Talk:Paul Staines

message: The whole article is unbalanced by this fundamental confusion. --Pds2012 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  N.B. Paul Staines the person is not the same as the "Guido Fawkes" blog brand 

message: It looks as though this article is going to be more about Paul Staines than his pseudonym, Guido Fawkes. I propose creating a Paul Staines article and moving this page to it. Alan Pascoe 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Paul Staines? 

message: He mentions on his blog several times that he is a member of the Irish political party "The Progressive Democrats", he also mentions he has Irish citizenship
Apollonaire1980 15.39, 24 July 2007. 
Citations: 
How reliable is an article penned by the subject when we know from court documents, that, by the court's account, he was a British subject as late as 2002?]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/458.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exilegareth (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive Democrat Membership and Irish Citizenship 

message: I got these facts from Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, as this is a link to Amazon and you can search inside the book (using the search term 'Staines').  But I can't work out how to cite this reference.  I will come back to it in due course, but if anyone can help that would be great!) Skandha ji 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the templates shown here --62.136.238.65 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed under Early life and education

message: The information about the Nevis company is cited here - does anyone know where this letter is from?  As a blind link, how reliable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.123.235 (talk • contribs) 
: Not very, I've removed it. I've left the text in, apart from the statement about Nevis. The rest of the information appears in the footer of the Guido Fawkes blog. Alan Pascoe 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reinserted the reference to Nevis with improved sources. DWaterson 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can anyone confirm that Nevis is an actual jurisdiction? I have always understood if to be just one half of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. See here  that the tourist board for Nevis links to St. Kitts and Nevis government site . 62.136.238.65 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Lawyer's Letter 

message: The redirect is inappropriate. Guido is much better known than Staines. 147.114.226.174 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original article was for Guido Fawkes (blogger), but very quickly the article contained more material about Paul Staines than his blog persona. Alan Pascoe 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some arse buggering about appears to have removed the only reference we have that Staines is actually Guido Fawkes. Since we know that Staines is in a litigious mood, is it safe to link his name to a blog for "Tittle Tattle Gossip and Rumours"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.238.65 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Guido Fawkes 

message: The Wikipedia guidance is Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".
Having looked at the edits it is clear that some people are determined to use this as a place to settle scores.  I object to unnecessary references to my family which seems to invade their privacy.  What relevance do my parents, wife or children have to matters?  The given CV is a patchwork mystery.  I don't at this time own a single share so the business claims are fanciful.  The comments on my career in finance in this Talk section are as defamatory as they are ignorant.  The incessant arguing over my freely stated and proudly held nationality bizarre.  The 60 footnotes are the product of internet obsessives.  The disproportionate treatment of aspects of my alleged biography are bizarre.  Do I really warrant this much detail much misplaced?  I am reluctant to amend the text for fear of giving credence to some of the wilder claims nor do I wish to write my autobiography.
I think the editors should seriously pare this article back to concentrating on the published work on the blog, do I really warrant more footnotes than Isaac Newton?
:By restricting comments on Staines exclusively to those found on his (current) blog we risk producing a highly sanitised biography in this case. Personally I think there should be background information from the early Guardian article, plus plenty of references to articles which he published in the Liberator. This way we can create a more rounded biography of Staines.--91.104.10.90 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no recollection of having written articles for a publication called "Liberator".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.staines (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Comment from the Subject 

message: The Friends Reunited reference is clearly written by Paul Staines, is detailed and of long standing - it is as good a reference as some of the conjecture on this page surely? Nakedbatman 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a poor source. The existing source is a published book, which is clearly more reliable. This is all made clear on WP:V. Alan Pascoe 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, it does raise doubt about the accuracy of the current claim about his schooling. Whilst friendsreunited is clearly a dubious source, nevertheless the conflicting evidence perhaps indicates we should remove the statement altogether until it is clarified by a third source? After all, published books are often wrong too... DWaterson 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because FU is an unreliable source, I don't think it is strong enough to question the reliability of a published book. Of course, I am making assumption; I am assuming that the book actually states what is in the article. I have not seen the book myself. On the other hand, I have not seen the FU entry. When I visited the link provided by User:Nakedbatman, all I got was a login screen. Alan Pascoe 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my concern too. I haven't read the book either, and there is a possibility that it is either incorrectly sourced, or does not actually support the claim it is supposed to do. My inclination would be, given Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, to delete the statement altogether pending further reliable sources being identified. I'm not convinced that it is a question of the relative weight to be ascribed to a (purportedly) reliable vs a (purportedly) unreliable source, rather that, even if one is in fact unreliable, it has nevertheless cast enough reasonable doubt over the whole matter to take precautionary action. DWaterson 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. It appears likely that it is false. It's not like the book is available online to verify it anyway Nssdfdsfds 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Friends Reunited as a source for the subject's schooling

message: The Guardian article says Staines was at Humberside College of Higher Education, which was merged into the University of Lincoln, via the "University of Lincolnshire and Humberside". So unless someone has a good source, we should avoid saying Staines was at Hull University. (NB Back in 1986 the college wasn't yet a Poly, which happened in 1990.) Rwendland 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use the David Rose regrets letter as the Humberside College of Higher Education source, without having to ref the 1986 Guardian article. Rwendland (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: He's listed on Alumni of the University of Hull which I've just queried on its talk page. In the absence of comments to the contrary, I'll remove this in a while. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull University? 

message: Can anyone provide a reference for this material? --62.136.238.65 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite a claim, maybe we should give it more prominence on the page?--Pogsurf 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we delete it? Sounds good to me.--Tom 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a reference, to "Collin, Matthew; Godfrey, John (1998). Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, 2nd edition, London: Serpent's Tail. .  " However, someone's removed the reference. Incidentally it appears it was actually the Atari Asteroids championship. There's a fairly interesting, even if not WP:RS, from Staines, saying it in the comments here: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003392.html The book is a perfectly good source though.  Nssdfdsfds 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was sourced, but the source got lost as collateral damage in this edit: . The reference can be restored when the page is unprotected. If possible, I will try and get hold of a copy of the cited book and verify the reference, but I'm not sure whether my local library will hold such an, eh, interesting text :) Cheers, DWaterson 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the book was rather more reliable than its summariser. Try searching for 'Atari' here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1852426047/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9373996-5148159  Page 99 says: Staines came first in "an Atari Asteroids championship". He's also described as a Harrow schoolboy - not a Harrow School boy. Obviously whoever added the claim in was more familiar with Harrow the school than Harrow the rather large and populous area of London..... It's no different from describing someone as a former Essex schoolboy. Nssdfdsfds 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Atari Video Games Champion. 

message: Re 
Staines is on pp 99-101,108,110-114,116,118,120 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House 

message: Now with some added referencing.
:Staines' blog has attracted criticism from other bloggers over both its style and content. Tim Ireland launched a sustained campaign, including a pastiche 'Guido 2.0' blog, in January 2007: Pippa Crerar, "Guido v Manic in war of the Westminster blogs",  Evening Standard, 13 February 2007, page 11 he accused Staines of deliberately making posts alleging scandal in vague terms, in order to encourage anonymous comments which were more specific, and also accused Staines of deleting critical comments. Original criticism Ireland also discovered a newspaper article which implicated Staines in questionable (although not illegal) activity while at college.  Staines insisted that the journalist who wrote the piece had retracted it; however, his attempt to restrict distribution of copies of the article (for which he was criticized for hypocrisy) was not entirely successful.
Perhaps the New Statesman and Nick Robinson criticism could be inserted into the bit about Prescott. Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've no problems with that. Some of the wording (e.g. "was not entirely successful") is a bit airy, but I suppose there's no way around that given the issues that have been raised in this thread. It's probably time to request the unprotection/downgrading to semi-protection of this article, now that User:Lobster blogster has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Cheers, DWaterson 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why you've said you want to report criticism of Staines but then followed it up with a paragraph entirely about Ireland's smears. His smears are useless for this article, although the ensuing 'blog wars' are something we can discuss (as per Evening Standard article). This should be better: Nssdfdsfds 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Para with refs

message: Staines' has been criticised for his approach to blogging. He has often criticised the media, and the BBC in particular, for being too cosy with the political establishment and for keeping internal secrets about political scandals. He said of allegations about John Prescott that "You can tell it is a big story because Nick Robinson is ignoring it". Robinson responded,http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2006/07/prescott_for_du.html accusing Staines of having a political agenda to damage the government, and reporting unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegations. 
These criticisms were echoed by Peter Wilby,  in The New Statesman, who suggested that Staines' claims to have made the news on Prescott were unfounded, as the story had previously been covered in The Times, and that Staines' contribution to the debate was persistent implications of scandal without supporting evidence.http://www.newstatesman.com/200607170028 
:How bizarre. You started off until a few days ago saying that the Guardian piece was libellous and could not even be mentioned here, and now you go and repeat the libel! Very odd. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't then aware of the Evening Standard article that you pointed to. I assume if the Standard printed it, it must be ok. I'm not entirely sure of the legality of all of this though - you're probably right that it would be a good idea to be careful. Probably it's best not to mention it at all without being 100% sure of the legality of it. So in that case, it would be better not to include that last paragraph starting "In February 2007". Nssdfdsfds 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit confused myself too, TBH... DWaterson 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism (proposed text)

message: Well, I've had a look at this.  and this  and it's clear that saying that you are reporting the words of others is not a defence to libel. The Standard article must therefore be libellous, and so I don't see that we should link to it. Make sense? Nssdfdsfds 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has still not yet been established that the Guardian piece is libellous, and I'm certain the Standard piece isn't. You seem to be developing an advanced and acute case of libel paranoia and should really report for treatment before it gets worse. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Anything is libellous if it damages somebody's reputation and you cannot prove it to be true. The allegations in The Guardian clearly are damaging to Mr. Staines' reputation, and cannot be proven to be true. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Secondly, the links provided clearly say that reporting libellous statements from somebody else is no defence against libel. Reporting a suggestion that Mr. Staines was linked to extremists is clearly damaging to Mr. Staines' reputation. It seems quite plain to me. Paranoia is what you might call it, but I see no reason to risk things over unprovable allegations from 1986. Nssdfdsfds 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prima fasce what Nssdfsfds says is correct, but I think he is overlooking important case law such as Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 and  Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe 2006. --Dr Finkbottle 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely 'damaging somebody's reputation' is not enough. A libel must bring someone into (I forget the exact phrase) scandal, ridicule and contempt. No libel action has been brought over the Guardian piece nor over anything which has repeated it, and I don't think the level of accusations in the piece really are substantially libellous. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, we're not here to test that out. Yes, a jury might decide that the allegations against Mr. Staines would not expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt, but it's not something that we're in a position to test, unless of course you have Messers Carter-Ruck and Co. on retainer. The fact is there is a substantial whiff of libel around this issue, and it's not prudent to expose wikipedia to it, over something which really doesn't add much to the article. There is plenty else to communicate to give a good impression of what Paul Staines is like without needing to get into this. Nssdfdsfds 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What it's about is you're just trying to spray around the suspicion of libel because you don't want the article to include anything that might make people think less of its subject. That's why you've had to adopt such an extreme interpretation. However, it does not get around WP:NPOV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libel Law

message: Have you lot of obssesives really wasted all this time arguing about this simple fact? I am an Irish citizen with an Irish passport. --Pds2012 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Staines is the friend of a friend. I can confirm that he was born in London. Valenciano 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Firend of a friend sounds like a bit of private research to me, and so violates the editting policy. The best reference we have is the link above, so I have reverted an edit which contradicts this.--91.104.6.253 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed which is why I haven't edited the article to say that. I don't need to as we already have a source in the article to say that he was born and raised in London  While he clearly is an Irish citizen he also is obviously English  and a British citizen  Add his past reference to Central London residency  and his focus in his blog on British issues, there's no reason to describe him as an Irish blogger. Hence your edit is reverted. Valenciano 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a very poor understanding of electoral law in the UK. Irish citizens are allowed to vote in UK elections. However British subjects are not allowed to vote in Irish elections, yet in one of you references he specifically said he voted for the Progressive Democrats. I don't think the evidence supports your assertions, and so I have reverted your edit.--91.104.26.249 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No wait, he says his vote is with the PDs "in principle if not in practice", which implies he does not have voting rights in Ireland. DWaterson 21:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that alters the fact that we have explicit references to the fact that he is born in London, was living there relatively recently and mainly blogs on British political issues. Against that we have a few hazy references to Irish citizenship.Valenciano 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a reference where he says he is a member of the Progressive Democrats .  Revert button duly hit.--91.106.50.205 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very strongly doubt that the PDs restrict their membership to Irish citizens. Hell even a bunch of xenophobes like the BNP allow certain foreigners to join. Do you have a reference to say that membership of the PDs is restricted to Irish citizens or Irish residents? If not then the point about his membership is utterly irrelevant. I do feel here that you are spectacularly missing the point in any case. No one has disputed that Staines holds dual nationality, although it would be nice to see a source for this. Since he was born in England and blogs about British political issues it is misleading, or more to the point, incredibly idiotic to describe him as "an Irish political blogger." I just had a look at the blog and six of the first seven news items were about British issues. Valenciano 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - given the current evidence, English appears to be the most accurate description. Or, how about my original suggestion, "English of Irish descent", or something like that :-) DWaterson 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy enough with any alternative wording. We could for example leave the question of his nationality and identity out of the lead altogether and mention later that he was born in England but holds dual citizenship. His nationality is not really relevant to his notability anyway. What is relevant for readers not familiar with the subject is that his blog focuses on British politics. Valenciano 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about removing material which is not accurately sourced? That way you could end up with a quality article.--91.106.51.163 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See above comments. Specifically >>No one has disputed that Staines holds dual nationality. Since he was born in England and blogs about British political issues it is misleading, or more to the point, incredibly idiotic to describe him as "an Irish political blogger."<< So rather than wasting your own time trying to prove that water is wet why not address the more substantive points i.e. his birthplace being in England and his blog being about British political issues. By the way, as far as sources go, private e-mails are no more acceptable than the friend of a friend. Valenciano 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a private correspondence, it's a statement of there policy according to a general enquiry. If you don't like it try looking here  and you will find you can only join if you have an Irish address.--91.106.50.180 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already looked there, can't see anything that says that British citizens with dual nationality are ineligible for membership. We already have a source to say that he was born in England and we have his blog which focuses on British issues. By the way I've just tried the PD membership thing, my 'application' went through just fine with a foreign address. Valenciano 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that, I've already suggested a compromise - that we remove mention of his nationality from the lead altogether as it's irrelevant to his notability. We could put his dual nationality later, appropriately sourced. Valenciano 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to drop all material which doesn't have proper references. I disagree with making up material where there are gaps.--91.106.50.180 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent says he lives in Ireland , he's a member of an Irish political party, and he says he is a citizen of a free republic. With apologies to the Irish, and pigs, if it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and goes "oink", it's a pig. Revert duly hit. Please don't revert again unless you can actually find a reference that says he's English, you just make the page look silly.--91.106.41.201 18:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have two references on the main page to say he was born in London plus two above saying that he is a British citizen and was resident in London until recently. You really don't get the dual citizenship idea do you? Anyway I'm amending the page to remove references to his nationality in the lead. Valenciano 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an unambiguous reference to Staines being Irish here  so I have amended the article accordingly.--91.104.46.22 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are plenty of British citizens who would describe themselves as Irish.Hobson (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here  he says he is "an Irish Citizen", and emphasises he is not British, thereby avoiding in the future the need to carry the proposed UK ID card.--91.104.29.139 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep - good find.Hobson (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah good, that's fairly decisive. I've updated the ref to reflect. DWaterson (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have read all the above and changed the ambiguous Irish link to Irish which seems more appropriate than Irish in this case. Gil Gamesh (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: It was a pro-free trade website. Big deal --Pds2012 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Growth Org NGO 

message: You guys are really crazy. Any body could do it by emailing DailyLobby@conservatives.com or SundayLobby@conservatives. It was a distribution list now blocked after I did it. --Pds2012 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to tory HQ

message: I can't understand why there are rather feeble mentions of an Asteriod game competition and being hit by a bull, but there is no mention of Staines' bankruptcy in 2003 . Surely this has far greater relevance to Staines' career and blogging activities?--91.104.37.77 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy 

message: There is a discussion over on the Andrew Marr page about the Alice Miles situation.  If it can't be on that article, why can it be on this one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didshe (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Marr/Alice Staines 

message: Please note that Staines' blog/website cannot be used a source for information about any living person except Staines himself. See these discussions      I have just removed several chunks of texts about living people which was unsourced or sourced to the blog only. --Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staine's blog and BLPs 

message: Would it not be useful to mention the increasing role of Harry Cole in the blog? Jaffachief (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Cole 

message: Suggest splitting the blog off to an article, esp given that it is mostly written by Harry Cole now TreveXtalk 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Have put in split template on relevant section. Splitting in 3... 2... 1... Roienones (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: I added a line in the "controversies and criticism" section about his recent behaviour as documented at http://www.adambienkov.com/2012/03/camerawoman-confronts-guido-fawkes.html and am wondering why it has been removed.  Other than to remove criticism of Paul, what motivation would anyone have to remove this, it seems quite relevant and important. (75.119.224.120 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been removed. It probably will be soon though. If you used a <ref> rather than an inline URL, it might last longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the blog the only source for this?  Can't see how it meets WP:BLP. JASpencer (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaving badly in London 

message: A post on the website 'Liberal Conspiracy'  and the 'Zelo Street blog'  apparently questioned whether Staines had been self editing this article; he confirmed via his own twitter feed that he had indeed been self-editing. .  
Whats more concerning here is the suggestion that he had been invited by 'editors' to self-edit?! Anyone know of a change in wiki policy?! Zaq12wsx (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: nb on closer inspection as per WP:AUTO  the practise is discouraged but not against the rules per se.  To his credit there hasn't been any apparent attempt to hide edits via sock puppets. Zaq12wsx (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Whilst this is fine and we encourage people to correct articles that are inaccurate be aware of wiki's law of unintended consequences WP:LUC.  I say this because i cross referenced the comments you made above to Dwaterson with the comment you left on his page .  If contributors are able to reference additions to the article that you may find objectionable they are free to do so.  Wikipedia uses the concept of consensus WP:CONS not balance, the way conflict is resolved around contentious issues is by seeking some form of compromise; that may mean re-writing an article in a manner that all parties agree with or it may mean giving a paragraph to each (properly referenced) concern.  What wiki doesn't seek to do however is achieve 'balance' by including 'positive' events to counteract the 'negative' events.  Breaching editing policies to present yourself in a favourable light just results in a revocation of editing access WP:BLOCK. Goodluck and remember you can contribute to articles other than your own! :) Zaq12wsx (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

text: It'd also be strongly advisable to read your talk page Paul, you've already got two warnings from an administrator...Zaq12wsx (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Confirmation of Self Editing

message: It appears that User:Pds2012, who edited this talk page in January 2012, may also be Staines. (No article edits, no wrong-doing implied) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Pds2012 

message: Dear Wikipedia,
I am so sick and tired of people trying to use the authority of this site to take a pop at me.
Today various article editors repeatedly claimed that I had knocked over a woman, I repeatedly removed that claim. In exasperation I said that if it was repeated I would have no option but to sue for defamation. I was then told threatening to sue would lead to me being blocked from using Wikipedia. It is a lie frequently repeated on here, what the hell am I supposed to do?
Sort it out and make this more neutral.
regards,
--Paul (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPEN LETTER 

message: Without prejudice to any users, their opinions, their edits to the article, or the verifiability of the content, I have reverted the content in good faith to  what I believe to be far enough back for a stable version. To request a change to it, or a revert to a later stable version, add  to this page, followed by a description of your request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bearing in mind the special nature of this/these issue(s), I prefer for other admins to weigh in before any  decisions are made to change the current status of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The revision User:Truthyness2 is asking to revert back to contains a claim sourced to http://www.adambienkov.com/ which is a blog, this is not an acceptable source per WP:BLPSPS so I do not consider it appropriate to revert back to this version. January (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respectfully disagree - the revision I've asked does repeat the claim made on the blog, it only contains the fact (proven with the YouTube video) of Staines making a nuisance and shouting obsceneties in a public place. Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_D5TnH_DUQ - there is no reference to Staines knocking down a camerawoman apart from her OWN comments in the video (25 seconds onwards). Either way I'm happy to abide by other Wikipedia admins, but please let it be known that Paul Staines does manipulate opinions for a living via his blog/website, and is trying to white-wash this Wikipedia entry. Truthyness2 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the material about the obscenities, not the camerawoman. Self-published blogs are not acceptable sources in an article on a living person (other than within the limited exception set out in WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source), neither is a Youtube video by the blogger since this is also self-published. January (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually, the link is User talk:David r from meth productions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

text: A quick note, I've tackled one or two contentious BLPs in my time, raising them to GA, and would be happy to lend a hand here, if needed.  I'll point out from the start that I'm a regular reader of Guido's blog. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

text: An Irish republican is someone who would sympathise with Sein Fein's world view. The others all imply some involvement in Irish affairs which Mr Stains evidently lacks. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Add |title=Paul Staines witness statement transcripts (or something similar) to  (under #Leveson Inquiry). benzband (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is, citations without titles appear in :Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. Thanks! benzband (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation syntax 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.serendipity.li/wod/staines.html
*:Triggered by \bserendipity\.li\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The article states, "Staines is a libertarian", but this seems to be unreliable POV. He apparently *was* a libertarian at some point, but the contents of his "Guido Fawkes" blog is a torrent of right wing rabble rousing populism with little "libertarian" content, and his stock in trade of attacking the private lives of others- often with rumour and innuendo- is not consistent with libertarian values regarding the rights of the individual to live their life free of coercion. He has campaigned loudly in favour of the death penalty. This sort of yellow journalism makes him more of a Poundstretcher version of WT Stead, or William Randolph Hearst. I admit to an axe to grind here as I am a libertarian myself, and it is unfair for a major website like Wikipedia to be associating the views propounded by Staines as part of that philosophy.
Oswald Mosley was once a socialist, and then not. People change their political values; Staines's appear to have drifted around the spectrum during his life, until they have settled on "anything that will get my fat little face 30 seconds of publicity". "Is" a libertarian should at least be changed to "was", or the sentence removed entirely and replaced with something like "Paul Dacre wannabee".82.71.30.178 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... when a reliable source (or a balance of reliable sources) can be found that says so. We don't decide what Staines is, based on your (or my) opinion of the contents of his blog. Just as with Mosley - we reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

text: On a separate point, and less relevant according to what I just said; in most political discourse in English (which is largely written from a USA point of view), "libertarian" means something much more right-wing than you might be happy with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian? 

message: Hi. It seems to me that both Paul Staines and his blog are notable in their own right. The blog is no longer coterminous with Staines, since it is also written by Alex Wickham and Harry Cole (who, incidentally, has his own page) - and possibly others(?). It would surely be a much more satisfactory position for there to be a page for the blog itself, instead of taking up a large chunk of Staines' page just to cover the blog. Precedents for this exist in the case of Tim Montgomerie being distinct from ConservativeHome and Sunny Hundal from Liberal Conspiracy. JamKaftan (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Guido Fawkes blog, as distinct from Paul Staines

message: This section starts out with the following ad hominem tu quoque typical of leftist political polemic: "Staines has been criticised for his approach to blogging. He often criticises the mainstream media, claiming that it is too close to the political establishment (undercut by the fact he was the only media man in attendance at a Conservative party lobbying ball[51]), and that it also keeps internal secrets about political scandals from the public. When allegations about John Prescott's private life appeared, Staines wrote that "You can tell it is a big story because Nick Robinson is ignoring it". Robinson responded via his own blog,[52] accusing Staines of having a political agenda to damage the government." A bit over the top? --80.212.248.189 (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacies of the "Criticism and controversy" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paul Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201111153/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2087460.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2087460.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Paul Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921222426/http://www.messagespace.co.uk/2012/russian-embassy-using-social-media-to-explain-foreign-policy/ to http://www.messagespace.co.uk/2012/russian-embassy-using-social-media-to-explain-foreign-policy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160218102918/http://www.solondon.co.uk/Article.aspx?kArticle=123&zone=33 to http://www.solondon.co.uk/Article.aspx?kArticle=123&zone=33
*Added  tag to http://www.order-order.com/2008/01/outed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514143145/http://www.order-order.com/2006/02/hughes-its-straight-serious-choice.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/02/hughes-its-straight-serious-choice.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108012644/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3129886.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3129886.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002043/http://www.order-order.com/2006/06/hung-parliament-lds-should-learn-from.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/06/hung-parliament-lds-should-learn-from.html
*Added  tag to http://www.libertarian.co.uk/freelife/fl037.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427191541/http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/so-much-for-anonymity.html to http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/so-much-for-anonymity.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002034/http://www.order-order.com/2006/04/sheikh-it-up-baby.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/04/sheikh-it-up-baby.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819193115/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/110706/political_blogs_john_prescott to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/110706/political_blogs_john_prescott
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430065433/http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/siths-allies-fightback_15.html to http://www.order-order.com/2007/02/siths-allies-fightback_15.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001907/http://www.order-order.com/2006/07/so-rosie-where-is-guidos-writ.html to http://www.order-order.com/2006/07/so-rosie-where-is-guidos-writ.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Staines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401162323/http://www.libertarian.co.uk/archive/photorec/1987g/1987g.htm to http://www.libertarian.co.uk/archive/photorec/1987g/1987g.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621045234/http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-hopkins/2006/07/guido_fawkes_fair_and_balanced.html to http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-hopkins/2006/07/guido_fawkes_fair_and_balanced.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Category:English republicans has been removed, as I can see no source for it. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicanism 

message: Doug Weller talk 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources showing that he's an Irish citizen, thus remaining an EU citien