User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 6

Emails to Professor Black

Two recent emails to Professor Robert Black are recorded here and here.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amendments/edits to the CCB page

Patrick,

Thanks for completing the suggested edits to the Civil Cooperation Bureau page so well. We were trying to framework (somehow) the right words, which you then introduced - well.

A question might be - if Magnus Malan, in Para 15 said his orders to the SADF were to "destroy the terrorists, destroy their bases etc" then followed up by "./.....and I never authorised any member of the SADF to kill political opponents...etc ...."...is this not contradictory - or in your interpretation, would a political opponent who chose to associate with activies and actions that could be termed "terrorist/terrorism" then fall into the category mentioned first.

I am busy with a comparative analysis of justifications, activities, actions and morals between several past Government initiated covert groups. Primarily the CCB, SOS and the SOE. I have also been provided with almost unlimited access to the historical archives and information on the SOE.

Thanks again for a good edit on the above page.

BSRCR 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on CCB talk page.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PJH - A Helpful Opinion From You Please:

I am aware of your sympathy and siding with the ANC. I have met (and flown) Nelson Mandela myself in the UK, a wonderful old fellow with a rogue like twinkle in his eye.

Just recently a friend of mine was denied entry to the UK for involvement with a SADF force (CCB) that operated against the ANC. He was quoted as having been involved in "eliminating members of the ANC and also destroying their property". I want to ask you if you have seen the banned video on You tube called ANC VIP's of Violence (3 parts) and also this video - you will have to download it - it has been banned - although it's official footage - http://66.232.114.104:7777/ANC&UDF_Justice.zip it takes about 60 seconds - then save - and watch.....

Now my question to you is.....rightly or wrongly - Your Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had a Policy of The day - the ANC were Terrorists - this is on her website - http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106948 and many other places.

Now - please wait a second before you react - you sometimes reach for the "Tomlinson Treatment" button before you consider everything!

My question, and please consider this overnight before answering, is:-

What does the pilot of a UK Airforce jet do when he drops a laser guided missile on to a house or building where the occupants are "alleged" to be terrorists and unsuspecting ???? eliminate the enemy and destroy property.....is this not the aim of every soldier with allegiance ???

War is a terrible thing Patrick, it makes animals of all involved - temporarily. In Africa they say "When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers...."

Please think on this before answering - I am currently watching but only when I can (I am in Iraq fighting for democracy).

I follow all your posts with interest - but can I please advise you on one thing...having read a few earlier statements.....winning a fight on the internet is like winning a spitting competition - it is just simply below your level of intellect - you are much better - and more British! - at least that's how I perceive you to be - we have never met. You have much to offer - and have actually guided me in the past.

I really look forward to your measured reply. BSRCR 03:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrcrgrieve (talk • contribs)

Question answered by another source thanks. Bsrcrgrieve (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

'See also' link on Patrick Haseldine article

Hi there. Thanks for pointing this out to me - actually, I really should have looked at the article's history and talk page before removing the link, as it's clear from those that the article used to contain much more information about the Lockerbie investigation before it was removed. However, even after a mention of the Lockerbie investigation has been re-added, I'm still not convinced the link to Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission is entirely relevant here - at least, its relevance isn't immediately obvious from reading the article. But as a compromise, I have added a link to Hans Köchler to the article, and any reader who clicks on that can easily find the article about Köchler's UN observer mission. I hope that helps. Terraxos (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right: the 'See also' link to Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission used to be relevant when the article contained a lot more Lockerbie information. But the wikilink you have just added is fine. Thank you.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Tisdall

Thanks. Sorry about the typo in the DEFAULTSORT. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs! - PJHaseldine (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

About self-reverted edits to articles covered by a ban

PJH, as you noticed, community objections arose to my previous suggestions that self-reverted edits don't generally violate bans. It had seemed to me to be quite clear from prior practice. Pending a resolution of this, you should assume that self-reverted edits are not exempt from a ban. Pity. But we take these as they come, one step at a time. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

C'est dommage, bien sûr. Quand même, c'est la vie!---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're sure your proposed edit improves Wikipedia, you should have no difficulty persuading another editor to make it for you. However, if you're sure that any reasonable editor would agree that your proposed edit improves Wikipedia, don't let the rules stop you making it yourself. Just don't revert yourself afterwards. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, I think you've really missed the point. There is a problem with harmless edits under WP:IAR. They complicate ban enforcement. Self-reversion was invented to deal with a situation where "harmless edits" were being asserted, and it was cleared with an arbitrator as not violating a ban. The AN discussion today was over an uncontroversial edit, clearly intended to improve the article, and the only problem was a declared ban by an admin, who blocked me. So as matters stand, until this is resolved, sure. PJH could make that edit. And he could be blocked, even if the edit improved the article, even if there was no controversy about that. So your qualification, as matters stand, could be bad advice. He could be blocked, and it's possible that, through some misunderstanding, this could do him harm. I'm working on changing the policy, because we now have a disconnect between a local interpretation of the policy at AN today, and a much broader discussion of the policy recently in a very visible case, and there is no need for that. --Abd (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding getting blocked really isn't that difficult. "Harmless" (i.e. unimportant) edits should be left to a non-banned editor. Urgent edits (e.g. reverting WP:BLP violations) should be made, full stop - WP:IAR applies everywhere (although it doesn't give editors carte blanche) and it's a mistake to pretend otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Harmless" does not mean "unimportant." It means that the edit will not encounter opposition, it will not create disruption, aside from concern about the *identity* of the editor. Spelling corrections are an example, but, really, any edit which can solidly expect consensus is covered. "Urgent" edits are another matter; in that situation, the edit should be made, the ban should be noted in the summary, i.e., "Removing BLP violation, setting aside ban for WP:IAR]]," and it should not be reverted. If that claim is reasonable, the editor should not be considered a ban violator. PJH used self-reversion to cover a more complex edit, and the result apparently shows that it was effective; it's an efficient way to suggest a change, that makes it easier to discuss and implement. Because it's self-reverted, it leads to no emergency, if the banned editor can't find a non-banned editor to implement it, well, that is a natural consequence of being banned; if the edit was good, it will eventually be seen. The editor could go to the ban administrator, drop a diff, and ask for review. My guess is that if the edit is truly harmless, the ban administrator would implement it on the spot. That's much more efficient for everyone than a "discussion" of what change is being proposed. Self-reverted edits don't rely on IAR, it's non-reverted ones that would.

In the SA case, the community was solidly against blocking editors under ban for making obvious, harmless corrections. SA ended up being blocked, but not for those corrections, in themselves, but for a declared intention to disrupt enforcement. Remember, he wasn't self-reverting, thus admins had to examine each edit in detail. With self-reversion, that examination isn't obligatory for anyone. The harm, if any, of a reasonable self-reverted edit under ban, is more than balanced by the routine benefit, and any editor who tried to game this would not be protected, it would be obvious.

But right now, for reasons which may be mysterious, the community is arguing the opposite of how it argued in the SA case. My suspicion is that it's political. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. PJH, apologies for taking up your talk-page and attention. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once this discussion ceases, I'll archive it.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)