User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 1

Stop
Don't use Wikipedia to try to advance a political cause of any sort. Don't spam messages asking people to sign a petition. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied to this message on Bunchofgrapes talk page. The petition is neither political nor spam.PJHaseldine 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand that if it doesn't improve the encyclopedia, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I don't know what you think you mean when you say it isn't political, but I guess it doesn't matter. Contacting even selected users for a purpose like this is an unambiguously inappropriate use of Wikipedia, I am afraid. If you have already stopped; thanks. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look at my user page where you will see "Wikipedia articles cited in e-petition to prime minister Tony Blair". The logic of your position seems to be that it is unambiguously inappropriate to cite Wikipedia in petitions to the Prime Minister. Surely you don't mean that!PJHaseldine 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't inappropriate to cite Wikipedia in petitions to the Prime Minister; it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to carry about the business of pointing people to the petition. Do you see the distinction? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there then an appropriate way of pointing British Wikipedians to the petition?PJHaseldine 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, honestly -- there may not be. The obvious thing to do would be to use the "E-mail this user" link (in the toolbox to the left) to contact people; but really, that still strikes me as an undesirable spamming behavior. I don't know what others might say about that. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your honesty! I'll take advice on the question and will proceed accordingly.PJHaseldine 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I've you've not already, please read WP:COI and follow the procedures outlined therein. Thanks. John Broughton |  Talk 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the guidance.PJHaseldine 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging by Socrates2008
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest.

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/PJHaseldine for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Deon Steyn (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked one week for socking and COI. Please cease. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Qinetiq
You were wondering who owns the company. Well, Carlyle Group (33.5%), UK MOD (61.8%) Own staff (4.7%). this is accurate as of a few months ago. Put it to good use.68.253.239.5 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing your own biography
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Socrates2008 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned at WP:COIN
Hello PJHaseldine. There is a case open at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard about articles relating to Patrick Haseldine and the Lockerbie bombing. You are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest here. UK Indymedia describes itself as A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues. This morning, I referenced its recent article headed "South Africa blamed for Lockerbie" (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387992.html) into the Patrick Haseldine section in a perfectly neutral way. I suggest Socrates2008 now reverts his reversion of my edit.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have already been warned 3X above and banned once over WP:COI. So please ignore these warnings and proceed if you'd like an indefinite ban imposed.   12:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My advice is to bring any and all concerns re new edits of Patrick Haseldine to that article's talk page. You will get a fair hearing (ie not just |Socrates) and I would advise you to volunteer not to edit the article in the meantime as a way of avoiding a ban that is absolutely not wanted by wikipedia, if it can be avoided. Ed is certainly going to judge this case fairly from what I know of this editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for this advice, which I am following — see Talk:Patrick Haseldine.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that and would also like to remind you to assume good faith and to have a look at the code of conduct regarding civility. Linking to anonymous external discussions making negative comments is not helpful. — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion continues at Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.PJHaseldine (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Socrates2008 13:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion continues at Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Final warning
See this and consider it a final warning. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regretably, this "final warning" link shows an "error" message. Happily, however, the discussion thread continues at Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.PJHaseldine (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Typo is fixed now. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)