Document talk:Bob Ainsworth on the subject of the melted cavalry man

Relevance to Wikispooks

A personal view FWIW: I can't see much relevance to the Wikispooks project in this article. It's of a style, content and standard that is readily on display by the average raconteur regular in the average saloon bar. I used to follow Guido Fawkes myself, but the guy, whilst talented, is frankly little different from any other young(ish) intelligent Westminster village insider out to make a name for himself. He views the world through the eyes of an (ex-but-still-by-temperament-and-outlook) financial securities trader. As such, his world view is somewhat restricted and apart from the odd whistleblower-type revelation, I doubt his output will be of much relevance or interest to WS. Similar considerations apply to this guy (one of his contributors) IMHO.

Also, please, when posting a new article, consider it's relevance carefully and be sure to give it one or more subjects which should either be already created WS pages or ones which you judge should be created. Also, please use Form:Document and take the time to understand and complete the basic info and free-wikitext tab fields correctly. In particular, a brief description of the document MUST be supplied; it should be assigned a publication date (that's the original one); an author; a source; and a link to the source - all in the fields assigned for that purpose. --Peter P (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2014 (IST)

I've just spotted its relevance. However, most of the above still applies in that the Putinas bad as Stalin? page reference could have been linked to the Stanslav's Rant blog post itself rather than reproducing it here. Not going to get precious about any of this though - but please consider it carefully - WS GREATLY prefers quality to quantity. --Peter P (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2014 (IST)