Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Personal attack by Truthseeker

message: 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)
thread_title: Abbreviations

message: 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)
thread_title:  All, or Some? 

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

text: Many thanks. Truthseekers666 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  REFS Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Provost gif fair use 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notability and suitability of sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done EyeSerenetalk 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Done, Woody (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You are not in the least neutral on that subject and you should note that linking your own website can get you banned and your website blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone answered Truthseeker's question about his website on his talk page. I don't exactly agree with that answer, so I'll reply here. It's simple. The website fails WP:EL. Personal websites usually do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delighted to see this on ANI 

message: The unreferenced template could potentially be switched to a refimprove template.  Any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has some references, I've made the change. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unref -> refimprove? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The reason it doesnt have P&SS (or any other units) is because I did not have any reliable references for other units I missed out. No reason others cant be added if a reliable reference can be found. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that HQ P&SS was at Rudloe Manor from 1977 to 1998, still looking for a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that link, I have added it to the article now. Woody (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for Edit 

message: I'm not knowledgeable about the use of Wiki, but I have what seems to me to be an appropriate source listing HQ P&SS as residing at Rudloe Manor:
(House of Commons Hansard)
If anyone wants to add it, be my guest - I'm too scared to do it myself in case I break a rule or something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.202.151 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 March 2011
:Thanks for that link, I have added it to the article now. Woody (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hansard link

message: ::You claim your intention is not to be "argumentative OR Aggressive", yet your comments on Truthseekers youtube account refer to WIkipedia editors as:
::*"a bunch of Idiots who dont like to be questioned at all". 
::Also in your back channelling here with fellow recruited user  you say:
::*"Started my slating of Wiki ... the call to arms has been raised so with my Truthseeker banner in﻿ one hand and a Gnarly old frog in the other I head to battle"
::It is obvious you are not here in good faith but to disrupt the encyclopedia. Ryan4314  (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's disappointing... EyeSerenetalk 14:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It would help if you would sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ - as you have already been told.  Rklawton (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: No problem. You're right that off-Wikipedia activities are normally none of our business, but one of the exceptions is if editors seem to be organising off-site with the intent of disrupting on-site. It's more common that you might think; I can name half a dozen articles off the top of my head that are or have been the subject of off-site canvassing. When such editors then arrive at those articles they shouldn't be too surprised if we treat them with suspicion, and obviously your comments on youtube haven't helped you. However, what you actually do here is what matters, so there's no need to keep apologising :) Help improve our articles in line with our site policies and no-one will care about the rest. EyeSerenetalk 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMSCPC 

message: The fact remains that a number of writers have named Rudloe Manor as the main base for those units of Britain's RAF that were given the task of researching UFO reports. That this has been suggested and published is a fact. That surely warrants at least a passing mention in the main article about this base. Whether it's true or whether or not the base fulfilled other functions with UFOs as a somewhat incidental part of its remit doesn't change that. Deleting all references to the base's alleged role in UFO investigation seems a little draconian....Vanarkadie001i (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please propose some reliable sources with an outline of proposed text. Given the tendency of many media outlets to regard UFO stories as entertainment and the requirements of WP:REDFLAG, the sources would need to be highly reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that reliable sources would actually help, as a headquarters of the RAF Police they would have investigated all sorts of things, are stolen bicycles any more important then investigations observations from the public. I would say that any mention of investigating observations of unknown aircraft from the public would be undue weight unless all such activities are listed in detail from espionage and murder to the missing station bicycle. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudloe Manor's alleged UFO role 

message: Hi, is there any reason why Truthseeker666 was banned from editing this site just because he placed information which was TRUE FACT on this page about how Rudloe Manor used to investigate UFO's? It would seem to me, that this is a form of cyber bullying, censorship and outright favouritism of only certain information you choose to have on this website. It would appear to me, that you choose to block, ban, bully or attack anyone who posts information that you "do not agree with" rather than "that which isn't true". And this is not the first time this site has done such, as I have witnessed it first hand with lots of other pages. This is supposed to be a reliable site of information, factual information, so why is it being kept from the public gaze, and why are so many fake stories put in its place? Fact is, Rudloe Manor did investigate UFO's and there are many "notable" documents to confirm it. I would like to ask why it is considered vandalism to put these notable facts on this site. Thanks in advance.
FuneralSetsYouFree (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not why he was blocked. He was blocked for continually ignoring our policies and guidelines, particularly WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO Investigation and Truthseeker666

message: Howdy. I tried to click through the sole external link for this article -- a redirect to a Wordpress page -- and noticed that the owner's redirect strips a forward slash from the URL, breaking the link. I've emailed the site's owner, but in the interim I tried replacing the redirect URL with the actual Wordpress URL. That was reverted by XLinkBot. Any suggestions on how to fix this? I could revert the bot's revert, but the bot is there for a reason. Is the site an acceptable EL? I have no relation to the owner or the content; just wanted to fix a bad link. Thanks. AaronGilliland (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL to derelict buildings photo site/photo set 

message: I was detached to RAF Rudloe Manor as a clerk sec for about 3 months,  which was then HQ P and SS,  and I worked in the all civilian Service Criminal Records Office.  Also with me on the last detachment were about 4 other clerk secs,  and their job was to process the new 1250 id card,  which itself was a bit of a failure.  We lived at a nearby RAF station and were bussed to RM for work,  back for lunch,  then home for tea.  Also based there were the PV section,  and the Criminal Investigation and the counter intelligence sections.  When I was there we had Ronald Biggs RAF CRO card,  complete with his conviction for the train robbery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.31.146 (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1977-1978