Difference between revisions of "Talk:Patrick Haseldine"
m (→Critique by John Ashton: reply) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
I'm all for constructive criticism by WS editors and will respond to [[John Ashton]] in due course. However, I've had to excise the "actionable material" part of [[John Ashton|John's]] critique to protect WS from the legal beagles! --[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | I'm all for constructive criticism by WS editors and will respond to [[John Ashton]] in due course. However, I've had to excise the "actionable material" part of [[John Ashton|John's]] critique to protect WS from the legal beagles! --[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
: Thanks Patrick. I was aware of the issue. In fielding writs past I quickly learned that European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regs 2003 provides a cause for action where an owner posts linked content whilst on notice that it is claimed to be defamatory. My only issue was whether or not to remove it before being placed on such notice. You have pre-empted that decision so I'll leave it alone for now. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | : Thanks Patrick. I was aware of the issue. In fielding writs past I quickly learned that European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regs 2003 provides a cause for action where an owner posts linked content whilst on notice that it is claimed to be defamatory. My only issue was whether or not to remove it before being placed on such notice. You have pre-empted that decision so I'll leave it alone for now. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Article Focus== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This article needs a tidy. It is, after all, supposed to be about [[Patrick Haseldine]], but the extensive ''Lockerbie fact'' section doesn't even mention him! The next section begins "Virtually everything else is ..." - quite a puzzling beginning for an article section, in my opinion. I'm not challenging the validity or importance of anything in this article, but I am asking whether it needs to be ''here''. We have quite a lot of Lockerbie material, so perhaps we could make an article or two about how the {{ccm}} handled Lockerbie? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 07:14, 7 May 2013 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 06:14, 7 May 2013
My WikiSpooks Biography
I propose to make a number of amendments to my WikiSpooks biography, and to include some missing references. Am I allowed to edit my own biography? Patrick Haseldine 11:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem with that Patrick. Wikipedia has some serious blind-spots and biases which this site seeks to redress. There's bags of stuff about it in the project pages - especially The problem with Wikipedia. --Peter P 12:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Length
I've just done some minor trimming, but I'm concerned that the article is rather long. Perhaps we could think about how to split it up into subsidiary articles, main topics, Patrick Haseldine's Criticism of Thatcher etc. Following the wikipedia style, these could have a summary treatment in the page itself, preceded by "Main article: Patrick Haseldine's Interest in The Lockerbie Bombing" to point readers to the more specialised page on just that topic. Robin 04:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Critique by John Ashton
I'm all for constructive criticism by WS editors and will respond to John Ashton in due course. However, I've had to excise the "actionable material" part of John's critique to protect WS from the legal beagles! --Patrick Haseldine 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Patrick. I was aware of the issue. In fielding writs past I quickly learned that European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regs 2003 provides a cause for action where an owner posts linked content whilst on notice that it is claimed to be defamatory. My only issue was whether or not to remove it before being placed on such notice. You have pre-empted that decision so I'll leave it alone for now. --Peter P 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Focus
This article needs a tidy. It is, after all, supposed to be about Patrick Haseldine, but the extensive Lockerbie fact section doesn't even mention him! The next section begins "Virtually everything else is ..." - quite a puzzling beginning for an article section, in my opinion. I'm not challenging the validity or importance of anything in this article, but I am asking whether it needs to be here. We have quite a lot of Lockerbie material, so perhaps we could make an article or two about how the commercially-controlled media handled Lockerbie?
