Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor

RAF Hawthorn

RAF Hawthorn - SW ComCen was also located in the underground facility as a seperate command.Wwwhatsup 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Truthseeker

User ALR is really annoying and keeps removing factual information and dubbing it "conspiracy theory" when is evidenced by materials available in the public records office. User ALR has a problem with UFO researchers and is dubbing us "nutters and idiots". With this attitude it is no wonder that any time anyone tells the true story about P&SS involvement in UFO report investigation then ALR removes this information and is treating this WIKI page as the truth according to him and only him. References to books removed by ALR. Why? Links to useful pages, removed also by ALR. Why.

What is ALRs problem. Can someone please investiagate and sanction this user. Truthseekers666 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Truthseekers666 Matthew Williams 2-2010

You now title this personal attack by Truthseeker> This is the pot calling the kettle black after calling our work that of "nutters and idiots", and removing many refs and additions to the wiki of RAF Rudloe Manor. You redact and redact and now that this matter has been raised you consider it a personal attack? Well to stop this upsetting you any further please try and maintain information when it is posted on the Wiki, Today you removed two pieces of information I put up and also have now lost a link to a picture uploaded specifically to illustrate the points I am trying to make in helping this Wiki page not suffer from your redactions all the time. We have been through this 6 months ago when I uploaded lots of informatiopn and it all dissapeared because of you. Its time to grow up and face the music. Truthseekers666 (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Can someone in the know expand up the abbreviations in the article, spotted the following unexplained abbreviations

• ROC
• RNSD
• DCSA
• HQ P&SS

Keith D (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ROC = Royal Observer Corps. RNSD = Royal Navy Stores Depot, DCSA - Defence Communication Services Agency - P&SS = Provost & Security Services. Truthseekers666 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All, or Some?

There appears to be some dispute over the use of the term all in the article. My interpretation of the source is that it refers to all unexplained reports, which would mean only a subset of those investigated by the low flying complaints team. That would mean that the use of the term all in the article is inappropriate. I would prefer to use a more nuanced term, some which accounts for the fact that not all reports would be passed to the centre.

Grateful for views.

ALR (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Continue removal of useful ref links by ALR

Although I have stated that the inlcusion of P&SS UFO investigation scan and the letter from MOD to C Fowler relating to P&SS UFO file handling of a more recent date are important as they are direct evidence which shows the working status of P&SS in the UFO debate which up until I gave these ref was classed as "Conspiracy Theory" by user ALR. Now that these scans are in place so user ALR can no longer make the claim that these things are "Theory" but are actually FACT, user ALR keeps removing saying that "This has been referred to enough. We are talking about the media link on the end of the ref 2 being the following words "PHOTO HERE"... which ALR keeps removing. He says that the words are "cluttering up" the page. Two words! Cluttering. Yet again I am asking for this ALR and his motives to be looked at. I am very unhappy that I got banned last year for much much less than ALR si up to now. How can this be? I was banned from wiki by IP because I put the said same information on the page. Now I am a user of some standing ALR cannot ban me. Now he is just choosing to keep removing this information. The words censorship and pride come to mind. I am just interested in accurate portrayal of facts which is what citing refs is all about. I am properly citing refs not only by saying them, by prividing the actual documents to cite them with. ALR what is your excuse. Remove refs, remove evidence... alter facts! Very bad show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a very clear difference of outlook here. As far as I'm concerned there is a very rational explanation for investigating low flying incidents, it allows the pilots breaking the rules to be disciplined. If one starts from a presumption that a report is a perceived low flying incident, then it is investigated as such. Reports that cannot be attributed to a pilot, or otherwise explained were then collated in London. If one starts from an assumption that it's a UFO then it's very difficult to take the debate anywhere else. The reference indicates a very clear process; complaint, investigation, resolution or communication of the report. I do take issue with your misrepresentation of the source to suggest that all low flying incident reports were passed to town, it's very clear from the letter that they weren't.

The reference articulated in the article is enough to get a copy of that letter from TNA, a poor quality image of the letter adds nothing to the discussion. Removing the link to the image is not removal of evidence, the reference is still present and anyone who wants to go and read the complete letter is at liberty to do so, based on that. It is worth cautioning that the letter is a primary source and needs interpretation to be useful. One can either carry out that interpretation from an informed basis, or an ill-informed basis, hence the cautions around using primary sources in Wikipedia unless absolutely necessary.

To focus on the point about theories or otherwise, I acknowledge that titling the section conspiracy theories lent some credence to the assumption that there was a conspiracy. The title is now a statement of fact, there was a low flying investigation unit, that went through a number of names through the years. You and a number of your colleagues work from the assumption that there was a formal workstream in HQ P&SS investigating UFOs, a theory that in not acknowledging this there is or was a conspiracy. What we've now done is removed any reference to your theories, so there is no longer a need to consider them.

ALR (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The image appears to add no value to the article apart from also being non-free and bad quality. It does not appear to have any relevance to RAF Rudloe Manor. Apart from the fact is is almost unreadable I cant see the relevance so suggest it should be removed. Being a non-free image without a rationale the image should also be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User ALR: Chris Fowlers letter (the one you seem keen to remove the refs to) says UFO reports were sent to London... not low flying complaints. So we are talking about the UFO side of things. You have not cited any reference to be able to say "all flying complaints sent to London", as this is your opinion. Who knows it may be true, but what are you basing your opinions on? What I was giving with the bit about the UFO reports is backed up by the MOD letter stating as such. As a cited reference the letter was a question asked by Mr C Fowler about RAF Rudloe Manors involvement in UFO reporting. He got a direct reply. So in this instance in order to make it clear to the Wiki reader that this is not just speculation in a subject matter such as UFOs which is highly controversial and colored by some peoples opinions, it is very important to cite references. Simply stating the existence of some hitero "Letter to Mr Fowler", as a ref of a point, the Wiki reader will possibly say to him/herself "what letter to Mr Fowler, what was he asking, where do I read this letter". It is surely more helpful at that point to say, here click and see, instead of leaving the Wiki reader floundering around in the dark. Being someone who requires "Illumination" in ones life you should know this concept by now. Your quite happy to leave the ref in, which hints there is more to know, but not to allow the user to press the clickable link to easily go to the ref page which to me seems crazy. (Aside: So whilst we are at it why not take the steering wheel of your car off too, you know where you can buy one and refit one yourself!) What I am saying is lets put all the information where it should be easily accessable and not make people have to jump through hoops to find it. USER ALR: It was probably you who suggested my research was a "conspiracy theory" and titled the WIKI as such. Now you say you have removed the **MY** title "conspiracy theory". I doubt I would ever use that title when I was always in receipt of proven facts by the docs I had back then and have put up now. So please do not ascribe me as the originator of P&SS as Conspiracy Theory. Whilst we probably both know of the wild stories that are out there about Rudloe Manor I have kept those out of this page to keep it entirely factual. However I may put a "cpnspiracy theory on RNSD page re underground train link to London" as this is one of those highly talked about myths that seemed to circulate in Military and Public circles when discussing the secrets of the base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure comment about the low-flying is really relevant to an article about Rudloe Manor it would have been one of many roles, operations and task the RAF Police did that were controlled from Rudloe Manor and gives undue weight to one minor operation. Far more notable point about low flying is it fail to note that the RAF Police were given radar systems to trap low flying aircraft including the use of some former Argentine radars left behind on the Falklands. But all this is probably far more relevant to an article about the RAF Police then the station. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then talk about all the functions of RAF Rudloe Manor, that is better to do than what you are suggesting which is to pull all information off the page which goes into further detail. Yes I agree the Argie Radars is interesting it should be up there. Also UFOs are of extreme interest to the public so deserve to be listed there too. No I dont want to read about the daily thoughts of the RAF Rudloe Manor toilet cleaner. I too find it very hard to read Milbournes replies as he seems to overlook the subject matters he is then commenting on which seems very odd. Mr C Fowlers letter explains that RAF Rudloe Manor was a "focal point" for all UFO reports which were then passed onto London. Did you read these docs? Now if we take Mr or Mrs ALR and Milbourne (whoever you are) opinion out of the debate, the opinions are based on personal feelings, else cite your refs or state "I heard from a friend", rather than on factual sources such as Mr Fowlers letter in which the MOD facts are clear. Milbourne your opinions and personal biases are are interesting but dont add anything to the facts that RAF Rudloe Manor was a central body that dealt with UFOs and the P&SS document shows they also Investigated them. If you dont want to read about this fine, thats why this section has only two lines of text - which equates to one paragraph of information on the whole page which details its UFO involvement. Does Milbourne suggest removal of all UFO information on the page alltogether so it states nothing of their involvement with UFOs? Where does Milbourne suggest it goes instead? Perhaps he feels offended by its inclusion, which doesnt surprise me as he seems like another like ALR who is personally offended by UFO information going up against an RAF base name. Well sorry gentlemen/ladies whoever you are, its a fact. It might not be a fact you want to hear but its a fact none the less. Wiki deals with mostly facts. I think it belongs for that reason. Truthseekers666 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It does get undue prominence, but largely because the UFO-hunting fraternity seized on Rudloe being a hub for low flying investigations, hence receiving reports of UFOs. They tend to jump from there to concluding that the RAF had something more than a passing interest in the topic as an outcome of something else.

Even now, 10 years after Site 1 closed, there are still instances of these individuals trying to break in to the tunnel network, and the camp, in an effort to prove that the aliens are kept down there, alongside the nuclear reactor that's apparently down there and keeping Elvis company.

However, the notability of the low flying investigation activity is probably not easily demonstrable, so it could be reasonable to remove it. None the the sources that discuss it are particularly reliable, mainly being the personal hobby horses of a handful of individuals.

ALR (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you cant see that this is a document relating to an investigation of a UFO then I am flabbergasted. Its titled UFO Seen at Trull Taunton. Not Low Flying Complaint! So how is it you cant understand this Milbourne? Have you read the document before commenting here? Sorry to be this blunt. It is a miltary UFO investigation. No where it is concluded that this is an aircraft. If you think this is low flying then that is your opinion. Go with what the document says. Go with the facts. On that basis you cannot then decide that this document is of no use based on its being Low Flying Investigation related and of no significance. Yes the department who looks into this also handles low flying complaints but this is not one. Re read, rethink and come back with something that follows the facts please. Truthseekers666 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the RAF Station at Rudloe Manor at one point headquarters to the RAF Police as far as I am aware the RAF Police did not operate any UFOs. It is almost impossible to read the letter as it is such poor quality but as far as I can see it has nothing to do with Rudlow Manor. It is an report on an investigation following an observation by a member of the public handed at at RAF Chivenor (in Devon) written up by the investigator and passed to his big boss in London. All it proves that UFO observations were investigated by a RAF Police Sergeant and a report passed to his big boss in London. Sounds like he was just doing his day job. No relevance at all the Rudloe Manor. So my suggestion is the letter has no encyclopedic value and should be removed and the bit about low flying is also not really needed in this article and should be removed as well. It may well be that any thing notable on low flying could be added to the RAF Police article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the above is just speculation and personal opinion and as holds no weight against the factual evidence presented in the document this will not sway the debate. Truthseekers666 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY for discussion on how to use primary sources and the fact that they're discouraged in Wikipedia. As stated, one can interpret the letter from either an informed, or an ill informed position based on ones inherent assumptions of meaning and leading to a divergence of views as to meaning.

We each of us clearly have very different experiences, and understandings of the subject. As identified you appear unwilling to accept the opinion of someone not already in your circle of enthusiasts, this appears to be pretty insurmountable so I would suggest that the issue could be raised at the Reliable sources noticeboard or the Fringe theories noticeboard.

ALR (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

However we are not making a massive primary discussion on Wiki of the points hinted at on the RAF Rudloe Manor. Two lines of explaination of the role of the Low Flying complains division which quickly alludes to their having a UFO investigation role. So as to not "clutter" the page we seem to have now settled on the amount that is there with cited refs. Its seems the deletions are coming to a halt now and that is good. The subject of if you or I believe in UFOs doesnt matter, the point is that Rudloe Manor is recognised in literature and books as having dealt with UFOs and to not represent this in some small, if not tiny way, would be a disservice to Wiki users. Its like talking about the Queen but not saying shes froma German bloodline because some royalist is offended. These things matter. I suggest we just agree to disagree on UFOs and agree to keep the most basic points possible to demonstrate the case for UFOs in some capacity being investigated by P&SS whos home became Rudloe Manor. 95% of the page is nothing to do with UFOs. You may not be aware of it but for many years I knocked heads with Nick Pope of the MOD UFO desk who claimed there was no DI-55 investigating UFOs. Govt files we found showed there was. Now years on he is allowed to speak that he worked with them on UFOs and wasnt allowed to tell us. So we dont put this stuff out without certainty. The ministry of defence always plays down disclosure of its workings. We are simply journalists trying to make sure that the facts get pt out there and not pushed underground. On your point of am I interested in listening to your opinion, but only if it is backed up by your preparedness to come forward as a verified source and name yourself and explain how you could know these things. Vagueness like "He said, she said" or from a friend of a friend isnt good enough. If you want to be the number one source on this subject by stating you worked for RAF Rudloe Manor or P&SS so know definitively what you are talking about then fine, but if you are not then how can what you say be taken seriously. For all I know you could be making things up, although I doubt thuis as your knowledge does seem good. Myths and rumours are always prefaced as such by myself. Truthseekers666 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as somewhat unusual that a journalist skims over the distinction between primary and secondary sources so easily. The distinction, and indeed the Wikipedia policies, are very germane to this particular discussion.

The point of the various Wikipedia policies is to ensure that we have no requirement to rely on personal competence and knowledge. It is completely irrelevant to the editing process whether I have worked at Rudloe, Henlow, DIS or otherwise. My experience does allow me to interpret the various sources from a well informed perspective. As an example since I know what DI-55s role was I can understand why they would have an interest in events that we would describe as unexplained aerial phenomena, hence the register of events compiled by Mr Pope, his predecessors and successors. Their role was not to investigate UFOs but I can understand why someone coming from your perspective would interpret the knowledge that they had an interest in these incident reports as being a role investigating UFOs. From a purely factual perspective Mr Pope was telling the truth, DI55 were not investigating UFOs.

This is an example of why Wikipedia positively discourages use of primary sources. WE should work from reliable, secondary, sources as much as possible, preferably sources that have been through some form of independent validation.

I am inclined to agree with MilborneOne on this issue, the role of one section within the HQ is disproportionate and unless the notability of that section can be demonstrated using reliable, secondary sources, then it may be most appropriate to remove it completely.

ALR (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that the role of departments such as P&SS and DI-55 were more widespread than you and others want to give credit, and MOD staff were instructed to "play down" UFO investigations - these instructions is on files we have more than once. This is what you are also doing here! Take just one example: DI-55 Squadron Leader Ernie Humpston stated on file (which is at the National Archives) that his section was swamped by UFO reports and wanted extra staff to be able to deal with these investigations. These recommendations are explicit, however when he was interviewed in person he neither wanted to speak on these matters and even **denied** he ever dealt with UFO reports. We know that UFO calls from public and MOD were routinely passed to P&SS and I have many witnesses on file who testify to this. DI-55 role being to look into Nuclear missile and "space" technology gave them a broader handle on these subjects. Contrary to your position that this dept did not have a large role in these matters Nick Pope says now he regularly spoke to DI-55 on UFO matters! How well do you know or speak to Mr Pope? This may counter your position that these departments only had fleeting interest in these issues. I propose the references stay. Unless of course you can verify who you are, name and rank so we can validate you are not just making up your importance and we can check your testimony to make sure you are nothing proves wrong with your credentials. Sorry to be blunt on this but I have met many people in my research who claim to be things they are not. How do you proopose to prove your credentials so you can be taken seriously? I do find it completely relevant to the editing process as if we are concerned with Primary or Secondary information, where little exists from a secondary position because MOD will not comment Intelligence then we have to work from the Primary sources, which do on primary (the case file) and secondary (confirmation from MOD) levels confirm P&SS role. So I think this satisfies that we are looking at the matter from an secondary point of view. You know if you remove these refs and I start to publicise the fact that a redactment cover-up is taking place from people who are claiming to be either ex or current employees of the MOD this will cause an even bigger stink than just leaving these references in, such being the nature of the UFO subject. This is not a threat, simply my duty to report these facts. Respectfully Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll reiterate the point that who I am isn't important as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. The onus is on you to provide reliable, secondary sources that support your arguments, not partial primary documents which are presented without context and have not been independently assessed. The relevant policies, which I've referred you to in the past are verifiability and the prohibition on original research, which you seem keen to ignore. I'd also make reference to the guidance around conflict of interest and the advice there about those with a conflict being encouraged to use reliable, secondary sources to support their efforts to contribute in a [[WP:NPOV| balanced and representative manner.

Can you provide a reliable, independent and audited secondary reference that supports your arguments?

ALR (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate that it is important who you are because from the publics point of view you are choosing to edit this page based suspetct reasons over not wanting the UFO connection to Rudloe Manor due to either your personal feelings on this or professioal connections. We are unable to ascertain if your just being childish or this is your day job which wants you to clean up and censor stuff for the MOD. When you cannot have your way you rally the support of another MOD person to back you up in a 2 onto 1 argument that the "information is irrelivant" argument. When the information was provel relevant and factual you take a new tack. I believe relating the UFO connection is fair as YOU CAN READ ABOUT IT IN MANY UFO BOOKS, so to not represent this fact to give the public a view as to what to further research would a a crime against information for this to be removed. You have treated this page like your own personal property, being offended when anyone else has edited it. If its numbers you need in order to make the point I will get you a hundred UFO researchers on here telling you how they feel it is important which would be a good starter. We the public are not going to be pushed around by you a alleged MOD person, freemason and apprently a person who seems to have dubious motives. If you are not prepared to identify yourself we can only fear the worst of why you are really doing this. Wiki should not be an anonymising shield which gives the MOD carte blance to alter encylopedic history to its ends, even though this is what the MOD or some of its staff might wish. Wiki was not designed as a tool for the Freemasons to lie about history or the MOD to censor the public.

Sorry to labor the point but Milborneone says the scan are of "no encyclopedic value" could be applied to the same photobucket/flicker amount of personal photos of aircraft which he has uploaded. Whilst very pretty and probably a useful resource to aircraft enthusiasts, if i were to be pedantic on the lines of "value" I could ask - why fill up Wiki with personal pictures? Is it because these pictures dont appear anywhere else photographed by others on the net? These UFO documents are very hard to see unless you go to the National Archives and pay to get them copied. Seeing someones personal photos has exactly the same appeal value to an air or military enthusiast as a UFO document does to a UFO researcher. Your photos and these ufo docs would be hard to see unless linked to the net yes? I think it is unfair for you to put your own interests above those of others and allude your interests are worthy therefore and ours are not. This seems like snobbery and I wish to see this end. If I wanted to be petty I could say the picture of "Firefox" aircraft is obscured and blurred and very hard to see and there are pleanty of clearer ones of it on the net so why bother... in a similar fashion to the comments you left about re the UFO scan document. Now I expect you feel the same way. I hope this serves to illustrate the point. Thank you. Truthseekers666 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You clearly are not aware of the guidelines on no personal attacks, you have already been warned once so I reserve the possibility of seeking a restriction on your editing if you continue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You dont like my points so just declare my points as personal attack so you can ban me? Then you get your way and the two of you MOD personnel, ALR and yourself can deny users their right to edit Wiki and alter historical details to suit the MODs agenda. This is known as censorship. You arent answering my valid points, your pictures to me seem like a stream of personal pics which are of low quality in many cases. This is an opinion not an attack. Im sorry if you take it this way. However it is an opinion connected to my point. Why are these more valid to have these pictures on WIKI and a UFO document is not. I restate the point that a low quality image of an aircraft simply respresents your travels around the globe and users could find other pictures of these items elsewhere so to clutter up Wiki with ones personal photos seems odd at the very least, considering you are so keen to keep Wiki pruned down. The P&SS document of which one page is a representation on Wiki not only presents the P&SS role in UFO investigation, and subject of a Parliamentary question which then briought forth information that MOD/National Archives had lied to the public on the subject of UFO's. How can you play this down? Highly suspicious. You or ALR stating that P&SS didnt do much of this stuff is just mere speculation unless you or ALR identify yourselves openly and state you know P&SS workings intimately so can validate this or cite your information. All of this is now being skewed into you saying I am not allowed to question your validity to make these assertions as a personal attack? Is this right, is this your basis for stating I am personally attacking you?

You are allowed to have how many of your personal pictures on Wiki? I am not allowed to have 2 lines of text and 2 scans to represent my points. When I dare question the authority motives of those choosing to redact information and question their MOTIVES this is boiled down into personal attack because I dare bring up your backgrounds as grounds for suspicion. Sadly I could not go about this any other way because if both of you are MOD and both or you are friends and are colluding to get this information removed then my flagging this as a possible conspiracy, which is what this appears to be, will be seen as personal attack perhaps. I am requesting an independent Admin NOT YOURSELF be brought into adjudicate someone who is not MOD. It is clear to me your interest in these matters may be casting an unfair light on these matters and the adjudication on these issues should be by someone of non-military background and therefore neutral. I think because I now requested that you step aside in this matter for reasons of fairness you should be willing to do so and we bring on board an Admin who confirms they are non-military and also NON-Freemason and confirms they do not know ALR and looks across the above debated points and gives their independent opinion. Clearly i am going to link yourself and ALR as conspiring in this matter and for the interests of fairness I think you should now step aside in this matter else it will be viewed as collusion due to you both having vested interests in the subject matter you are trying to deny me editing. This does require an independent view. I thank you for your efforts so far even though I do find their conclusions rather odd. Truthseekers666 (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As a reader of wikepedia i have to say i'm with Truthseekers666 on this subject. There is no point in deleting each others submissions just because people have other opinions. After all wikepedia is a source for everyone not just for those who contribute to it but for anyone who is interested to get to know the both sides of this subject. Truth are conspiracies for some and vice versa. It' always the majority who puts down the minority no matter who is stating what. I guess you get my point.

Another Truthseeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.111.208 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the removal of entries, including those by the origonal author: Arthur Warrington Thomas is absolutley obsurd. The information that User:Truthseekers666 has provided is useful as well as genuine. What ever happened to the freedom of information act? Does that not apply no longer here? This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.194.100 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked many who are interested in these subjects to attend this site now and make their presence felt and comment here on their feelings in the discussion. I hope they do soon. Truthseekers666 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

REFS Section

I noticed the refs section having multiple new sections listed as former dept working at Rudloe. Eack of these links has no page behind it. If nobody is going to create these pages it would seem sensible to remove the links and make them just text. However it would be nice to see the creator do these other pages, if he feels keen and has enough information to tackle it. Truthseekers666 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with red links refer Wikipedia:Red link. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Milborne: Thanks for quick reply. Are you wishing to put the information up? Would be handy if you wanted to put some brief info in those links to get the ball rolling, seeing as you seem to know something of these sections. Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I do have info on these subjects and they will get done by somebody at some point, remember wikipedia is a work in progress and is never complete. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Truthseekers666 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Provost gif fair use

ALR just took down provost.gif due to questions on its copyright status. I am currently getting clearance for this to be there with permission from National Archives. I have already got full permission to use the text from Graham Pearson of National Archives this morning and am awaiting word from Imaging section for their go ahead, as they deal with actual photographic representation copyright issues. It is interesting to note that one can freely quote from any National Archive record in full as text, but one "may" need permission for photos/photocopies. Whilst this is being discussed in open debate with jezHotwells (WIKI admin) and the time for resolution is not yet up, I would leave where it is for now. Its highly unlikely permission will be refused. Truthseekers666 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Although as stated it has no real encyclopedic value and will probably be a candidate for deletion. If the document is available in the public record then it can be cited no need to have an actual copy of it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I have put right the fact that as the first document to reveal P&SS involvement - subquent confirmed lies by National Achives to parliament over the documents whereabouts and proving that the MOD did send out officers to interview UFO witnesses which the MOD denied up to that point, this document is of unique significance. Not being a UFO researcher you simply cannot see this because you are not immerised in the subject. As such I would suggest you leave decisions about validity or importance of this document to the Ufologists who specialise in this type of material. We are Wiki users too, not just military buffs who seem to be deeply personally offended by UFOs being connected with the military, which as these documents prove is a fact... Isnt it odd how some people want these docs pushed out of the way. As a final note, if I were allowed to state the documents importance on the RAF Rudloe Manor page I would do so but I know what would happen there, all sorts of tantrums from old RAF Boys who treat this page like their own personal property rather than an open and fair resource for information. Truthseekers666 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be pushing the grounds of WP:CIVIL at this point and would suggest you dont apply motives to other editors. I also note nothing you have mentioned has anything to do with RAF Rudloe Manor. They are other articles related to the subject of UFOs which may be more appropriate than an article about a Royal Air Force station. As I have already said above somebody reports a UFO in Devon, RAF Policeman comes along does a bit of investigation, writes a report and sends it to his boss in London. Something fairly standard for a policeman to do. None of which is relevant to the RAF Station. MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well apply the same rules to ALR when he called UFO researchers "nutters and idiots". Whats good for the goose is good for the gander old chap. Or should I call you Flight Commander? Wouldnt want to cause any offence to someone on the inside of rank. The point is you and ALR are jumping all over this page because of one thing UFOs. You want to redact the information and it is clear you have an agenda which goes beyond the needs of Wiki and its users. Please tell us are you now or have you ever been employed in the Military. I think we should know this in order to best decide who is wanting this inormation dampened down. More over what are your names please too. Mine is Matthew Williams, Bishops Cannings, Wiltshire and I have nothing to hide what so ever. Truthseekers666 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you are assuming the motives of others and really should abide by WP:CIVIL, you are welcome to report ALR to the appropriate notice board if you think he has also broken civility guideline. Just out of interest I came to this page following Truthseekers666s request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests as an uninvolved admin with an interest in military articles. So I am a bit unsure why that user is now attacking my motives when he requested advice and help. I am also unclear why Truthseekers666 is now claiming on my talk page that he wrote the letter in the image, I had presumed the letter had been written by Sgt Scott or somebody on the P&SS staff. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I made no such claim to have written the letter. Its is from P&SS and part of MOD files from the National Archives. Please read above asection why I think it is wrong for curent or ex MOD personnel to be actively seeking to banish comments on UFOs etc from the RAF Rudloe Manor pages as they have vested interests. I wont repeat it all again here, read the above. Truthseekers666 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability and secondary sources

Since this question just resulted in yet another personal attack I'll raise it in a new section, the points are germane to ongoing editing efforts.

I'll reiterate the point that who I am isn't important as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. The onus is on you to provide reliable, secondary sources that support your arguments, not partial primary documents which are presented without context and have not been independently assessed. The relevant policies, which I've referred you to in the past are verifiability and the prohibition on original research, which you seem keen to ignore. I'd also make reference to the guidance around conflict of interest and the advice there about those with a conflict being encouraged to use reliable, secondary sources to support their efforts to contribute in a [[WP:NPOV| balanced and representative manner.

Can you provide a reliable, independent and audited secondary reference that supports your arguments?

ALR (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note P&SS document scan can be considered primary as it is a report. The Chris Fowler letter is not primary it is clearly secondary as it is Mr Fowler asking the MOD for an official line on the P&SS at Rudloe Manor, which he was told P&SS did "act as a focal point for UFO reports". So this secondary source is not opinion but research validation. This then makes the primary P&SS information valid for use because the secondary authority - MOD - agrees it. Does this seem correct? Truthseekers666 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They're both still primary sources, inasmuch as they are the original documents, not analysis of primary material that has been peer reviewed and validated. See WP:PRIMARY for the detail around why they're not acceptable.

ALR (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So if the information that was left up for 1 year under the "Title Conspiracy Theories" which was the original title, was returned and the information which was cited as refs was not primary information but secondary from a published book which discussed P&SS role in UFO investigations, because this is a mainstream published work available in the shops would you be satisfied with this source and allow the infomation back up? Seeing as it is being put about the rest of the world as fact, it would be rather odd for Wiki to be ignoring it. I have three books I could reference which have mentioned the role of P&SS in a factual and not speculatory way, using the primary documents I was using, but am not allowed to reference. Now cited in a book would this make a quote describing P&SS. Comments. 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability and suitability of sources

Is the section on the Low Flying Complaints Unit adequately notable and are the primary sources used to support the assertions acceptable? {who asked for this, was unsigned}

• They're all primary sources. Verbal chat 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia expressly forbids primary sources except when referenced by reliable sources and provided for the purposes of illustration. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest issues

Notwithstanding that the persistent calling into question the motives of other users is a form of attack considered as a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, the ongoing accusations of a conflict of interest are rather wearing and disruptive. The Wikipedia policies that apply to content are verifiability and No Original Research both of which essentially render ones knowledge or history with respect to the topic moot.

Guidance around how to edit when one has a conflict of interest is available at WP:COI and advice can be sought at the noticeboard

Clearly Truthseekers666 has a self declared conflict of interest around this topic, given that he appears to gain at least some compensation from writing about the topic of UFOs and related topics. This reinforces the need for him to provide credible sources to support his assertions, something that he appears unwilling, or is unable, to do.

ALR (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Truthseeker did provide you with documentary evidence of RAF Rudloe Manor and UFOs and you chose to delete his pictures and text. Now you state that he did not give evidence and was unable to do so. What is with you? I think he is right, this is a Military stitch up! Petey Brizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable, secondary sources. In general, we don't use primary sources except as illustrations, and we don't publish original research. Rklawton (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I provided the primary information sources was to silence ALR who was stating that I couldnt back up my points. If primary information isnt allowed then so be it. However it is well known that Provost and Security Services (P&SS) investigated UFOs. It is a matter of feature in many UFO books. It seems odd that Wiki admins want to ignore this. Or rather certain users with military backgrounds seem to not want it there. Would it be allowed back if as stated above book refences were given. If we are talking conflict of interests, how is it ok for an military (possibly ex military) person to have all the sway over redacting this page and this is NOT seen as a conflict of interest, and as such the primary role of say a user like ALR, who says he "may" have worked at RAF Rudloe Manor, but wont confirm this... again someone that close to the place is using his own knowledge to edit the pages based on primary research - surely? When I do the same and use my own research and knowledge to edit the page I am pulled up for it.

Why are the rules not being applied to editors who do this such as ALR also? I think this is a fair question to ask.

On the subject of conflict of interest issues, now the whole RAF Rudloe Manor page is Headlined by stating that is not a place to discuss UFOs etc. I request to know made this change because it seems unfair to decide what the flavour of a page can be so as to steer it away from information which might be secondary source verifiable and well known in public. The obvious strange conflict which now exists is that if you Wiki search Area 51 or even Dulce Base (which many contend doesnt even exist!) you can see wiki pages going on and on about these things in huge and unverified detail. So Wiki does infact allow discussion of UFO related matters. Why is it then that it can be deemed that RAF Rudloe Manor is somehow a special candidate for no discussion of its UFO investigation role even though this is exactly what it did????? I find this rather odd, so I hope you dont mind me asking who made this wide sweeping Headline change to the page, how can this be reviewed and can you help point one in the right direction to start the ball rolling or initiate this please. This is a very peculair state of affairs and if you could explain it to me, whoever is in charge of putting that statement there, I would be very grateful. Truthseekers666 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

External link

If no one has any objections I'm going to remove the last external link added as it's self-motivated promotional spamming by a user with a CoI. Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only that but it's awful. We don't need to link to pages full of vulgar language and poorly reasoned speculation, so let's not. Fully support removal. Verbal chat 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to the removal of this link I have a great interest on this subject and have viewed the evidence on the website and I think of the pictures to be real and truthful because I live near the area and have seen these places in the photos. I have no knowledge of who Truthseekers666 is but viewing his website have belief that what he says it true. I am currently seeking a way to get hold of the documents from the national records office for myself to see if these are real documents and I will tell you here what I find. Pete Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Truthseekers666 you seem to be under a fundamental misconception as to what Wikipedia is for. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. It doesn't matter to us whether or not they're real documents; what matters is whether or not they have been the subject of academically-credible analysis in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. What you're suggesting is classed by Wikipedia as original research and is specifically forbidden by our core editing policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means to propagate new research or theories, and any editor is not only encouraged but expected to remove anything that contravenes this. We follow, we don't lead, so when this information is published in reliable secondary sources such as academic journals, peer-reviewed books or newspapers with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then and only then can we think about including it. EyeSerene^talk 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it ok for someone other than yourself to put your link on the site but not yourself. The logical falacy of it is that anyone is capable of asking a friend to put a link up there on ones own behalf. The it might not be questioned. The whole issue of what is appropriate is very subjective because a page full of photos of RAF Rudloe Manor is being deemed not suitable as a external site that people can go to see more information - rather it is that it was put up by the user himself. Whilst I cannot change Wikis editors views because they are bound by such apparent tight rules I would like comment on why www.derilicte.co.uk link is considered valid when it contains a few photos and comments - complete with advertising. What is the difference? The user who created Derlicte may have put the link up himself, or a friend for him... which is self promotion. However that link is allowed.

If you want to attack my website by stating that it is full of vulgar language the that is your opinion and should not be a reason for removal simply due to that. I disagree that there is vulgar language on the page in question. Stating also that the link being these is self promotional spamming is not true. The site has existed on the net since 1998, and Wiki was only created in 2001, so my website and these photos are hardly generated purely to have the purpose of spamming Wiki. These assertions are just your opinions and need not bear any relation to what happens with links. Just as an observation, it seems when you dare raise points like these bans come into effect for me, but even though user "Canterbury Tail" has made personal attacks this user will not be put in their place, of this I am sure. It is interesting also that users like Milbourneone can have personal pictures on Wiki showing obscured cut off portions of aircraft and serious photographic defects (colour burn) on the Wiki site and the question of quality of material is never raised no is that of this being the users own materials Primary in nature not having been checked by any secondary sources and peer reviewed and agreed valid - no he can just upload as many pictures as he sees fit. However when this user dares put up a link to an off Wiki site of pictures, not even loading Wiki down with the data storage - he is told NO NO NO NO NO from about 15 different directions with as many different reasons why he cannot have his link/pictures/scans. I hope the stark divergence in logic is being seen here and the issue of bias now clearly understood. Perhaps someone can explain why some users are blessed to be able to put their materials up and some users are cursed and to be deleted entirely? Truthseekers666 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read our policy on external links. Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read this and about the only thing I can pick up on that you may not like is "unveirifable information" - which I content under the rule "Photos are neutral". Another reason perhaps wanting to limit amount of links on page - however 2 links is not excessive surely? Perhaps the most likely reason is that I posted the link myself for a website I own. Can it be verified who posted the link for derilicte.co.uk then. The users have blocked their details from inspection with Nominet so it could well be posted by a user who edits the RAF Rudloe Manor pages. If we discover who runs this site and they are on the Rudloe Manor page should this be deleted also?

Thank you Rklawton. User Verbal chose on another page "crop circles" to delete my link to my website there also. However Verbal did not bother to check the other links, some of which link to conetnt which requires plugin software to be installed. This is discouraged by Wiki policy external links but for some reason Verbal chose to only take a keen interest in removing my link and not bothering checking anything else or doing any other work. I find this odd and Verbal has followed me on to this page to decry my links. The words Witch Hunt come to mind. Can you please explain what reasons you feel apply to why the links need to be removed? If it would make you happier I could easily provide another wesbite which is not owned by myself but uses my aerial photos of Rudloe Manor. AFter all derlicte does not have such aerial photography and only covers Site1 of the base. Pointing to the policy page does not address the many points I have made- re some users being able to post personal photos directly to Wiki but myself not even being allowed to make a link to photos. If I were to upload my photos of Rudloe Manor directly to Wiki how many miliseconds would it take before editors removed them, just because its me.

I draw your attention to [[1]] a "gallery" of pictures, some of which are even classified "unidentified" bird pictures and this is seen as perectly fine. I feel obligated to do this considering my own issues being looked into. I consider this type of gallery to be exactly the type of thing I would not be allowed to do! These sorts of galleries should be on a users own flicker pages or personal website and not to use Wiki space for personal advertising or gratification - which is directly what I seem to be being told I cannot do.

Failure to solve all problems in an article is not justification for ignoring one problem nor does it indicate mal intent on the editor's part. Our editors pick and choose their projects. When we identify a problem, in this case a problem editor, it's natural to pursue all related damage. Indeed, it is common to focus specifically on that problem to the exclusion of other issues. For example, I found an editor who falsely claimed copyrights on a photo she uploaded and included in an article. Clearly it wouldn't make sense to require me, a volunteer, to clean up the entire article simply because I felt obliged to remove the image. Likewise, it made perfect sense to evaluate her other image uploads to see if she lied about them as well. It took considerable effort, but it turns out she lied about all her uploads (if memory serves). In the end, she was banned across all Wiki projects, and all her images were removed. I'm sure you'll agree that this approach worked out best for everyone. In the case at hand, you wish to promote your personal beliefs via your website. When reviewing this website, many editors, myself included, saw no evidence of credibility. Maintaining such links in any of our articles would prove a disservice to our readers. If we lowered our standards to this level, we would have hundreds of thousands of people claiming the right to post links to their self-created websites. Obviously this isn't in our reader's best interest. They can always use an internet search engine to find those sorts of links. And so we insist on removing your links. Web pages and images are manifestly not comparable. To that end, we have separate policies for each, and many of us have already noted the problems associated with publishing your links. Insofar as your images are concerned, the point is moot. You have not uploaded them to share. If you should do so, we could discuss the merits of including them in this article. I think that if your images help illustrate the article then we would welcome them. I am an experienced photographer and have uploaded many images and included them in many articles. Some would consider this self-serving, and it is, but when these images are the best available, and when these images help illustrate the article, then they remain because they benefit us all. They are, as you noted, "neutral" (actually, I disagree that images are neutral, but that's a point for another day). Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally something constructive which seeks my input rather than ways to shut it down. Thank you for this. I will go ahead with this as soon as possible. Truthseekers666 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Would someone please undo this edit by User:Truthseekers666 in which he links to his own website, clearly a non-reliable source that fails WP:EL? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done EyeSerene^talk 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone else please add the following to the page. Also, this requires the removal of the image of the manor and the coordinates. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

{{infobox military structure |name = RAF Rudloe Manor |native_name = |partof = |location = [[Corsham]], [[Wiltshire]], [[England]] |image = [[File:RudloeManorHawkins.jpg|250px]] |caption = Rudloe Manor main house |map_type = |latitude = |longitude = |map_size = |map_alt = |map_caption = |type = |coordinates = {{coord|51|25|14.28|N|2|13|0.70|W}} |code = |built = |builder = |materials = |height = |used = 1930s-2000 |demolished = |condition = Standing |ownership = Private, Military |open_to_public = No |controlledby = |garrison = |current_commander = |commanders = |occupants = |battles = [[World War II]], [[Cold War]] |events = |image2 = |caption2 = }}

Done, Woody (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I for one do not find it clear at all that my photos website is "clearly unreliable". I think User:Steven J. Anderson had better explain properly why he feels this and not be so vague. However I know what will be said next, discussion of these issues is not allowed, so if you wish to explain this please do so on my private Talk page so as to not upset the admins of this page. Truthseekers666 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Delighted to see this on ANI

Saw the name Ruldloe on ANI and homed in this page. I walked past this place last year while staying at Rudloe Hall Hotel (No, I don't recomend it), but couldn't find its name. The manor is a really amazing, under appreciated architectural gem. Carolean Grade 1, I would guess. If anyone has any photos or knowledge of the house, not the modern blocks dwarfing it, I would relly like to write it up.  Giano  21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unref -> refimprove?

The unreferenced template could potentially be switched to a refimprove template. Any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Edit

Milborneone put a tabled guide to the units stationed at Rudloe Manor. However even through all of the P&SS deebate of should it stay or should it go, I notice that P&SS is not listed in the table of units attached to Rudloe Manor - and dates. An oversight. Does someone wish to insert this information. Truthseekers666 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)