivings have raised, and I much regret it. I hope the Project will find a way forward that is useful. Thankyou for helping me to see the matter in another light. Eebahgum (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Macmillan paternity
You removed a section from Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby saying that the rumor had been refuted, but that doesn't mean the rumor never existed. Better to say that he was long-rumored to be her father, but that your source denies it based on [whatever the evidence is]. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I considered that before I made the edit, and it's not an unreasonable suggestion, but on reflection I think that, because the gossip was inconsequential (first given publicity I think by Davenport-Hines in 1992) and the paternity rumour turns out to be false, including it only to dismiss it as false would give it undue weight in the article. Lachrie (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that Horne, Harold Macmillan vol. 1 (1988), p. 88, mentions the paternity rumour in passing as well, but the rumour still only found its way into print after it had been already privately discounted and after all four involved were dead. Lachrie (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have suggested an alternative formulation which, while making it clear that the new biography discounts Boothby's paternity, avoids such a categorical statement that Thorpe will necessarily have the last word. Nandt1 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we could really justify that. In this case a compromise isn't warranted or satisfactory, as Thorpe's conclusion is pretty definitive, and his evidence supersedes Horne. After Horne but before Thorpe, a reasonable case could be made for including the paternity rumour, although a trivial matter, on the grounds that it at least seemed likely to be true. That can no longer be said. And the paternity rumour itself has never been the basis for a controversy in its own right. So it's hard to see how the continued inclusion of a trivial and now historically discounted rumour can be justified, short of published DNA evidence supporting something so incredible. So I'm afraid I do feel obliged to revert the change. Lachrie (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your effort at clarification but I think expanding on the rumour only serves to undermine the integrity of the article, because it gives the rumour undue weight and creates a false impression that Boothby might have attempted incest, a meaning entirely opposite to the source. Lachrie (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Very well, I have dropped the mention of Boothby's attempt to seduce SM -- though I thought the text clear enough that this was being used as evidence against his paternity. Not to mention the rumour at all, though, seems to me a serious mistake.  It has attained wide currency and been taken seriously by serious writers.  To dismiss it as "trivial" surely misses the point: if one thinks it true (or even if Macmillan thought that many of those he dealt with thought it true) it has important implications for how one interprets HM's own psychological development.  To ignore it altogether could be seen as a cover-up.  Far better to say the story has been out there, but latest scholarship now discounts it.  Nandt1 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pruning the excessive coverage. I don't think we can justify including the paternity rumour itself, because it's probably false, and because we can't deal with the matter adequately in an article of this length without investing it with undue weight, creating the false impression of extra scandal. Sarah Macmillan was never a public figure, and the article isn't about her. There's no doubt about Dorothy Macmillan's extra-marital affair with Bob Boothby. We're on solid ground there, at least. The affair was hushed up and the general public were kept in the dark during HM's lifetime, but it's since become a matter of historical record. I think we should confine the coverage to the affair, without indulging a doubtful paternity rumour when we now have strong evidence to the contrary. The affair is what was most important, and its factuality is not in doubt. If necessary, we can expand on that, although the psychological interpretations are rather speculative, probably too much so to be emphasised in an encyclopaedia article like this. Davenport-Hines was heavily criticised for his attempt at posthumous second-hand psychoanalysis. The most we can say is that the affair made HM unhappy and he spent a few weeks in a sanitorium in 1931. But he wasn't even an MP at the time. The political implications of the affair are also rather doubtful: Boothby was already toxic because of the Czech scandal in 1940, long before Macmillan was in a position to influence his career. Lachrie (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to take the opposite view on whether the HM article should mention the paternity rumour, but rather than the two of us going on batting this to and fro, it might benefit from opening the discussion wider. I would suggest we might get more participation (and hopefully progress towards a wider consensus) if we copied this section to date onto the discussion page for Harold Macmillan.  Would you be agreeable?  Nandt1 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the talk page would be the most appropriate venue, although I fear that past discussions there haven't always been well informed. Still, what we're considering is a problem of subtle emphasis, so there's room for reasonable disagreement. My own concern is that the paternity rumour is a dubious minor point in an article which already tends to over-sensationalise a few incidents in a long and eventful public career. Lachrie (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. See you there! Nandt1 (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Powers Page
Hey, I was looking through the recent history for that article to get a better understanding of what had been deleted etc, and noticed you'd reverted his edits before I got around to it myself. I must say nice work on the fast editing, and I agree that something radical like that should best be brought up on the talk page. Comics (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just lucky to be passing when it happened. A moment later, you'd have done it, and I might be congratulating you. Blanking sourced material without discussion strikes me as a very passive-aggressive way to edit an article. He seems to be a new user but he didn't break the 3-revert rule, so who knows what he's thinking? He hasn't yet bothered to explain. But articles comparing nations have a tendency to enflame. It might be an idea to keep an eye on the page in case it happens again! Lachrie (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I notice you're involved in the conversation over at Great Powers with Aban. I've been trying to talk with Aban on his talk page to try and defuse things there/find out what he's up to and he doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of any editors on the Great Powers page. If he is Chanakya then it's more than likely a moot point, but do you think perhaps we could try and offer a compromise deal for the short term? I think we're arguably in the majority here and should be able to contain Aban if he gets a little radical as long as we work constructively to better the article. I know it's been a short time, but things have changed a bit in the 10 years since Britain, the US, Germany, France, Russia, Japan and China were the only Great Powers. Comics (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's good of you to take the trouble. He's welcome to propose a specific change, especially if it's based on reliable sources, preferably from the IR literature. It behoves us to keep an open mind. Or, if you have your own formula, I'm sure other people would be open to a suggestion. Frankly, "Great Power" is itself a rather dated term and it's unlikely one could find much support for a sudden change in the most recent IR literature. The traditional criteria are reasonably well-defined and, hype aside, the leading nations are much the same as they were a century or so ago. However, articles like this do attract nationalists, and the likelihood is that he's just a sockpuppet who will continue his disruptive behaviour until he's blocked. Lachrie (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried talking to our anon IP editor on their talk page and, be it they don't know how to use talk pages or what, they haven't replied. I'm not sure exactly how cooperative the IP wants to be exactly, so just coming to you because you seem to be the other somewhat party involved in this. One of their edit summaries seemed to single out your edits specifically (their summary was - "but the former version had a long term consensus and the edit is a compromise because it included some of lachrie edits") - do you know if you can shed any light on why the IP would say something like that? I'd just like to try and settle things ASAP - the IP's been trying to get their preferred version across for a while now. Comics (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, the unsourced changes desired by the IP, all promoting Germany as a GP, were originally introduced by Xaxosax, another sockpuppet of Chaosname. The IP is almost certainly the same blocked user, since he is using similar tactics to try to impose identical changes on the text. The IP's edit history shows he also has the same interest in articles on Middle Eastern politics as the blocked user. Since I was the editor who originally reverted these changes as unsourced when they were originally introduced into the Great Power article by the sockpuppet Xaxosax, I believe the same blocked user is now trying to sneak the changes back in by falsely presenting them as a compromise by a third-party IP. In fact his edits aren't a compromise because they only retain content added by myself and others which doesn't affect his POV-pushing. The main problem is that his changes are dubious, and being so, they're inevitably unsourced. Worse, they also conflict with a preponderance of reliable sources already cited in the article. Unless he's willing to discuss his changes on the talk page or provide reliable sources substantiating them, I think they should simply be reverted as unsourced. Presumably he doesn't want to discuss the changes on the talk page because they were already rejected as dubious and unsourced when discussed originally in the relevant section. Lachrie (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry?
Hello, can you please tell me who do you think is anonymous sockpuppetring behind IP 217.209.168.136? I also have some doubts about it. Thanks.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  21:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, based on his contributions, it's Chaosname posting as an IP. Just another sock to add to a long list. Lachrie (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * this ip is the main ip not a sock puppet ! 217.209.168.136 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference if you're a blocked user. Lachrie (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Macmillan
Please compose a suitable replacement for the text that IP 92.7.x.x has been putting into the Harold Macmillan article. I am not against having appropriate text, I am only against having this one editor insert skewed interpretations of the Williams book. I am receptive to seeing your version of what the article should be. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As you know, it's really up to the IP to propose changes on the talk page. I can have a look at his proposed text when I have more time, to see what can be salvaged from it, but Suez is a big subject and rewriting the section properly is a lot of work. The problem with the IP is that he's also loading it up with hostile commentary in a rather sensationalist way, so it's not unreasonable of you to revert him. If we are going to include material like that, we obviously do have to balance it with alternative views. Lachrie (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The guy has a long history of using various 92.7.x.x addresses to push his viewpoint regarding the Suez Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Especially notable is the edit-warring block listed at User talk:92.7.4.36 from last August. This guy is likely not going away.
 * I appreciate that salvaging the usable bits from his additions will be serious work. There's no rush! Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon Brown
Please see resumed discussion. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

bullying brainiac
...yes brainiac, I am using sockpuppets and IP's from all over the world to try to manipulate the page... so why don't you open a SPI instead of accusing me? Otherwise, why don't you just f**k yourself! --IIIraute (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish American, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:RHS Captain.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RHS Captain.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)