Talk:Adrian Ramsay

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This had better be good, Jun!

--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor Undertakings

The newest edit of the page has been reversed.

The following part of the editor undertakings means that simply the citation of someone's campaign speech is not of relevance to the site; which is to be an encyclopedia on deep politics. Is isn't a blog, it isn't the voice the "oppressed people" or "the right people", So everyone is advised to document what it being said by relevant people, and clarify the data in it (locations, events) and highlight and place particular important parts into a relevant page; not just fill up a page with a cookie-cutter statement every MP would say. The source used for the campaign speech is actually a far better site than us in that regard. If most of what is said isn't important for deep poltiics, we're not a copy of wikipedia. That also means not just completely citing a campaign speech without relevant research or explanation why this speech would be relevant to the deep politics of his surroundings.

The merely adding of this without any comment or self-undertaken research also violates Section 2 of the style guides which reads that "Repeating material from elsewhere on the web is a fast way to add content, but Wikispooks has a strong preference for quality over quantity. Material which has been copied wholesale must be sourced. Large quotations from elsewhere is generally unhelpful." This also goes for a page which only gets something from Wikipedia. Terje's page on Dési Bouterse is an example of how it should be: Add a stub about a page, but also add just one sentence of relevance to our particular set of viewers (Bouterse was target of a CIA coup).

That's it.

Anyone violating this does not follow the editor undertakings and style guide which are linked:, The violation of this - after previous warnings not to cite entire statements by Robin on a previous page (where Patrick violated section 3.11 of the style guide which says not to place extended quotes in articles from documents in Wikispook articles, as WS is intended to be a synthesis of multiple opinions) purely in combination with the violating of 7.1 of the editor undertakings (do not reverse an edit without starting a talk page) and several previous requests not adhered to documented on Patrick's talk page results in me locking this page, and giving a warning to User:Patrick Haseldine. A second will result in me locking more pages worked on by this user or temporarily banning this or other users not following this advise and above guidelines.

The relevants guidelines;

Full article: Party politics

The deep politics illuminated on this site provides evidence that key establishment groups are more or less hopelessly co-opted by deep state groups. The occult function of political parties is to preserve the status quo by promoting endless energy-sapping and distracting disputes between their respective adherents over relative trivia, whilst cultivating a solid consensus on epoch-defining issues - usually by ignoring them totally until they become unavoidable.

Neither 'left' nor 'right' is the answer; they are merely two sides of the same establishment co(i)n!

Far from being opposites, Left and Right, in their political sense are both de facto supporters of the establishment. Whether wars are fought for "humanitarian intervention", to "fight terrorism" or whatever other superficial casus belli, makes no difference. The real reasons - the elephants in the room - remain hidden in plain sight, as third rail topics for the commercially-controlled media..</ref>"

Like the editor guide says; None of this is intended as a barrier to evidence-based contributions intended to refine our collective understanding of deep political phenomena. It is simply to make it crystal clear that Wikispooks is not the place for the promotion of Establishment organizations or official narratives. End or citation.

Personal comment; This means plainly try and cease the posting of statements by standing politicians to voters if it is not relevant to deep politics.

I've edited the page to give an example of how (slightly) non relevant info can be added to such a page. Another good choice would've also been to research the voting pattern of an MP, or scandals of the companies an MP worked for before standing.

Be aware that the editor undertakings and style guide also advise to not use personal attacks in any responses on this site - in particular ad hominem - which will result in faster and more harsh sanctions. (attacking the person rather than the argument). My advise would be to try and trim all these MP pages and only put in what's relevant, and otherwise.... just leave it alone and work on other projects the site has listed left in the sidebar. Or... help increase our funding. Start a social media campaign, help us find volunteer programmers. Quality over quantity. A copy of the this decision has also been forwarded to Robin, in case any suspicion may arise of this being a spontaneous or personal clandestine action.

Kind regards. Jun, Administrator. (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I second Jun on this. While I am fine with letting sympathies for some principled politicians (like Corbyn) shine through, I do think the large amount of borderline puff pieces for certain candidates and parties don't add anything to the site.Terje (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Jun.
Having been a WS editor since 10 March 2013 (, I have to admit this is my first sight of the WS "Editor Undertakings" page – – though I'm aware of the style guide – – having used its infobox image many times on social media posts.
I am not a member of any political party. My recent focus on the Green Party of England and Wales and its candidates is because it is not an establishment party like the Tories, Labour and Reform UK. That's why I've also focused on the Workers Party of Britain, its candidates such as Craig Murray and Chris Bradburn, and its leader George Galloway. Neither the Greens nor the WPGB get anything like adequate corporate media coverage, while George Galloway is never invited to appear on TV election debates. Nigel Farage on the other hand is seldom off our screens.
I shall in future endeavour to tailor my edits to comply with WS requirements.
Kind regards.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)