User talk:Patrick56
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
|
Gold/Silver/Bronze and Peter Power
[edit]Rye1967 - Many thanks for your prompt email. I think there are a couple of very minor changes still needed to (1) Gold, Silver, Bronze and (2) Peter Power:
(1) The update I supplied for Gold, Silver, Bronze should I suggest, fit into the very opening paragraph as it explains briefly why this structure was created and who by. Putting this info. after the different layers have been explained probably is not as useful? What do you think?
(2) Peter Power is not a Police Officer. He was until 1992. The very brief summary after his name should I suggest simply read "Crisis Management Specialist". Only if you think it vital do so I suggest adding he was a senior police officer at New Scotland Yard. Otherwise, the links make this pretty clear when you read the biog×Patrick56 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
Many thanks Patrick56
Hi Patrick and welcome to Wikipedia. I have re-arranged your edits on Gold Silver Bronze command structure and on Peter Power because you had over-written existing content which did not deserve to be removed. I hope this is ok. Also, you do not need to put your signature into the article when you are making an edit, the system will automatically keep your name in the history. You only need to insert your signature on talk pages. Take a look at how the pages are now to see if you wish to make more changes.--Rye1967 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
AfD: Crisis Management
[edit]AfD nomination of Crisis management
[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Crisis management, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis management. Thank you. Horrorshowj 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
February 2008
[edit]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Peter Power (crisis management specialist), you will be blocked from editing. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Peter Power (crisis management specialist), you will be blocked from editing. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Power (crisis management specialist)
[edit]I have protected this article for 3 days and I invite you to express your opinions at Talk:Peter Power (crisis management specialist). CIreland (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Makes sense to me as the pressure group ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ who are very keen to include the new inserts I find most difficult to debate with. Here is how I see it as (a) the original author and (b) someone who has since met Power (who is reluctant to be involved in this matter):
The original article and attachments I researched were I hope, accurate and relevant. Not inspired by any hidden agenda. I was also grateful for a bit of Wikipedia help in the finished work. I also believe anything in this or any Wikipedia article should be not biased or linked to gratuitously antagonistic sources that only want to pursue their own cause. With these thoughts in mind two questions are now asked:
1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? 2. Are any/all the external links suitable?
The final paragraph is undisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power. Numerous websites confirm this. Indeed, the author does not hide the fact. I find it impossible to accept that any paragraph submitted by this group can be unbiased or not linked to antagonistic sources and a hidden agenda. But are these issues alone sufficient to doubt the source and suitability?
1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? I consider the source has to be weighed against the relevance of the paragraph? What was or might have been reported in a provincial newspaper almost a lifetime ago is not in itself an immediate point of challenge, although it could be. The substance however, is even less newsworthy than say someone who is found not guilty of a minor traffic offence. Power in this sense, was never charged, summonsed or even disciplined. I can confirm from the subject of the article that the CPS did indeed decide that no prosecution was required for an internal/administration matter. However, Power was a senior police officer which meant a full enquiry whenever any allegation is made was bound to occur, even though no charges were ever brought. But the local paper thought his rank merited comment. Otherwise, it was not in the least newsworthy. Within the context of an accurate and relevant article I believe this deliberately selective use of an otherwise distant and pointless news item is intended only to harm Power to suit the organisation that discovered it. Had they looked further there are other newspaper features over the years that tell of Powers awards for gallantry and leadership, but of course these do not support the reason why the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph.
2. Are any/all the external links suitable? Probably the ones that for many months linked to the wider exploits of Power and were not specifically selective, are suitable. They have never been challenged as they are from various sources without any hidden agenda. For example, those linked to all the BBC sites who have reported on Power’s previous actions - without bias. Now suddenly a hostile pressure group with a well known and personal vendetta against Power wants to promote itself by inserting its own external link. I suggest this is neither accurate nor relevant and seeks only to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a single cause.
Since the eponymously called ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ has a keen interest in promoting its own view that nothing so far, has been truthfully reported about the tragedy in 2005, can I suggest they consider adding to the already very well covered article on that event, rather than be allowed to conduct a campaign of what appears to be character assignation far removed from anything that is accurate or relevant to the readers of Wikipedia. It seems from other contributors that I am not alone in this view.
I ask that the final paragraph and external link that now exists be removed and we revert to what was previously published.--Patrick56 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
17.8.10 - Snowded - I appreciate your comments. The ref. for this addition can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/november/23/newsid_3227000/3227456.stm I did paste this into the ref section, but it might not have come up? I am not the best at editing these things so advice always welcome.Patrick56 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Allegations against July 7th Truth Campaign
[edit]Dear Patrick56,
You are entitled to your opinion that J7 is pursuing a hostile vendetta against Peter Power, and you are entitled to express that opinion on talk pages.
I do not think you are entitled to make untrue statements about J7, such as "The final paragraph is undisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power." As the Wikipedia page history shows, the paragraph was not contributed by J7. As the Wikipedia page history also shows, it was J7 that promptly edited the inaccurate and defamatory word "dismissed" that appeared in that paragraph as originally submitted. Please would you consider withdrawing your claims that J7 contributed this paragraph, and that we "are very keen to include the new inserts" and that "the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph". You will see from the discussion page that in fact we do not object to the paragraph being removed.
You have suggested that we contribute to the Wikipedia pages on July 7th. I did once try to add a link, not to the main July 7th pages but to the July 7th Conspiracy Theory page, and it was not a link to our site but to a third party site, but someone took exception even to that.
On the point at issue, we really would value any assistance you can give in clearing up this story. Peter Power himself has said he will not answer questions except from accredited journalists. We have respected that. The "We Are Change UK" film stunt is the kind of thing we tend not to go in for because it is counter productive: it makes it easy for Peter Power (in this case) to present himself as a "victim" and to discredit the questioners. (I once asked Peter Power a civil question on a BBC Newsnight blog he had commented on, but he declined to answer.) We have asked accredited journalists to help us to resolve this story, but to no avail. I have appealed for information on the Dorset Echo Forum, but none has been forthcoming. Freedom of Information requests to Dorset Police were refused, even though most of the information requested was already in the public domain. Freedom of Information requests to the Department of Public Prosecutions require more details about the case than are publicly available. We feel we have exhausted all the options available to us, and so the only way we can get to the bottom of it is by publishing what we have ourselves and hoping that produces a response. We feel it is a legitimate matter to pursue because Peter Power has not been open about working for Dorset Police.
If you can explain to us how we can obtain the final decision made by the DPP we would appreciate that. Likewise if you can give us the month and year of any press reports of the final outcome, we will follow that up.
We published Peter Power's response to We Are Change UK in full on our web site, after first checking that it really was from him, even though we had nothing to do with the video. Both you and he are free to contribute responses on our web site or forum.
I am sorry that you consider us "difficult to debate with". We are not aware of any occasions when you have, in fact, engaged in debate with us, so I am not sure what grounds you have for saying that. I hope that you will accept what I have written as an attempt to enter into a more constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue. Cmain (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- All (inc. Martinfud and others who share my view) - I’m getting fed up with this and I have suggested below a solution. First, there has been much written on the July 2005 London bombings. A great deal of it appears to be conspiratorial nonsense aimed at Power and persistently delivered by people who’s motive seems only to attack him (it is my turn to correct you insofar that the London underground remains I believe, the most bombed (de facto) structure in the UK, although Belfast is is indeed likely to be the most bombed town, although I am never sure how many bombs hit the Europa hotel Belfast?). But back to the subject of Power: Second,I think I have a solution and I appeal to Wikipedia to use this as a compromise between two positions that seem opposite each other and have reached an impasse.
- (A) Simply say that Power served in the Metropolitan Police 1971 - 1990 and the Dorset Police 1990 - 1993. To add anything more than this seems gratuitously unnecessary as I and Martinfud have asserted many times. (B) Remove the link to the so called ‘July 7 Truth Campaign’ that is obviously a very controversial insertion from an organisation I firmly believe to have a personal vendetta against Power. Indeed, it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion when you read the link.
- I hope this makes sense. I have given some ground on this and I now hope that those expressing a different view will do likewise.--Patrick56 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving some ground. I am, though, disappointed that you have withdrawn none of your false statements against J7 (see above) but added to them with your unsourced claim that we state that the reason Power left Dorset Police is unexplained. To the best of our knowledge, we have not made any false statements about Peter Power (if we had, I am sure he would have threatened us with legal action as he did Christopher Bollyn's libellous reworking of our material. Bollyn's material serves Power's agenda better than it does ours). You have made false statements against us, as I have documented, and I again respectfully request that you withdraw them. Cmain (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2008
Cmain - please list where you consider I have made any false statements against you and I will certainly review and if necessary correct anything said previously.--Patrick56 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think you are entitled to make untrue statements about J7, such as "The final paragraph is undisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power." As the Wikipedia page history shows, the paragraph was not contributed by J7. As the Wikipedia page history also shows, it was J7 that promptly edited the inaccurate and defamatory word "dismissed" that appeared in that paragraph as originally submitted. Please would you consider withdrawing your claims that J7 contributed this paragraph, and that we "are very keen to include the new inserts" and that "the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph". You will see from the discussion page that in fact we do not object to the paragraph being removed.
- Patrick56, you claim that J7 states that Power's departure from Dorset "has never been explained". Please can you provide a source for that quotation as I have been unable to find it. The J7 article clearly states that Power departed from Dorset police on health grounds.
This evening I wrote on the discussion page that as the article reads at this time it makes sense to me. As a result of what appears to be Powers intervention I did indeed use his material in my last rewrite and it is actually now is better (i.e. reference to military career). Please can we just leave it at that? I and Martinfud (and Power it seems) really fail to accept that manipulation of this article, that stood perfectly well for ages, by the J7 campaign just to insert that bit about Dorset where we all seem to agree no charge or anything else was ever brought against Power adds anything worthwhile at all I see Power himself has also commented on the discussion page--Patrick56 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Power etc.
[edit]In reponse to your message on my talk page, I am currently considering the best course of action. The article is locked until 12th March and there is nothing to stop me extending that. However, it seems pretty clear that this website is not a reliable source. CIreland (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, Nick Cooper (talk · contribs) is filing an RFC on the article and I would like to see what fruit that bears. CIreland (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I realise that three people have said leave the article as it is, and that's fine. But this is Wikipedia - sooner or later someone will come along and change it. As far an "obsession" with Peter Power, I'd never even heard of the bloke until an edit war caused the article to pop up on a noticeboard as needing protection. If editors would stop edit warring and skirting the boundaries of WP:BLP then I'd happily be on my way, I don't see how you could classify this as "obsession"; the whole thing is frankly a pain in the backside. CIreland (talk) 14:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Patrick56, I have today obtained and read the article in the Western Gazette (4/11/93) mentioned by Nick Cooper, and also the response by Dorset Police in the Dorset Echo (5/11/93). Both agree that the investigation was into meal expenses claims, which as Nick Cooper wrote puts the matter into a quite different perspective. I am astonished that anyone could be prosecuted for something so minor; internal disciplinary procedures ought to have been sufficient (if there was a case to answer). I find it difficult to accept your explanation that the file was forwarded to the CPS as a formality because of Power's rank. It seems more likely to me that this was a case of malicious prosecution. Rest assured I need to go away and ponder this before doing any more Wikipedia editing. Cmain (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- A J7 link was re-inserted today anonymously by 91.195.83.3. The IP address traces to hmipollution.co.uk, ISP the environment agency, lat/long Douglas Isle of Man. Please take it up with them; I am not responsible. Cmain (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Snowded - I appreciate your comments. The ref. for this addition can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/november/23/newsid_3227000/3227456.stm I did paste this into the ref section, but it might not have come up? I am not the best at editing these things so advice always welcome.
A tag has been placed on Corporate resilience, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Corporate resilience and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the template! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The correct place to request undeletion is deletion review. A non-article such as you just created at Corporate resilience, will naturally be speedily deleted. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to research your request and get back to you. Honestly, I do not recall the article of which you speak, and I can't do anything about it from a public computer right now. I can't use this account to delete articles anyway, so what I probably did was to nominate it for deletion, or "second" it. When I log into my secure computer, I can use my "tools" for that purpose, and I can re-create the article easily. Or you can post {{helpme}} ... which I've just done for you. :-) In any case, you may appeal any deletion at WP:DRV. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) {{helpme}} This user needs to find out, "For what reasons was the above article deleted?" and "How can I create the article again, so that I can fix its problems?" Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to the deletion log and the warning message above, the page at Corporate resilience (note the lowercase r) was deleted twice by different administrators for different reasons.
- The first deletion is mentioned in the warning above. The article was deleted under Criteria for speedy deletion G11, which means it was seen as blatant advertising for a company or other entity. To avoid that sort of problem in the future, you may want to read through our policies on neutrality, advertising, and/or notability for companies.
- The second deletion was under Criteria for speedy deletion G1, meaning it was seen as patent nonsense or incomprehensible gibberish - basically meaning the administrator couldn't make heads or tails of what it was about, figured nobody else could either, and so deleted it. I don't really know how to tell you to avoid this except to write better articles - the manual of style and these directions to writing your first article might be of some help.
- If you're still not sure why these articles were deleted, I'd suggest taking a look through what Wikipedia is not, our deletion policy, and the links I've provided above. If after all that you still have questions, feel free to post another helpme on your talk page here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)