User talk:Guy Hatton

Welcome!

Hello Guy Hatton, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Pamri • Talk 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moors Murders

Y'know, I was always taught at journalism college, in law lectures, that strangling was a very final act and that death was the only conclusion, hence the change I made. Any compression of the neck area which was not fatal was always an attempt at strangulation, not actual strangulation. Mileage clearly varies, and I've not reversed the change you instigated to the article as I think further debate might be needed, if deemed important enough! I've also noted what the wikipedia page on strangulation says, though I'm not in agreement with it. Maybe it varies depending on the national brand of English used. Anyway, thought I'd drop in and make the point. I'll put it on the Moors Murders talk page too. Regards! Bentley Banana 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been my impression that strangulation could occur without inevitably leading to death, and I think that's probably how most people understand it, but I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. I also checked the Wikipedia article before making the change, and it seemed to me that it was worth attempting consistency. Maybe you're right about regional variations - I hadn't considered that possibility. Guy Hatton 11:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NACODS deputies

Hello there - thanks for helping clear up what i wrote - really worked nice.

The info about the deputies being in fear of there lives comes from my next door neighbour and a relative who were deputies at the time, and were seen as "scabs" on occasion. There was a lot of pciketing at Maltby and indeed a huge riot that is not known about too much on the internet. If i can get any documented stuff i will help out, the only knowledge i have is living there during the strike.

Once again - thanks for your help.

No problem. Regarding citations, please be assured that I'm not questioning the truth of what you say - it's just in the nature of an encyclopedia that material should be verifiable from published sources, so I felt duty bound to add that tag in the circumstances (otherwise, it remains 'original research' in Wikipedia terms, which, strictly speaking, isn't allowed). If you do know of any published sources that corroborate the points you make, that would be a great advantage.

Regards, Guy Hatton 16:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy -looking at your edits and contributions to the article, you write very well. I was wondering if you could help me add political weight to this article without being accused of bias?

What most people agree on, with hindsight, is that the miners strike and the tories aims were to destroy the miners, which came true by 1994.Now, i have tried to enter points like this into the article but had them removed. I am just wondering how i can insert this fact into the article without effecting the NPOV. Any ideas? Id, like to start the article with:- "Thatcher, along with her international gang of bastards" just joking, that would be to truthful lol Ukbn2 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key to avoiding charges of of bias, is as ever, being able to back up your points with citations from reputable published sources. Ideal in this instance would be internal documents from the Thatcher government in which the intention of weakening or destroying the NUM, or the trade union movement in general, is spelled out explicitly. I personally would be very surprised if such documents did not exist, but I think we'll be waiting some time before they're published officially. Maybe, however, some have been 'leaked' at some time? If so, there may well be newspaper reports detailing some or all of their contents. It might also be worth going through newspaper archives looking for reports of speeches by leading members of the government or Tory party officials in which their intentions may have been let slip.

Even so, if there are contradictory reports from other sources, you would have to allow them fair representation in an encyclopedic context - I don't really think there's any way round that.

It may be a little while before I have time to give the article a proper close look, but if I can help, I will endeavour to do so.

Regards Guy Hatton 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher

Hi Guy, i am trying to edit the Miners strike article and perhaps give it some "grit", not bias, but trying to throw in some background about not just coal, but the culture - PHB soap,slag heaps,kindling, the camaradirie etc.

Also, i feel any thatcher comments, supporting her about the strike and her comments, should be balanced out with comment from perhaps scargill, does anybody in the world actually belive that this woman was right ?Ukbn2 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Hello again Guy- found some stuff on the Maltby riot:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2527000/2527559.stm[reply]

Mazher Mahmood

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Mazher Mahmood article. I have tried to raise the problem, which has been going on since early April, on the admins' incidents board, but it has been ignored: [1] Maybe you would like to comment here?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment duly made. Guy Hatton 17:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, it will be taken seriously now.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato Sauce

I beg to differ, I agree that in the article it should be ketchup but I never heard it referred to as ketchup until I moved to the southern part of England. It must be a Northern thing! Zerbey 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Maybe it is more of a Northern usage, then. Guy Hatton 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[bandname] is/are

Re: AMM. (1) I'm not convinced that it's standardized UK usage to treat bandnames as plural; (2) a spotcheck on various UK music sources reveals that AMM is usually singular though occasionally plural (e.g., take a look at the European Free Improvisation site & you'll see "AMM" as singular mostly, though in a quote Rowe uses it in consecutive sentences as singular AND plural!; in Bailey's Improvisation pp 128-131, it's "AMM are" on p.128 but the rest is singular: "AMM hasn't" and "AMM is" on p.130, "AMM is" on p.131). (3) in any case the guy who revised the page did a half-assed job & only changed two instances from singular to plural, leaving several others alone, so it's a mishmash. (4) by reverting, you also deleted a few typo-corrections I made that didn't have anything to do with plurals. ND 03:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Hatton

(The following is copied directly from Talk:George_Galloway, documenting accusations made about me by another user, claims made about the content of this page, and my reply.)

Any casual editor dropping by, perhaps not knowing much of Galloway and wondering who is most POV, me or Guy Hatton, should check out Guy's talk page where he can be seen plotting openly on how to dress up socialist campaigns as NPOV, how to counter-attack attempts to thwart it, etc. Thanks Guy! (Guy hastily rushes to his page to edit out the giveaways before too many eyes see them). MarkThomas 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your own talk page and learn something. And no, I'm not editing anything out of my talk page, as what you have written above is gross misrepresentation. Guy Hatton 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd have to go further than that, and label the above accusations as fiction. What I see are admonitions to other editors to abide by WP:V. Hence I think the evidence (for anybody who cares to look) supports me in this matter, and it will be staying right where it is. Were I to remove it, MarkThomas's distortions would be more difficult to refute. Why on earth would I do that to myself? I may occasionally have made my own political position apparent, as has Mark Thomas (he more vehemently than I, it would appear). However, I feel completely justified in asserting that I have NEVER attempted to undermine WP policy, nor have I ever aided or encouraged other users to do so. The accusations levelled at me by this user are, I believe, entirely bogus and should be withdrawn. They are most certainly in violation of WP:CIV, and possibly also WP:NPA.

With that, I am terminating all further engagement with this user. I shall also refrain from editing the Galloway article, as I'm sure it will soon become apparent that, contrary to Mark Thomas's apparent conviction, the article does not rely on my efforts to weed out bad editing. There are many other editors who are doubtless as capable or more capable than me in that respect. Guy Hatton 08:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted the above, the user in question has made further utterly false accusations against me, particularly one of sock puppetry, on his own talk page. He appears, however, to have agreed to leave the Galloway article alone too (though with considerable bad grace, including incivility to another user). I am prepared to leave the matter there. Guy Hatton 11:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkThomas - he's still lurking around gnashing his teeth on the Galloway page. Pitiful to watch really. An obsession with trying to say nasty things about a politician who is already largely discredited in most people's eyes anyway. --SandyDancer 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I've been watching the whole sorry affair, but unlike him, I am true to my word. When I say I'll not get involved, I mean it. It looks as though he's now embarqued on a campaign of harrassing the admins which can probably only end in tears ;-) Guy Hatton 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(An anonymous user writes): Why have you now edited the George Galloway page? Did you not claim above that you would no longer do so?

I said I would refrain from editing the article in the context of a stupid and nasty edit war that was being waged by a serial POV-pusher, much like the ones a number of editors, some anonymous, some using meaningless 'disguised' usernames (if indeed more than one editor is actually involved) are indulging in now across a range of articles, all of which seem to be an attempt to smear Galloway. There has been a rash of blatant POV-pushing, nonsense and open vandalism, none of which has any place here. Anyway, I did not say that I would NEVER edit the article again (which should have been obvious had you actually bothered to read my words carefully), but I did in fact leave it untouched for four months (which a look at my contributions list would have made apparent). I make no apology for attempting to weed out this latest barrage of utter tripe. Your accusations of lies and hypocrisy have no foundation whatsoever, nor do claims that have been made that my edits are 'SWP vandalism' - as I have stated before, I have no links to the SWP at all. Guy Hatton 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, you said you would not edit the Galloway page, and then you did. Nowehere did you point out that you were only doing so in the context of the "edit war"

And nowhere did I say anything that justifies this self-righteous bullshit - besides which, whether or not I choose to edit an article is my business, and mine alone. Guy Hatton 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get angry just because you got owned.

Hilarious! Guy Hatton 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Chips

Ok. Looks like good work to me.Bailrigg 10:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my miswording of the picture caption on the photograph of the blue plaque in the article on fish and chips. I've corrected this now so that it follows the actual description of the picture, thus negating the need to change the article to remove the reference to Oldham's place in the history of fish and chips. Ultimate-sapere-aude 03:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing the article Fish and chips to state that the first chip shop existed on the site of Tommyfield market as though this were an established fact. The actual history appears to be rather hazy, and while I have no objection to the Tommyfield claim being presented in the article, I feel it is essential that it is made clear that there are competing claims, borne out by verifiable sources. I am not, as you claim, removing the reference to Oldham's place in the history of fish and chips, merely putting it in proper context. Guy Hatton 08:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't reference any of the other claims or any other sources; ergo it would make sense to leave it so that it covers the only one with a source which we have to hand until the other claims can be presented in the article. I dislike the use of the word disputed in the sentence as it makes it sound as if the claim is thought to be false, I am going to edit the article again to see if I can word it in a manner which we both agree with. Ultimate-sapere-aude 09:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are quite correct that the sources given are for the origins of the combined fish and chip shop, not for one that might sell chips alone - my fault for not rereading them before posting, and going by memory instead. Fair enough, 'disputed' may be open to the overly-negative interpretation you wish to avoid, so I don't mind it being replaced by a different term. Indeed, I think the wording of your most recent edit deals with the situation quite fairly, given the paucity of reliable information. As I'm sure you're aware, the criteria applied when choosing the siting and subject of blue plaques can be quite flexible, and don't appear to be governed by a consistent regime of historical checks, or by a single authority (the predominance of the National Heritage scheme notwithstanding), but at least the presence of the Tommyfield plaque adds to the available clues. Guy Hatton 09:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington bomb attacks

Hi Guy, despite your request to leave the article alone while discussions went on the same editor has reverted it again. I do not want to revert it again, do you want ot have a look.--Vintagekits 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of template from Warrington Entry

CouldI ask why you decided to remove the category of "Cheshire, Borough of Warrington" from the article on Warrington? It seems quite reasonable to include it, aliong with all the other templates concerned with the Ceremonial County of Cheshire, and I see it being advantageous to the article as opposed to the list-like entries that are currently there. DDStretch (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sorry, I see you've now added it back as I was typing in my previous note to you. DDStretch (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It simply got deleted temporarily as a result of my reverting previous vandalism, it was always my intention to restore it afterwards. Guy Hatton 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I spent some time drawing it up last night. I noticed the other changes which you've removed as vandalism, but wasn't entirely sure whether they were vandalism or not, so left them for someone else to look at - you as it happens! Thanks. DDStretch (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STW logo

Don't just use comments like "rv nonsense" - can you show us another WP page where a political logo is used like that? Thanks. MarkThomas 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway

Hi, as you have taken part in past discussions, please discuss your take on the disagreement here so we can move forwad with this thing at the Galloway art. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington

Than ks for cleaning up this article more - I did a "quick fix", but realised it needed more work, which you've now done. One point that I'm unsure about. There is some "historic county" stuff in the infobox which i think is generally removed from other infoboxes dealing with settlements. Since the article mixes up borough information with town information (which is silly, as there are civil parishes in the borough which aren'tin the town), it becomes uncertain what to do with this. Do you think it should be deleted? The best solution would be to sort this out at the same time as splitting the article up between borough and town articles, but I don't see that happening easily in the near future. DDStretch (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no particular objection to the historic county information appearing alongside the current administrative county - it's just the 'no really, it's still part of Lancashire' contention I consider inappropriate (as the point is moot anyway). On the other hand, if you feel it should be removed from the infobox on grounds of consistency with normal practice, I wouldn't object. Guy Hatton 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It's probably best just left until the bigger issues are dealt with (like splitting the article). DDStretch (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts and edit summaries

It may not have been your intention, but you have reverted a number of my corrective edits under the edit summary of "POV pushing" (as demonstrated here).

The plaque in that image states "first chip shop in Britain", NOT, England; there is difference as I'm sure you're aware. I believe (or at least hope) you were actually reverting out the words "commemorating" with "claiming", and caught mine with it, albeit twice.

All I ask is if you believe you've spotted a breach of WP:NPOV, then by all means correct it, but be a little more helpful in your edit summary, and perhaps contact the user in question for clarification. Also, please be careful when reverting multiple edit counts, as on this occation mine corrective ones were removed, with an abrupt and targetted edit summary. Jza84 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

With regard to Lancashire I realise that county names are not needed on postal addresses, however there is no need to shout to make your point in the edit summary. It isn't that big a deal I was merely trying to reach a compromise. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not shouting, merely stressing a couple of words :-) Guy Hatton 07:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Town Hall

Guy, there was an earlier Leeds Town Hall article which User:WikiLeon deleted as "copyvio" on 13 July, and I've asked him why: I find it difficult to believe that the whole of the page was copyvio, as it had been around since at least Aug06, and am sure there must be either some good content or an earlier version which we can use. So perhaps not worth putting much effort into the Mark 2 version for now, till we get a reply from him. Cheers. PamD 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EMS Synthi AKS.jpg

Hi did you take this photo?Genisock2 12:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for the conformation.Genisock2 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Ann's Church

Hi thanks for the message.

I can understand your scepticism about it being the "centre", but the town boundaries of Manchester as we know today were only drawn up in the 1850's (and some of them not fully incorporated until the 1970s). I think the official "centre" is somewhere in Platt Fields Park and the centre of the city centre between piccadilly and chinatown.

The map on the side shows the very last idea of Manchester when it was just a market town, within 150 years of the map being published the town had become the city we know now (albeit with medeaveval buildings town planners thought unsavoury). Again thanks for the message. Mike33 - t@lk 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LiberalViews

Guy, re: your accusation that LiberalViews is a sockpuppet, you should know that he/she was recently the subject of a checkuser inspired in the Irish-related articles and was found not guilty, as in fact, was I, just in case you're wondering! Thanks. MarkThomas 08:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made no such accusation, but since you thought that was the case, yes, I was intrigued by the fact that you and LiberalViews seem to share the same interests (Re-evaluation Counselling, the British Isles article and related pages, occasional edits to British TV programme articles, even very occasional edits to jazz-related articles eg Lyle Mays and John Coltrane as well as a misplaced belief that stating as fact that Galloway praised Saddam personally, when the issue is hotly disputed and you cannot provide a source for your claim, is acceptable in light of WP:BLP, followed by complaints that there is some kind of politically-motivated campaign afoot to exclude what you see as the truth), editing patterns and style (the same tendency to complain about 'unsigned' editors, and a habit of sometimes meekly pretending to be 'new around here' or suchlike) etc. I'm pleased to hear that a recent checkuser exonerated you both, but I'm sure you can see why I was curious, and why things looked a little suspicious. How come, though, that LiberalViews was a subject of that checkuser, as to my knowledge that user never edited any Irish-related articles? Guy Hatton 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant another accusation of sockpuppetry falsely directed against me, not this one, my apologies, got a bit confused about accusations there. However, you are welcome to request a checkuser, etc, if you think it will help. In the meantime, will you stop using "POV" as justification for not liking Galloway's best-known public statement being included in the intro? MarkThomas 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I think the version you propose is POV on the Galloway talk page, though I'm sure you already know my reasoning - it's a matter of interpretation of his words, not the words themselves, coupled with the fact that the person who actually made the speech disputes the interpretation being pushed. I'm also not convinced that this is Galloway's best-known statement any more - in all probability 'do you want me to be the cat?', or the Paxman interview on election night have overtaken it!

No problem with the misunderstanding over the checkuser. Guy Hatton 10:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help finding it hilarious that the contention over which is Galloway's most famous act consists of a conflict between lauding Saddam Hussein and offering to act the part of a cat. I feel genuine sympathy for his ardent fans. :-) MarkThomas 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break

Prior to the above debate starting up anew, I had been intending to give myself a good long break here, as I think I'm suffering from a certain amout of 'Wiki-fatigue'. I'm sure everybody else here can quite happily cope without me for a while, and I don't think I've got anything new to say about the above issue, so I propose to leave for a while with immediate effect. Guy Hatton 10:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right after you've taken time out to revert to your preferred option. :-) Mind if I change it back Guy now that you're quitting? Or will the "leave now" be suspended a while? :) MarkThomas 13:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas may be of interest to you, Mr Thomas is now indefinitely blocked so that might get you back editing sooner? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw all that :-) MaryLPoppins and all. Still, I really should spend more time on other stuff. In fact, I think I'd better log out again so that I don't get tempted by my watchlist. Guy Hatton (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

I saw you edited Jack the Ripper suspects recently -- Welcome back! I appreciated your well thought out edits to Jack the Ripper and related articles. You might note that that article is currently locked, thanks to one editor who in the past had made some sweeping, controversial changes and then kept revert warring to stick t back in. I think he saw that you and I were not around and tried again. When I reverted it he and another guy got into a huge fight, and the page has been lcoked ever since thanks to his friend being extremely aggressive in demanding changes but not getting consensus to do so. Any input you could put in over there would be a great help. DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]