User talk:PJHaseldine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, PJHaseldine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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!  Just H 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Miles[edit]

Several links now point to the dab page - I trust you're going to tidy them up to point to the right articles (looks like 5:1 in favour of the journalist). PamD (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: I've fixed the loose links.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Dear Mr. Haseldine, Thank you for your reformatting of Oliver and Hugh's pages. I assume you were alerted to my tinkering with the pages (just had to add reference to the incomparable Julia who is responsible for so much of their success). cheers, A small Canadian.--- (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Il n'y a pas de quoi.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your note. The appreciation is appreciated! South Africa under apartheid still needs a lot of cleanup. Regards, Zaian (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit ban[edit]

This message is to notify you that per the consensus expressed at the COI noticeboard, you are prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. You may still contribute to related discussions and talk pages. Further details (which can be found at User:PJHaseldine/Community_sanction) are as follows:

A community sanction has been established at this discussion:

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles:

This topic ban does not include talk pages or related discussions.

To be clear, should you violate this restriction and edit in areas you are topic-banned from, you will be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gerard Corley Smith[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerard Corley Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's nice!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Community ban[edit]

Patrick, please help me understand how this edit is not in contravention of your community ban above. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question is to an article VPRO Backlight that deals with a series of television documentaries. Gideon Levy is the Dutch film director of one of the programmes entitled "Lockerbie revisited". Please refer to the following discussion (retrieved from Archive 5):

Speedy deletion of Gideon Levy

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Gideon Levy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RolandR (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The other Gideon Levy is a Dutch film director for the public service broadcaster VPRO whose output includes a documentary 'Lockerbie revisited' which was broadcast in Holland on the eve of the start of Mr Megrahi's second appeal in April 2009 (see On the VPRO website there are links to June 2005 interviews by Gideon Levy (film director) featuring Dr Jim Swire and Robert Black (professor) (see Perhaps you would like to create an article on Gideon Levy (film director) and reinstate the Gideon Levy disambig page that was deleted earlier today.---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I left a reply for that note on my talkpage.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of this other Gideon Levy, so I am clearly not qualified to create an entry about him. If you think he is notable, why not do so yourself. If you need any help with this, let me know. Even then, however, a disambig page would not be appropriate, since the journalist is far better known. It would be better to use a hatnote to distinguish them. RolandR (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Since Gideon Levy (film director)'s main claim to fame is his documentary entitled "Lockerbie revisited", I am probably precluded by my edit ban from creating his biography. So I'll have to leave that task to someone else!---PJHaseldine (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

From the above, you can see that, because of the community ban, I had to decline creating Gideon Levy's biography.---PJHaseldine (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to do it, you could, in your user space, create a draft article on the topic and suggest that it be reviewed by another editor and, should the other editor be willing to take responsibility for it, moved by that editor to article space. I do not suggest doing this to create controversial content, so be careful. --Abd (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

PJH, if you have any question about what is covered by the ban, or what you are permitted to do, you should consult the closing administrator for the ban, who would normally be the go-to person about maintaining the ban, or ending it. The closure was at [1]. --Abd (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion below, I see that User:Ncmvocalist who closed my community ban is not actually an administrator. Moreover, from the ANI discussion, it appears that Ncmvocalist was given a final warning six months ago about serious misbehaviour. For these reasons, I shall not be consulting this "go-to person about maintaining the ban, or ending it".
I do not propose to contest the 2-week block, which ends just after midday on 8 July 2009. It is worth noting however that the Appeal Court in Edinburgh is to resume on 7 July 2009, whereupon it is expected that Mr Megrahi's conviction for the Lockerbie bombing will be quashed, and that he will be set free to return to his wife and family in Libya. Someone should ensure that this development is fully reported in all of the Wikipedia articles where I am currently topic banned. (Update as at 7 July 2009: due to illness of one of the five Appeal Court judges, the long-awaited overturning of Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction has been delayed for several more months - see Scotsman newspaper articleLockerbie bomber could die before appeal outcome, BBC News reportHeart op delays Lockerbie appeal and Prof. Robert Black's report.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
As to the extent of the community ban, it was not just Abd who thought it was to be a "temporary measure" - both SamJohnston and Georgewilliamherbert talked about what should happen "during the period of the ban". A broad topic ban of indefinite duration is iniquitous, and I should be obliged if an administrator could now set a time limit to it - say, 3½ + ½ = 4 months = 11 July 2009 (coincidentally, my birthday!), thanks.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that consulting Ncmvocalist is probably useless. He did not respond to an inquiry. That he isn't an admin may not be a crucial fact, but that he's not available is more important. It has been my position that Wikipedia decision-making structure for matters like this requires, ideally, a responsible editor, usually an administrator, who can be consulted about questions, such as duration, etc. But there are others who have a vision of "the community" making decisions instead of advising the individual who actually makes the decision and is responsible for it (and who can then reverse it with no fuss, whereas going back to a noticeboard to revisit it will simply multiply discussion and invite more wasted time. That should only be necessary if an admin insists upon an unreasonable decision.) Your decision not to contest the block may be best; one of the problems here is that my involvement may be bringing down some negative attention; I apologize for that. I'll be doing something about that, but it will take time. Enjoy your space. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


I have blocked you for two weeks for violating your community sanction by creating Alan Feraday. The sanction says "prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed." The article contained a dedicated section to the event, explicitly saying "Feraday testified that Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down on 21 December 1988 by a suitcase bomb triggered by an electronic timer made by the Swiss firm Mebo." This is a blatant violation of your community sanction. BJTalk 12:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Given PJH's prior block record, two weeks seems a bit harsh. PJH, my recommendation is that you sit on this for the moment, i.e., don't request unblock until you have a clear understanding of the situation, what you did wrong, if anything, etc. You may email me if you like. Given your obvious efforts to acknowledge and cooperate with the ban, I'm going to suggest that the closing admin for your ban review this, before even contacting Bjweeks. I can't see the deleted article, so I don't know when you created it; from what you wrote above, I'd be surprised to find that this was very recent. If it was today, shame on you! (Seriously, even if it was, I'd have expected a 24-hour block or even just a warning. You have not been disruptive.) --Abd (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I created the Alan Feraday biography on 14 May 2009.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Abd, no disrespect intended, but your advice is hard to follow given your own ban for practices you've suggested on this page. Also, you're asking Patrick to walk the tight line that you're currently following with administrators, which I don't think is very fair. Patrick, I'd highly recommmend you avoid being sucked into Abd's battle, which is currently a very messy affair. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was not banned for any practice suggested on this page. Get your facts straight, Socrates. I suggested that PJH do nothing for the moment, so WTF are you talking about? What battle? --Abd (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This, this, this and this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
People who live in glass houses, Socrates2008. This whole thing stinks. You were advised to edit cautiously "during the period of the ban." You have not, you have acted contentiously to create trouble where there was none. You point to long talk pages as evidence? You point to a mediation where my content positions are being confirmed? To conflicts which have nothing to do with PJH? Watch. --Abd (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Revenons à nos moutons: the cached version of the deleted biography is here. Who is bold enough to recreate Alan Feraday without further ado?---PJHaseldine (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not I, from that copy. For one thing, I'd want to rather thoroughly verify that the text isn't original research. Here is what I'd rather do. I'll ask for the article to be userfied to my user space, and you and others there can vet it. You can contribute there, but, remember, someone has to take full responsibility for it being appropriate for article space. I might not have time to do that. --Abd (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested that User:Bjweeks unblock PJH and undelete the article, userfying it if considered appropriate. I now realize that the original ban closure was highly improper. It's not just that User:Ncmvocalist is not an administrator, it is also that he was involved, having proposed the broad form of the ban in the first place; he should never have closed that discussion. I was one of the editors who supported the ban, and suggested it should be temporary, pending review. The ban has served its purpose and should be lifted, in my opinion, and the situation with the relevant articles monitored with respect to the behavior of all involved editors. --Abd (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment at Bjweeks (permanent link) gives some evidence regarding the ban discussion, including links to it. --Abd (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PJH, I now suggest that you give Bjweeks some time to respond; if you are not unblocked, say today, then putting up an unblock template should be done. In your request, clarify your intentions in creating or editing that article; if you did not intend to violate the ban or test it, say so, and apologize for the unintended disruption. If you did, acknowledge that and state your future intentions and apologize for the disruption. Until the ban is lifted, which may be very soon, assure the reviewing administrator that you will interpret it strictly and honor it. As you know, I supported the ban, but have found you extraordinarily compliant and responsive, which is why I now support the lifting of the ban; I would still expect you to conduct yourself with caution in editing related articles, as if you had a conflict of interest, whether you have one technically or not. --Abd (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have started an ANI thread in regards to your sanction to address the concerns raised by Adb. BJTalk 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello. I don't know you or your history, not am I necessarily interested. I have however observed Abd offering you advice. Mine, in turn, is that Abd's desire to be involved in policy is far stronger than his grasp of it; and therefore I urge you to seek advice elsewhere should you need any clarification of policy William M. Connolley (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's his opinion. My opinion is that the dispute between him and I will soon be resolved and that policy on some of these points will become clear. --Abd (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

New articles[edit]

Thought you might like to know about this new article. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman Part 2[edit]

You may want to jump in with an opinion. —Merry Yellow (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anton Alberts (lawyer)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Anton Alberts (lawyer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article contains no references.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AlanS (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)