Police man Twinkle Head.svgThis user contributes with Twinkle.



Welcome!

Hello, Ashattock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bhadani 13:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Data Control & SystemsEdit

I added a substantial amount of information that I remember from working in Data Control. Heath Graham now lives in Battle, Hastings, England and is employed by a company in London. Scott has expanded his company and it appears to have become a major multi-national corporation. As I am the originator of the information, there is little more that can be added or disregarded since this is not research, but facts from source. Many of the Zimbabwean companies mentioned have since merged, liquidated or been sold and the original employees are scattered across the globe. There are no reliable sources on the Internet left and the last of Clint Sim's words are only available on www.linux.co.za. Long may they survive. I make special mention of him because his children will one day come across that information and know his dad was worth something and a much cared for person. Please, don't allow that to be taken from them. Ashattock (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious loss of the Gorle Victoria CrossEdit

This is a true story of the origins of the Gorle Victoria Cross' loss. There is much work being undertaken to retrieve the medal and returned to the original family from whence it was removed without permission. The reason it is being documented is to highlight how valuable items with a registered serial number can be stolen and paraded as legitimate gains to collections under the guise of legitimacy. Fraud cause immense losses annually among the collectors' worlds and this is one that has interesting historical relevance and subsequent methods of detective work used to regain an historical object for private individuals and families.Ashattock (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Do you have any reliable sources for this accusation? If not remove it immediately or I will --Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately for Kernel Saunters, I do have reliable sources. The family who owned it are the source. The half sister of Robert Gorle owned it when it mysteriously disappeared. She never authorised it's disposal and it was her wish to have it returned to the family heirlooms. Her heirs still have the mini cross that usually is sold with the medal itself, to the best of my knowledge. Ashattock (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No original research.--Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Kernel Saunters would do well to remember that that Original Research rule does not apply to talk pages. Please note that this is a talk page. Ashattock (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

I've opened a discussion about this on the article talkpage to provide you with a forum without getting into an edit war over the article itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Any assistance on expanding this article would be greatly appreciated. I am writing a reliable article and the fact it need time to be fleshed out should not be an hindrance to its creation and discussion. Having said that, it is remarkable that Wikipedia doesn't desire to hold original research as being within its capabilities of factual issues even if there is no written record of the facts attributable to anyone. Such articles should be noted as being titled as "Inconclusive and Unverified" as the main header of the article. There are facts and truths that are not able to be proven based on evidence but the final outcome itself may well prove the initial event. The difference is the time between conclusion and initiatives to clarify the source.

The primary problem with that is that encyclopedias, which Wikipedia is one, do not use original research, but they rather synthesize previously published material. That said, if you can dig up reliable sources like newspapers or magazines that cover your topic, you can add material based on them to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible for unpublished sources to be referenced? Ashattock (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends, but published sources are greatly preferred. See WP:PRIMARY. And even then they should be publicly available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That in itself is interesting. The definition of publicly available does not necessarily mean globally available in that the published items may only be available to view in a local police station on documents that are written by hand and never transferred digitally to the wired world. That evidence cannot very verified by anyone except the viewer and the inherent trust is vested in the viewer as opposed to the researcher. The fact that a verified viewing of the source cannot be produced for global viewing but is publicly available at the localised source means that arguments against its existence are futile and cyclical. This is a case in point in this particular article and I think the only thing I can do is produce photographic evidence itself for the article and let readers decide on the veracity of the claims themself. it is a single known case that Original Research is actually not research but direct from witness instead. So therefore it is not original research at all. Comments?Ashattock (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Content of automated email reply from House of Lords after sending notification to Lord Ashcroft through official channels. No reply has been received as yet. Thank you for your email which has been received by the House of Lords Attendants Office.

This email address is strictly for contacting individual Members of the House of Lords and emails for individual Members will be forwarded. However, the address cannot be used for bulk mail shots or to forward one message to multiple Members. Any identical messages sent to more than six Members of the House of Lords will be deleted.

For Information about Lords membership, work, role and function please email hlinfo@parliament.uk or phone 0207 219 3107.

Freedom of Information requests to the House of Lords should be sent to hlinfo@parliament.uk

Any sales promotions, advertisements or duplicate lobbying emails will be deleted.

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail."

Received 24th March 2015, 14H30 GMT

Articles are required to be neutral in POV and that's hard to do when working with primary documents. The key thing with primary sources is that they generally are not neutral (see WP:NPOV) and must be used with circumspection. The main point about publicly available is that somebody else can access them, even if physical access is required for off-line sources. We're well aware that much information, maybe even most, isn't digital, so file numbers, etc., are necessary when citing primary sources so that that particular bit can be located. Original research also includes conclusions that you draw from sources, so it's not just documentary in nature as you've seemed to conclude above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Further to this story is that a person of interest has been established as the suspect. Whilst I know who it is the name shall remain withheld. Ashattock (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The physical evidence is now in my possession alongside the original family records written in 1965 complete with original photographs. Unfortunately British police refuse to investigate the case without Zimbabwe Republic Police request for assistance through Interpol which means the thief has got away scot-free with the international crime. Ashattock (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bureau of Economic GeologyEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bureau of Economic Geology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.beg.utexas.edu/about/who-we-are. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OnionRing (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Submission rejected, againEdit

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find usefulEdit

  • Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
  • "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
  • We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
  • Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
  • Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Book of Revelation, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure you understand: the Bible isn't a reliable source for anything inside Wikipedia. Religious primary sources should be avoided, their analysis should be left to WP:SECONDARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Partially fulfilled Ashattock (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you know the biblical punishment for false prophecy? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2020Edit

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Robert Mugabe. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder whether UN convention on human rights is sufficient to remove colour distinctions in favour of ethnic or political distinctions instead?
I have never met a people who identify as purple, green or orange so why is it acceptable to use yellow, black or white? I have met white Africans and African Americans along with Caribbean Britons but none are the skin time you'd expect to see. Or these people in darkness and racial Discrimination becomes nearly impossible. Ashattock (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It is acceptable to write "white" in articles because reliable secondary sources use the term. We follow what the sources say. Elizium23 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
While "reliable" sources use it, it is racial discrimination terminology and as such should be removed from encyclopedia pages because it is a form of unbalanced bias. Ashattock (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In response, I also note that WP:NPOV states exactly what I'm commenting on. I am not trying to Right A Great Wrong but balance the racial bias except where it is quoted from a "reliable source". Am I incorrect in suggesting this?Ashattock (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Martin P. A. Jackson concernEdit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Martin P. A. Jackson, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Can't be arsed. 92.40.182.156 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)