User talk:Patrick Haseldine

Welcome to Wikispooks!

We're glad you came.
You will probably want to read the help pages.
The page at WikiSpooks:Getting Started should help you get started. Peter P 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I can see there is quite a lot of work in prospect! Patrick Haseldine 11:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just finished reading through your entire user and article pages. There is lot to digest and it is welcome here. I've added the article page to the 'Whistleblowers' category. I guess you've discovered that, when you take on the State over a matter deemed 'sensitive' by the guardians of its dirty little secrets, you cannot win - period. Having clearly followed the dictates of concience at the expense of career you have both my admiration and support. FWIW, Wikispooks is my way of dealing with the State's systematic betrayal of the loyalty which it demands (and ultimately enforces - or else) from its citizens. It's a wicked old world we inhabit, but after early retirement and 10 years intense study, it is crystal clear to me that the British State is right up there with most Machiavellian - not to say Orwellian - of them all. It was a painful experience to have to admit to myself that my country was NOT on the side of the goodies and - not excluding 2 x world wars - never had been. --Peter P 13:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, last week's episode of my radio show was on whistleblowers/the surveillance state in USA, which notes that Jane Turner is the one that got away - the exception to the general rule that Peter suggests. But if you can keep your integrity, whatever TPTB do, as far as I'm concerned, you win! Hats off to you, Patrick - and I see you as definitely the most authoritative person to edit your biography, by the way, as long as you are the real Patrick Haseldine:) As Peter says, Wikipedia is in practice not as unbiased and impartial as it claims, so comparing the Wikipedia and Wikispooks articles might prove an interesting test case. I think wiki etiquette usually grants you exclusive editing over your user page, but I'll take the liberty of tweaking the presentation so you can see how to format stuff for this wiki. Feel free to 'undo' any changes, it's your user page. Robin 14:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both! I hope to get editing in earnest in the next day or so. Patrick Haseldine 18:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You've been putting in some interesting edits recently. This is to remind you to look at WikiSpooks:System Maintenance due to a security upgrade. Robin 02:11, 16 April 2013 (IST)

A very useful reminder, Robin, thanks! Patrick Haseldine 09:53, 16 April 2013 (IST)

The How, Why and Who of Pan Am Flight 103

Patrick, you've been working so much on The How, Why and Who of Pan Am Flight 103 that it's grown long and is no longer the easy read it once was. I'm not suggesting you delete any material (unless it's duplicated elsewhere on the site) but a reorganisation would be helpful. Take a look at template:FA if you don't already know it. You should find it fairly easy to shift out some sections into new pages, so that what remains is an easy read. I could try and have a go, but you're much more familiar with this material than I am. The aim is to leave a clear and concise summary of the ideas and evidence presented elsewhere. Robin (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2013 (GMT)

Hi Robin, I'm about to issue an important email which will reference certain sections of the current The How, Why and Who of Pan Am Flight 103. From my point of view a page reorganisation at this stage would not be helpful.

I usually include Peter on my distribution list: please let me know if you'd like to be copied in.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2013 (GMT)

Sounds mysterious. So just this once, yes, BCC me. Feel free to remove the Cleanup template if it suits your purposes - but the article could still do with a major tidy at some point in the future. Robin (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2013 (GMT)

Thanks Robin. What's yer email (patrick.haseldine at btinternet.com)?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2013 (GMT)

Alan Feraday

As he is the subject of the article, all the material presented should be more or less directly relevant to Alan Feraday, and the connection should be clear to someone without expert knowledge. I'm still failing to find clear connections. I've just revised WikiSpooks:Style_Guide#Encyclopedic_Style which is my attempt to explain what is wanted in terms of style.

As a specific example of my concerns, consider the two images at the top of the Alan Feraday page, the captions of which are confusing to an uninformed reader, who naturally expects directly relevant images, such as, say, photos of Alan Feraday himself. There are one or two more lines in the article (e.g. "On 20 May 2012, Megrahi died of prostate cancer") which have no clear relevance to Feraday, but a more serious weakness is poor organisation. I may have a go at reorganising it, such as through headings and sub-headings, but I'm aware that you wrote most of it and are better informed than me. I don't think it needs much work, just some reshuffling of content so that Feraday remains the clear topic of all parts of the article. The top should have a clear hierarchy of headings preceded by a short lede to give an overview. Robin (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2014 (GMT)

Yes, Robin, I agree the article needs some work and I'll certainly devote the necessary time and effort.

The subject of the article and I go back a long way. In 2007, I wrote the Wikipedia biography of Alan Feraday. It didn't take long to become "controversial" and was eventually deleted by WP Admin JzG aka Guy Chapman. I kept a copy of the article and reentered on WP a few months later. JzG quickly re-deleted it and for good measure blocked me from editing on WP. I reported this sorry saga to Prof Robert Black and he promptly posted the Alan Feraday article on his blog The Lockerbie Case, where it remains today - even though Prof Black and I are no longer on speaking terms!

You mention using photos of Alan Feraday. The problem is that because of all his (trumped up) evidence against the IRA, Alan is very camera-shy. If he is called to give his 'expert' evidence at the Old Bailey trial of John Downey beginning today, perhaps the press will oblige us with a portrait of the 76-year-old Feraday.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2014 (GMT)

Copying this section to Alan Feraday talk page.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Latest from Robert Black's blog

Today, these three comments appeared on The Lockerbie Case blog:

1. pesceman said: So we know al-Megrahi was innocent. Of that there is no doubt. Why was the Heathrow break-in totally ignored from the very start - the Anti-Terrorism Police in the UK don't seem able to recall the event at all???? It is pretty obvious that the South African CCB were wholly responsible and assisted in the cover up by UK Intelligence and UK Police.

2. Robert Black said: It is by no means obvious. And the notion that the CCB was responsible stems from Patrick Haseldine's fevered imagination. There is nothing whatever that counts as evidence to support it. No further comments giving credence to Mr Haseldine's ravings will be accepted on this blog.

3. Quincey Riddle aka Robert Forrester said: Dear Peaceman, I agree entirely with Robert Black vis-a-vis the South African theory. Mr Haseldine is frankly certifiably doolally and an extremely manipulative individual, whom I felt obliged to expel from JFM for his conduct. I would be careful too about laying too much store on the issue of the Heathrow break-in as being linked to Pan Am 103, maybe it was maybe it wasn't. In my view, the only significant factor here is that COPFS appears to have hidden a tree in a forest in terms of the evidence made available to the defence. That from my perspective is as reprehensible as the Gauci payments being denied to the court. Robert.

I shall update the relevant WikiSpooks articles to incorporate this new information.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (GMT)

Recognizing wikipedia contributors' IP rights?

Greetings!

Didn't we cross paths on the wikipedia?

Over the last year or two I ported a bunch of articles to another small wiki. A big drawback is that although they agreed with a suggestion I made that they publish regular archives, as wikispooks seems to do, they haven't done so.

A bonus is that they have a "save article" feature, that fetches a wikipedia article, and copies a snapshot of its contribution history onto the new talk page. In theory wikipedia contributors are entitled to have their names listed when articles they contributed to are ported. It is one of the rights contributors hold under both the CC and GFDL.

Mind you, it probably only applies to contributions of intellectual content that pass de minimus -- not excisions, spelling corrections, or rearranging the order of material without altering it. Similarly it really shouldn't apply to adding references, adding wikilinks, or other metadata.

For my own material, I don't care. That other small wiki's license was PD, not CC or GFDL. I wrote brand new, or ported, quite a bit of material there, which I guess is now all be PD.

I noticed you ported Jeremy Greenstock -- so far without attribution.

How likely do you think it is that this could trigger a copyright challenge? Anyhow, I am just saying.

For what it is worth, there have been occasions when I wanted to port an article for which I was the primary author of its intellectual content, where I either ported an earlier version, or removed the paragraph(s) drafted by others, before I ported it, so I wouldn't be complicating the attribution history with attributions to individuals not on that wiki.

I've ported a couple of articles yesterday, but they were articles for which I think I was the sole author of the intellectual content. I am going to ask Peter for guidance on the attribution issue.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (GMT)

Hi Geo Swan. Not sure I can assist with your concern about IP rights. The Jeremy Greenstock article was attributed thus: "The first version of this page was imported from Wikipedia on 28 January 2014. Original page source here." From my own resources, I added a great deal to the article.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

I added the list to the talk page. Here is my discussion with Peter. Geo Swan (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

I've highlighted the version that I imported to WikiSpooks on 28 January 2014.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

I'll share my secret. I didn't screenscrape the contribution history myself. Instead I used the button provided for that purpose at another wiki, that has a robot that does the screenscraping, and copied the attribution list from that. That took about a minute.

I then made some minimal changes at that other wiki, to move it from their sandbox to their article space, that took a few more minutes. I won't take advantage of their handy button just to get the screenscraped attribution list, without providing some benefit to them.

I told Peter I want to feel free to be fickle, and spread my contributions to multiple wikis. If I understood him, Peter has no problem with that. You would be free to replace the article on the other wiki with your more extensively updated version here. If so, note that the licensing policy there is contributions are donated to the public domain, not cc or gfdl.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

See WikiSpooks talk:Importing From Wikipedia --Peter P (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2014 (GMT)

Good Style

Firstly, Patrick let me say that I applaud your intent in petitioning to open all MI6 files on state sponsored murders, and for a UN Inquiry into the deaths of UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and UN Assistant Secretary-General Bernt Carlsson. I am not happy about assassinating people myself and paying taxes to an unaccountable group of professionals to do it for me seems to me just as unacceptable. The 2 deaths you single out are definitely worthy of further investigation; the full truth has not yet been told about either.

That having been said, please cast an eye over "WikiSpooks:Style_Guide#Avoid_Repetition", and also check WikiSpooks:Style_Guide#Focus. Wikispooks aims to be an encyclopaedia organised by topic, with one page per topic. A corollary of this is that unless material directly relates to the page on which it is situated, it does not belong there. Commendable though your petitions are, having multiple copies of the same information is really not helpful.

I noticed that you recently reverted (without explanation, I may add) my tidying of the article on Susan Williams. Especially if you are reverting someone else's recent edits, you should include a comment to explain why. Is Susan Williams a signatory to any of your petitions? If so, then you can place a link. i.e. "Susan Williams signed Patrick Haseldine's petition demanding MI6 disclose details of those it had killed". If she is not a signatory, then information about your petitions does not belong on her page unless she helped you draft them or has some other direct connection - in which case, this should be explained with a unique piece of text.

I thought this should have been obvious from the policy page, but apparently it was not, so let me be crystal clear: Just copying and pasting stuff with little regard to relevance is not acceptable behaviour on Wikispooks. Please bear this in mind in your future editing here, and apply it retrospectively to your earlier edits as needed. Robin (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2014 (IST)

Thanks for the guidance Robin. I've re-worked the offending section of the Susan Williams article and hope you approve: Susan Williams#Petitioning for a UN Inquiry. Maybe you and Peter P might like to sign my petition to Ban Ki-moon.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (IST)

Avoiding long quotes in articles

With reference to your latest addition to the Dag Hammarskjöld article, I just added a note on article size. All the non-document articles on Special:LongPages can be considered too long. I understand your eagerness to contribute recent documents to WikiSpooks, but large quotations in main articles is not the way. Instead, post the source document in the Document: namespace, then reference it from the main page. This is more work, but the result is a much better product, one which clearly distinguishes the not-editable (source documents) from the editable (interpretation and conclusions). By way of demonstration, I just excised last month's Guardian article from the Dag Hammarskjöld page and posted it to Document:Dag Hammarskjöld's plane may have been shot down, ambassador warned. If you uncertain how to repeat this procedure for the other documents quoted at great length in the article, let me know. Robin (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (IST)

I'm not familiar with the Document: namespace procedure and agree that the Dag Hammarskjöld biography can read better by having newspaper articles such as "Document:Dag Hammarskjöld's plane may have been shot down, ambassador warned" hived off in the way you suggest, Robin.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2014 (IST)

Patrick. To create a document, put "Form:Document" in the search box. That will present you with the required form. For a new page just put its title in the single presented field and press the Create or edit button. That will present to you with a form which is fairly self-explanatory. There are 4 x tabs at the top of the form. The document content goes in the 'Free Wikitext' area. --Peter P (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2014 (IST)

Article splitting

I was pleased to see you split off the information about Megrahi's compassionate release, an important enough event in itself to justify a separate page, Id say. Simply exporting the text is the main step, though there are a few more small details which improve the reader experience:

Include a pointer to the new article (use template:FA for this). This will typically include only the most salient details. I just added one at Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi#Compassionate release.
Comb through the two page pieces, to check that the split separates the information is split cleanly. e.g. "Abdelbaset al-Megrahi married Aisha in 1982. They had five children: four sons and one married daughter." is better in the main Megrahi page, rather than the compassionare release page, I'd say. There are probably other pieces which could be relocated.
Adding an object template - every page should have exactly one such template. For the Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi/Compassionate release page, I chose Template:Event
You'll have noticed that I moved the compassionate release page into a subpage, which automatically gives an easy link back to the main page at the top. There is no standard on this yet, but I think it's an easy logic.

Many of the Lockerbie pages are too long for comfortable reading and would benefit from similar treatment if we can identify such sub-events. You know the material much better than I do, or I'd have already pitched in to split up some of the long pages. Robin (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (IST)

Thanks, Robin. I'm beginning to realise that, as a two-year-old when D-Day took place 70 years ago today, I've still got an awful lot to learn about all this new-fangled computer stuff!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2014 (IST)

File:MH17_Crash_Site.jpg

Could I please ask that you take a look at the discussion page for this graphic at https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File_talk:MH17_Crash_Site.jpg

Regards --Two Dogs (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2014 (IST)

Interesting discussion, Two Dogs. The graphic seems very clear to me. If there are any mistakes over timings etc, no doubt they will be rectified in the course of the MH17 investigation.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (IST)

It is not a question of IF there mistakes in the timings on this image; it is a matter of fact. Regardless of the GMT-BST-Euro-time-UTC issue, they are unambiguously wrong because they show 4 hours between take-off and crash when 3 hours is the correct, uncontroversial, agreed time-lapse that has no need of an inquiry to confirm. --Peter P (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2014 (IST)

"sabotaged over Lockerbie"

I just replaced one, but last check produced 18 hits for this phrase. If you are tempted to cut and paste, please remember that such repetition can be quite off-putting; a uniquely written text is surely the best bet. That was by way of general advice, but specifically, I take issue with the phrase "sabotaged over Lockerbie" - sabotage to me suggests an act of nefarious but underhand destruction (e.g. cutting of brake cables, removal of crucial load bearing bolts) intended to have a larger destructive effect elsewhere and/or later on. By this definition, if the plane was sabotaged at all, it seems highly unlikely that the sabotage occurred over Lockerbie. Robin (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2014 (IST)

Agreed Robin: "exploded" makes a welcome change!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (IST)

Circular links

I just amended the style guide to clarify about WikiSpooks:Style_Guide#Links 'circular' links, which basically waste time; the existence of a redirect means the links does not show in red, but if the redirect is back to the source page itself, then the users gets nowhere - in which case just a lack of a redirect may be better. Robin (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2015 (GMT)

Template use

I've just been to 1988 where Pan Am Flight 103 is listed, but has no description. I'm not sure about why the dates are missing - but the description is missing since it's not in the Lockerbie event template. This is a <500 character piece of plaintext to accompany the link to Lockerbie when it appears on other pages. Rather than set it myself, I thought I'd invite you to. Robin (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2015 (IST)

Hi Robin, many thanks for the invitation. Here's my event description for Pan Am Flight 103:

When Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland on 21 December 1988, killing all 259 passengers and crew on board, news reports cited UN Assistant Secretary-General, Bernt Carlsson, as its highest-profile victim. US and British intelligence operatives, posing as Lockerbie investigators, ignored the evident targeting of the UN diplomat and instead focused on the jumbo jet. With the result that the wrong country was blamed and an innocent person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2015 (IST)

Reorganising Lockerbie material

I've just been reorganising the Pan Am Flight 103 material, so I thought you might appreciate a note of explanation. My main aim has been clarity - using the hypertext to do what it's good at. The subpages (and potentially even sub-sub-pages - See 9-11 for examples of these in action) allow presentation of more in depth material for people who seek it out. This really is more useful than in just a single long narrative. I'm hampered in my reorganisation by not knowing the material so well, but the basic idea is to present only the most important stuff on the top level page, but fill that with pointers to where other material is. I'm steadily reworking the Project:Style Guide (and just added another policy on external links), so you may find rewards re-reading. Feel free to discuss ideas on organising the Lockerbie material. I'm aware that you're probably not as up to speed as I am on the options availed by SMW, which should be able to improve the readability still more. Robin (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2015 (IST)

Your recent edit of the 9-11 page

I have just protected the 9/11 page. Let me encourage you in future, if you disagree with edits I make, to use the Talk page for discussion rather than simply reversing them. 9/11 is a big topic, and I do not consider the link you perceive with Lockerbie to justify space in the lead of the main 9/11 article, so I moved the majority of your material to 9-11/Coincidences‎. You may wish to use the sub-page system yourself, e.g. by making a page Pan Am Flight 103/Links to 9-11 on which to gather material. As usual, please try to avoid duplication of material. Robin (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (IST)

Yes 9/11 is a massive topic, which until very recently I have studiously avoided. On 30 June 2015, I finally uncovered the Scottish Mirror article of 11 September 2001 that I remembered reading with incredulity fourteen long years ago. A friend had sent me the link but it was lost somehow over the years. Googling the press on that date only turned up secondary sources or links to 9/11 articles. Then Eureka! On 30 June 2015, I stumbled across the BBC News report of 11 September 2001 "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" and there was the long lost Scottish Mirror front page. Straightaway I wrote a second letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe referring to the Heathrow break-in and the Scottish Mirror revelations. I also mounted email, Facebook and Twitter campaigns that have all been well received.

My first edit to the 9/11 page introduced this missing Lockerbie link, Robin, which you relegated to one of the mere 9-11/Coincidences‎. My second edit introduced the idea of George H W Bush and the CIA's complicity in both attacks:

Lockerbie led by South Africa's Civil Cooperation Bureau; and,

9/11 led by Mossad.

Robin, I appreciate that your having been involved with 9/11 and all its subpages for so long you might feel the topic has become "your baby". However, I would urge you to reconsider, unprotect the 9/11 page and link it as I have suggested to its terrorist predecessor Pan Am Flight 103.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2015 (IST)

Some notes on recent edits

It is good to see some new material you have been laying out which well illustrates the credibility (of lack of it) of those telling the Lockerbie official narrative. When making a corrupt case, the lazy thing is to overuse a few reliably stooges, because they already have a track record of declaring black to be white. Well, this is my interpretation of how Mete Sozen et. al. got all those contracts to perform "building performance assessments". Maybe a parallel with Feraday, and perhaps one worth documenting. I've made a few amendments to your edits, viz:

Lists should be comma-separated (since it is for a computer to read) so not "A, B and C" but simply "A, B, C"
Where the same name appears many times, it's better style to just in the first mention, not all of them, since the multiple links are just distracting and offer nothing new to the reader.
Avoid terms such as "in a recent development", "lately", "last year" etc. Anything that will go out of style over the years is suspect. Instead, just state "in 1993", "in July 2015" etc.

Also good to see images. For people, where possible, try to use a single image of that person for the one in the infobox.

Another approach you might try, rather than aiming for longer articles, is to make a number of stubs, just putting the information relevant to the larger point you're illustrating/investigating. If you've been watching my edits (e.g. about Le Cercle members), you'll have seen this in action. -- Robin (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2015 (IST)

Thanks for these pointers, Robin.

As regards single images for the John Berry infobox, we seem to be up against the same problem we had with Alan Feraday's. Images are readily available for the former artistic director at the English National Opera, for the American country music artist, for the Racehorse trainer at Beverley House stables and for the former director of the US Office of Personnel Management. But none for their namesake the former marine, SIGINT operator and businessman.

On the positive side, I have now connected the "B" in the ABC Trial to the John Berry who was convicted in May 1983 for terrorism offences on the strength of Feraday's dogmatic evidence: a connection which had certainly escaped the eagle eyes of Ludwig De Braeckeleer in this article.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2015 (IST)

Notes on importing from Wikipedia

Patrick, I notice that you have been importing a lot of articles from Wikipedia lately. While your enthusiasm to contribute to Wikispooks is appreciated, please familiarise yourself with the guidelines on importing From Wikipedia. If you have already read them, please re-read them. A lot of the material in Wikipedia is not really relevant to Wikispooks, and would therefore be better off not here since it detracts from the deep political content. Size is certainly not everything when it comes to articles. For example, compare Margaret Beckett (very brief, obviously written from scratch) with David Miliband (imported from WP last year). As stand alones, I'll grant you, the Margaret Beckett page is obviously very lacking. However, since the Wikipedia link is available, the Wikipedia's latest official narrative on her is only a click away - so my point Wikispooks pages are not standalones, but will be viewed by researchers in conjunction with others sources, almost certainly including Wikipedia. Unless we think that Wikipedia is likely to shut its doors, there's no hurry to import stuff from there - so it should be carefully weighed for relevance to deep politics. I attach a lot of significance to her attending Le Cercle - something missing from Wikipedia, and which would be obscured with a lot of relatively unimportant stuff from there. Please bear this in mind in future. Less can be more. -- Robin (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2015 (IST)

The topical and newsworthy thread running through my latest importations to Wikispooks from Wikipedia in the past few days: Robert Armstrong, Barbara Castle, Edward Heath and Jimmy Savile concerns "child sex abuse" viz Paedophile Information Exchange. As you say, Robin, these are standalone pages on WP, but on WS they are linked IMO - if not directly to deep politics - to The Pedophocracy, a phenomenon that is fundamentally ingrained in Western Establishment power structures. Don't you agree?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2015 (IST)

Of course I agree that the to The Pedophocracy is a significant factor in the Western Establishment, especially the blackmail angle, which is consistantly downplayed or ignored by the commercially-controlled media. My concern is not that you started pages - that is all well and good, but the importation of material into Wikispooks which is unsuitable. Wikispooks and Wikipedia certainly have some overlap, but it is rarely going to be 100%, since they are telling different stories. Wikipedia's policies make it an organ of the establishment, and some of the material there is problematic - for example, it says a lot about party politics but nothing much about deep politics. It also has a lot of frivolous material which just gets in the way, diluting the other material. It is the wholesale incorporation of this material, in particular, which inspired me to request you exercise greater selectivity in your imports. Is our article on Barbara Castle really strengthened, for example, by the observation that "there were some elements of the school which she did not like" or that "In Blackburn, a dual carriage way, which makes up one of the main parts of the ring road has been called Barbara Castle Way"...? -- Robin (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2015 (IST)

Point taken Robin, and thanks for today's trimming of the fluff.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (IST)

As a case study for being careful of Wikipedia, you might wish to look at the Oswald LeWinter page I have just posted, where I have attempted to unpick the Wikipedia official narrative spin - not least because it touches on Vincent Cannistraro, whom I see you have posted about. -- Robin (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2015 (IST)

Oswald LeWinter on Vincent Cannistraro: "What is that famous saying about 'putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop'? For Vincent Cannistraro to be put in charge of investigating Lockerbie would be funny if it weren't an obscenity."--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2015 (IST)

Lockerbie related change

Today I finally split the Nelson Mandela article, which was very long, since there was enough Lockerbie-related material to justify a dedicated page to that side of the man. I think both Mandela articles could do with a tidy, and probably a restructuring as regards sections and sub-sections. I haven't attempted to write the lede or descriptions, since you know the material much better than I do, so I thought I'd leave that up to you. -- Robin (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2015 (IST)

For much of the next month or so, I'll be unable to devote time to editing WS, Robin. Would you consider undoing the Nelson Mandela article splitting until say mid-October?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2015 (IST)

It's better off split than not, even without adjusted lede or descriptions, so I won't be undoing the change. I've just had a first go at tidying it up and providing a better structure. Feel free to pitch in as and when you get the chance. -- Robin (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (IST)

Page Credits +

Please be careful to credit pages sourced from Wikipedia and anywhere else. I've added credits to Michael Fallon and Philip Hammond and think there may have been others over the past few weeks. Also please revisit Importing from Wikipedia above. --Peter P (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (GMT)

Thanks, Peter P. I'll ensure that complete articles imported from WP like Michael Fallon and Philip Hammond are suitably credited in future.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2015 (GMT)

Appeal

Patrick, you've contributed a lot of good stuff here and I'm grateful for that; but your obsession with Lockerbie and certain associated personalities is becoming both a detriment to the site's overall purpose and a potential libel risk to me personally. I do not want to have to spend valuable time on detailed content policing and editing. Can you please focus a little more on the wood rather than a single sapling. Sorry to be so blunt but it has been coming for quite a while now, and this latest series of edits was the last straw. --Peter P (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2015 (GMT)

In fairness Peter P, 37 of my latest 50 edits weren't Lockerbie-related at all (only 3 of the previous 50 were). The problem - my obsession as you call it - arises whenever Lockerbie is mentioned in the news e.g. Metrojet Flight 9268 and Ken Dornstein's film. Like a moth to the flame I inevitably and metaphorically rise to the bait. And the controversy about the FBI getting involved in the Russian Airbus investigation "FBI offer of assistance in Egypt crash probe goes unanswered: U.S. source" seemed an opportunity not to be missed to bring in Tom Thurman with his amazing history of solving the Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772 bombings. The fact is that Thurman did fabricate the timer fragment evidence in both these disasters (and evidence in others that his FBI colleague Dr Frederic Whitehurst attested to). Dr Whitehurst was apparently sued by the FBI, so I take your point about the potential libel risk.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2015 (GMT)

Patrick, I have two main concerns:

Goading individuals - it is one thing to say something like "The history, circumstances and subsequent conduct of xxx [properly cited] strongly suggests that his/her evidence was fabricated" and "XXX fabricated the evidence". A reasonable test: On, say, a BBC interview, would you make that direct accusation. If not then you can hardly expect me to risk the libel suit that making it on WS invites. Apart from what may develop in discussion pages, WS is NOT the place for polemics.
Bulk importing from Wikipedia: - beyond setting the outline of a page in the lede, some headings and maybe a few exceptional items - WS is not about repeating the confusing mass of irrelevant trivia that WP articles on deep state issues usually comprise. A succinct comment on the nature (good and bad) of the WP article is also appropriate - In fact we should probably make that another meta-data item. OK it IS a matter of judgement with plenty of leeway available, but long WP pages are far more difficult to knock into WS shape than initial brief outlines.

With all that in mind I am happy for you to use you own judgement to say whatever you like on your own page, or in a dedicated document-type article because it is a simple matter to address primary responsibility in the event of a legal threat.

BTW, I do like the new Frederic Whitehurst page. A useful addition and good example of getting relevant stuff from WP. --Peter P (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2015 (GMT)

According to Frederic Whitehurst's biography, far from being sued Whitehurst actually received compensation of $1.166 million from the FBI in 1998.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2015 (GMT)

I appreciate your obsession/focus, but would encourage you, Patrick, to seek some background in other matters, as this should increase your perspicacity. Personally I do find that you err on the side of quantity rather than quality (especially as regards imports, e.g. from Wikipedia), and on occasions this can mar existing articles but then I have pointed this out to you already. In particular, I would recommend you spend longer on working out good ledes which give an overview of the page content - lack of brief ledes has lead me to not read as much of the material you've put in as I would have otherwise. Part of the trick of the commercially-controlled media is to present matters which are in fact related as isolated incidents. On those who lack a broad knowledge, this can be an effective strategy - so general reading is a good defense against this, and one that could give more depth and insight to our writing/theorising. I continue to explore my particular focus, which has been the various backgrounds of the known members of Le Cercle and Operation 40. The degree of crossover and co-relation in a whole swathe of deep events is remarkable and currently lacks a proper explanation. -- Robin (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2015 (GMT)

Synthesising that "proper explanation" seems like a superhuman task, Robin. A job for Monty Python, perhaps?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2015 (GMT)

As an example of what one person can achieve, I would point you to Mark Gorton's Document:Fifty Years of the Deep State. A group of people on a wiki should be able to do even better. -- Robin (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2015 (GMT)

A simple idea

Patrick, rather than linking to other pages, how about linking to the page Document:Maggie's Guilty Secret directly? -- Robin (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2016 (GMT)

Not quite so simple, Robin, because:

The spelling in the document title is incorrect; and
The document itself is not linked to "Maggie’s guilty secret" by John Hughes-Wilson.

Much simpler to reinstate the link to https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Richard_Scott#Maggie.27s_guilty_secret "Maggie's guilty secret" on the Richard Scott page.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2016 (GMT)

Thanks Robin for correcting the spelling of Document:Maggies's Guilty Secret to read Document:Maggie's Guilty Secret.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Re: Blanking of text on Bankole Timothy

Hi Patrick, I see you have again undone my changes. I've just returned from Sierra Leone, SA, and London and conducted a series of interviews there and found this is baseless. I have been dispassionately researching this for a very long time. Unless you have first hand evidence here you should remove this. It is not remotely credible. It is my understanding having done extensive primary research and having gained access that Bankole Timothy was a forthright individual with exceptionally high moral standards and one of Sierra Leone's great minds. Do you know this to be anything other than a fanciful idea? --JamieRDornan (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2016 (GMT)

I rely upon renowned Swedish journalist Jan-Olof Bengtsson for this well-referenced report on Bankole Timothy. Could you please tell us who you interviewed in Sierra Leone, in South Africa and in London; what did they say about Bankole Timothy and the meeting with Bernt Carlsson on 21 December 1988; and, how exactly do you come to the conclusion that Bengtsson's report is "baseless"?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2016 (GMT)

|WP parameter

I'm glad to see that you've been adding templates correctly for new people/events. Note that the most important parameter is the |wikipedia parameter (which can be abbreviated |WP). If there is no wikipedia page, just leave this blank "|WP=", to save other editors bothering to look for one. If there is a wikipedia page, setting this correctly mean that User:MaintenanceBot will silently copy all the information across from Wikipedia, usually in about 20 seconds or so. I routinely just add the |WP parameter, then come back later and see whether there is anything that got missed. --Robin (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2016 (IST)

Yes, Robin it's good to sit back and let User:MaintenanceBot do the donkey work!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2016 (IST)

Please contact by email

Hi Patrick.

Apropos my edits to Caroline Feraday and the new Talk:Patrick Haseldine/Encounters with critics page, attempts to contact via WS messaging and email have so far failed. Can you please provide me with a working email address --Peter P (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2016 (IST)

Sorry for the delay, Peter. I've just emailed a reply.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2016 (IST)

You'll notice that I just created Dag Hammarskjöld/Death. This should probably have been split off from the main page ages ago, since I now see that most of the material we have on Hammarskjöld is about his death. I invite you to assist organising material here, since I think you're knowledgeable in this area. Robin (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2016 (IST)

Question

Greetings. I do have a question regarding Robin Cook. There is a meme sometimes posted in the Internet, that attributes the following to him: “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” - I can only track it back to this article at Globalresearch -> http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738 - another quote from that article: "Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence." - in that article from Globalresearch there are several more quotes from another article and the first one I have mentioned is now in that meme (“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called), while I can not directly see that this quote is specifically attributed to him in the article again. Since some sources I came across tend to use it (lately https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/no_author/al-qaeda-never-existed/ + https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/will-there-ever-be-an-investigation-into-the-death-of-robin-cook/) I wanted to verify here. Thanks.--Sunvalley (talk) ‎21:49, 9 August 2016

If you want to know what Robin Cook had to say about Al Qaida or the War on Terror, the best place to start, Sunvalley, is Cook's article in The Guardian of 8 July 2005 (a month before he died): Document:The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2016 (IST)

Thank you, Patrick Haseldine, for pointing that out. Now it looks rather obvious to me, at the other hand, the usage of the meme or just attributing the sentences to him has become so common, that even places with at least a little standard (like lewrockwell.com) do pick it up. Thanks again for clarification and 'File:Robin Cook 2.jpg' seems to be a good way to counter this intended confusion.Sunvalley (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2016 (IST)

Latest additions

Good work, Patrick - you seem to be getting the hang of using templates. I've got two points for further improvement:

Descriptions - Please do use these - These are actually the most important of all the sections, since they appear on all the automatically produced page links. I've not included them on the stubs I've just made today, but unless the page itself is a blank, a description is recommended; it's your couple of lines to summarise the person (group, event,...) and explain why it is relevant on Wikispooks.
Please try to remember {{SMWDocs}} on every page you make, just above ==References==. This allows for the SMW magic to happen - i.e. links to related documents etc.

-- Robin (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2016 (IST)

Merci beaucoup, Robin!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2016 (IST)

Style tip to reference a doc

Patrick, I removed your recent one sentence addition to the Russ Baker article, since - because of your judicious choice of metadata - there was already a link because of the {{SMWDocs}} element. Then I added a factoid in from the article and referenced it using an internal link (i.e. <ref>[[Document:Example name here]]</ref>). I recommend this style, since it both explains the relevance of the document and builds up the article. -- Robin (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2016 (IST)

Not sure I agree, Robin. My one-sentence addition to the lede of the Russ Baker article tells a better story. Your factoid addition sits well in the full Family of Secrets article, however.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2016 (IST)

That's OK, we can agree to disagree on this :-), my point is that since it's already in the "On Wikispooks" section, with almost precisely that information (and a great description by the way) then seems a bit too repetitious, and I like having all the document links together at the bottom (not the lede - that seems like it should have the most interesting, introductory stuff). Do change back the article if you think that is better. 3rd parties are welcome to add in another opinion FWIW... -- Robin (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2016 (IST)

I've reinserted the one-sentence addition, but referencing it to Russ Baker's actual article rather than the WS document.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2016 (IST)

Adherence to the rules on documents

I have just reverted your recent undo, since it contravenes the Wikispooks:Document Editing Rules. I have further modified that page to clarify the appropriate way for you to pass comment on 3^rd party documents:- adding an instance of Template:Rate to User:Patrick Haseldine. If you have trouble with this, I could re-institute your comment as a rating. Robin (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2017 (IST)

You appear not to have read my description of the article, Robin: "After 56 years and many investigations, there is new hope that secrets lurking in Western intelligence archives could solve the second biggest whodunnit in United Nations history: the mysterious death of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld."

The authors have described it as the biggest. So presumably Wikispooks:Document Editing Rules require my description to be amended to remove the word second?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2017 (IST)

Correct. It is important not to misquote people. You are free to chip in a comment (and rating) through use of Template:Rate if you feel like. -- Robin (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2017 (IST)