817:"Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages" but Rd232 how can number of edits be a criterion in deciding if an editor is good or not? Perhaps a consideration of the number of edit wars an editor has been involved in or the number of times an editor's account has been blocked by administrators would be better indicators. In my exchange with Off2riorob re: Ainsworth's over-promotion (now no longer in doubt and backed up by a variety of references from the BBC to the Guardian) he clearly did not show good faith, was at times rude, and was obsessive about cutting out anything negative about "Bob" (as he calls him). He also made a number of good points, particularly about use of language (which I acknowledged and have learned from). But overall my impression was that he does not have a neutral position when it comes to this subject.
446:
425:
932:
sure there exists all shades of truth and politic in between those extremes but the
Boothby scandal teaches us how both sources can be compromised by political pressure such that we can only strive to sift through all possible information and ultimately use our own judgement to reflect the truth. However, it does seem to me that there is a greater threat/caution to journalists than there is to politicians - Tony Bliar was not impeached and roams free and making money to this day. Newspapers can issue a retraction you might need a magnifying glass to spot but who tends to be the biggest liars or vehicles of truth? It's a tough one, I know.
896:
the story, story being the optimum word, well, if you really think it will be beneficial to the article, knock something up and attribute it as ..it has been summised, it has been suggested, according to supposed leaks, or something along those lines and we will also need to add the comment I posted above to balance.. also be careful not to coatrack anyone else, Gordon Brown, for example, or the chaotic shuffle on to this biography. Personally I think it adds nothing.. but hey..regards
728:
is contentious, when it is anything but. Ainsworth has confirmed on the record that he attended meetings (as has
Mustafa Bevi), and that he decided not to pursue his interest. Offtoriorob has also attempted to remove citations from the Daily Mail; and he is now attempting to make out that Ainsworth was the first-choice for Defence Secretary, and that any source which claims otherwise is a conservative conspiracy. I think there are some credibility issues here.
1058:, which is clearly the wrong place. I think MiszaBot has a security feature that disallows targets which are not subpages, most of the time. I fixed that. I hope someone will have the patience to sort out two incorrect archivals which occurred, one on 20 August and the other on 15 December. These are the only two times that MiszaBot has run, and the threads were copied to /dev/null both times. Also a proper archive box should be created.
393:
539:
514:
331:
307:
745:; you have 8, all on Talk:Bob Ainsworth. Please do not make casual accusations. For example he has not attempted to make out that Ainsworth was first choice, merely questioned the basis for saying concretely that he wasn't. Nor did he use or imply anything relating to "conspiracy". As for your allusion to Mustafa Bevi - his comments here on this talk page are interesting but have no status as a
203:
276:
871:"Mr Ainsworth, then Armed Forces Minister, had been in the running from the off. It is likely that he was Mr Hutton’s recommendation as he offered continuity. Ms Kennedy’s departure and Mr Brown’s weakened position meant that the Prime Minister was no longer in a position to resist an appointment that would satisfy both defence chiefs and Labour MPs".
886:"Speculation" is about events in the future; I guess you mean "gossip" or something. But the Times article seems to be based on leaks ("senior figure"), not (merely) the fevered imaginings of a journalist. The above would be a relevant part of the story too. I don't think a sentence or two about the appointment would be undue.
341:
1121:
is sold for. A major reason for the repair bill is that a crewmember allowed the boat almost to sink, and the MoD (Ainsworth was the
Minister/Secretary at that time) has yet not been looking for someone responsible. The Royal Navy is answerable to the Government, but that does not excuse any MP from
895:
Speculation can also be about events in the past. Not speculation? there where no announcements, no one said anything about it! When I say speculation I mean a couple of people get together and get their opinions and anything they have heard and add that together and make it into a story, and here is
727:
Anyone else wondering about the relationship between offtoriorob and
Ainsworth? All offtoriorob has done is attempt to soften the profile: he has claimed that the comment "At this time he attended several International Marxist Group meetings before deciding not to continue his interest in the group"
931:
often (reliably) informed us as to the origin of leaked political stories, whose source could not be named. And likewise we all know that official statements, such as the existence of WMD, should not be believed and are about as reliable George
Wickham's word and Alan Duncan's genuine hardship. I'm
801:
I'll have a good look at the cites. I dislike all that, according to speculation commented written by jonny from the times. No one was at the meeting and there has been no official comment regarding it. In my opinion he has been promoted to the job and we should respect that, not start with, jonny
620:
of course it was, this comment is from the conservative supporters, the tories think anything he does in to be ridiculed and he is to be ridiculed as much as possible, so we could add to the page.. the tories said he was rubbish. Are we here to add party political comment to a wikipedia biography?
602:
I left the first bit in and added...considered by some...because some people thought it was ok. The second bit is a bridge to far as regards to adding two and two and getting twenty two. The comments are all speculative and opinionated, ainsworth got the job, no one else was offered the post, so in
837:
a position. The issue is how this impacts on their editing and discussion, and their ability/willingness to follow policy and consensus. Anyway, further discussion of Off2riorob, if it's required, should take place elsewhere. Meanwhile, some of your own remarks ( "clearly did not show good faith",
758:
Thank you rd232, edit conflict..Well, I respect your comments, let me try and reply to a couple of them, Ainsworth was the first and only person to be actually offered his job. I am not here to soften
Ainsworths profile, I have worked towards the insertion of the verifyable comment that he went to
832:
The issue is not Off2riorob's general quality as editor ("good or not"); I was merely responding to Chrisp's insinuation here of a connection between off2riorob and
Ainsworth, to which the long edit history elsewhere is highly relevant. As to neutral position: it is pretty rare for editors on
759:
meetings of this group..I am for neutral encyclopedic articles. I dislike opinionated speculation presented as if fact, I am a good guy, honest. I am against any insertion of this couple of meetings but I have worked towards and assisted in an insertion.
802:
was first choice but he couldn't get it so harry was second choice but this faction didn't like him so the position must have been given to bob to appease the unions according to the gossip and the point of view at the times tea room.
784:. Maybe it could be qualified by explicitly attributing it to the Times, but I think it belongs in the entry, because the appointment to Defence Sec is so significant in Ainsworth's career that circumstances of it are important.
1032:"In December 2009, Ainsworth announced that he would have been more circumspect about supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq had he known that Saddam Hussein did not in fact have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal."
1161:
407:
153:
1181:
496:
486:
838:"obsessive about cutting out anything negative" ) are also problematic. Rather than conduct endless postmortems, let's either return to the substance of any outstanding issues, or just leave it here.
1156:
957:
You upset the link, so I reverted to my comment. All my comments are from the link, well cited comments, so it is good to add well cited comments at this point the article is in need of expansion.
642:
462:
1176:
402:
317:
927:
Just a thought: I think this discussion suggests an interesting conflict between the apparent value of media/news reporting and 'official comment' with respect to inclusion in WP.
1166:
453:
430:
255:
194:
147:
776:
a moment and consider again whether it can be described as "speculation". It's also not talking about others being actually offered the job, it's about others being
653:"To the surprise of many observers, Bob Ainsworth, a cheerful but pedestrian junior defence minister, was asked to step up to replace Hutton as defence secretary"
988:. I prefer "several" - sounds better to me. And "a few meetings" also sounds like a larger number (the original spokesperson quote was "a couple of meetings").
865:
Having a look at the times piece, it is speculation almost all of it. We have the simple clear statement that it was a suprise to some that he was appointed...
669:
as my words "possibly motivated by political reasons related to internal Labour Party politics", that seems perfectly reasonably backed up by the Times story
1146:
260:
647:"Mr Ainsworth's own suitability has been called into question following his surprise elevation to the job during last month's emergency cabinet reshuffle."
243:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
79:
603:
that way, he was the first one offered the job and the only one actually offered the position,,, everything else is gossip and opinionated comment,
713:
You can see in these citations you present...surprise,,surprise.. and I left that comment in the article. What I left is strong, simple and clear.
1171:
359:
235:
663:
85:
44:
445:
424:
363:
1151:
1123:
367:
1094:
358:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
700:
Well the "possibly" was a qualifer I added because there was only one source. The source is quite definite, and not speculative.
928:
617:
even the first bit that I respectfully left in is rubbish. ...this.....in what was considered by some to be "a surprise choice"
354:
312:
99:
30:
545:
519:
458:
104:
20:
168:
135:
74:
654:
287:
190:
662:"eyebrows were raised at the jobs for the moustachioed Bob Ainsworth as Defence Secretary - promoted beyond his means"
65:
202:
185:
213:
1012:"Several is more than a few." - I guessed that was your opinion, but I think the opposite! "a couple" is fine.
129:
1029:
In the long term reality of a biography, actually even in the short term this new addition is of no value..
1127:
244:
109:
1098:
125:
293:
657:
1063:
1040:
962:
943:
915:
901:
876:
854:
807:
764:
718:
691:
626:
608:
550:
524:
254:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
175:
933:
774:
729:
670:
275:
1035:
If you asked each and every MP this question they would all say the same thing. It is meaningless.
1003:
998:
Several is more than a few. Since couple is in the reference, I will change the edit to say that.--
733:
161:
55:
599:
it follows this.... he got the job.....in what was considered by some to be "a surprise choice",
461:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
258:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
218:
70:
1093:
How come there is no mention of all the criticism
Ainsworth has received as Defence Secretary? (
910:
According to supposed leaks from a an unnamed so called senior figure that is in the know....
637:
51:
1078:
346:
215:
141:
1059:
1036:
972:
958:
939:
911:
897:
872:
850:
803:
760:
714:
687:
622:
604:
251:
999:
822:
636:" a surprise choice to be Defence Secretary in Gordon Brown’s June reshuffle" - Times;
392:
1140:
1110:
648:
24:
1054:
The template for MiszaBot at the head of this page was sending old threads over to
781:
746:
594:
possibly motivated by political reasons related to internal Labour Party politics.
1118:
1074:
538:
513:
330:
306:
1013:
989:
976:
887:
849:
Discussion of me on this board should stop now, take it to a complaint board.
839:
785:
750:
701:
673:
336:
818:
641:"Mr Ainsworth’s appointment in June caused some surprise at Westminster."
217:
1131:
1102:
1082:
1067:
1044:
1016:
1007:
992:
979:
966:
947:
919:
905:
890:
880:
858:
842:
826:
811:
788:
768:
753:
737:
722:
704:
695:
676:
630:
612:
596:] Twists that made Bob Ainsworth the least worst choice for the job
656:- Guardian (and again - first line of Ainsworth 5 June 09 profile!
366:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
682:
It is enough to leave what is left there now. You can't say...
269:
250:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
227:
219:
15:
742:
Off2riorob has nearly 7000 edits on a wide variety of pages
391:
1162:
Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
780:. I think that is significant, not speculation, and from a
1109:
I for one will easily wonder what is the reason that the
986:
975:. And why did you post this twice? See my reply above.
743:
591:
this edit I have removed as opinionated speculation...
1182:
Mid-importance
Politics of the United Kingdom articles
985:
Duncan changed "several meetings" to "a few meetings"
160:
1157:
C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
938:
13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Replied on mimi's talk.
471:
Knowledge:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
457:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
474:
Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
621:no we are not and I will resist it in all ways.
548:, a project which is currently considered to be
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1177:C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
868:I also note this from the times article......
174:
8:
686:...it is speculation and has no place here.
1167:Politics and government work group articles
773:OK, but just go back to the Times article
508:
454:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
419:
301:
1117:5 times larger than the amount of money
510:
477:Politics of the United Kingdom articles
421:
303:
273:
403:the politics and government work group
1056:Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive %(counter)d
7:
544:This article is within the scope of
451:This article is within the scope of
352:This article is within the scope of
1147:Biography articles of living people
292:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
537:
512:
444:
423:
339:
329:
305:
274:
233:This article must adhere to the
201:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
672:. What does anyone else think?
491:This article has been rated as
376:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
1172:WikiProject Biography articles
560:Knowledge:WikiProject Coventry
468:Politics of the United Kingdom
459:Politics of the United Kingdom
431:Politics of the United Kingdom
379:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
1103:16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
1083:09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
1068:07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
1045:19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
1025:Not notable events or reports
563:Template:WikiProject Coventry
465:and see a list of open tasks.
400:This article is supported by
236:biographies of living persons
42:Put new text under old text.
1113:deserves have a repair bill
364:contribute to the discussion
1017:09:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
1008:08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
993:20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
980:22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
967:21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
948:14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
920:12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
906:12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
891:12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
881:12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
859:11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
843:12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
827:11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
812:09:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
789:23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
769:23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
754:22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
738:22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
723:20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
705:23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
696:20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
677:20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
631:19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
613:19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
248:must be removed immediately
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1198:
1152:C-Class biography articles
497:project's importance scale
1132:12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
1050:Fixing MiszaBot archiving
532:
490:
439:
399:
324:
300:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
833:political topics not to
318:Politics and Government
953:you messed up my edit.
396:
282:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
395:
355:WikiProject Biography
195:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
929:Sir Humphrey Appleby
546:WikiProject Coventry
105:No original research
1122:doing a good job.--
1073:That should do it.
684:possibly...bla bla.
587:this is significant
397:
382:biography articles
288:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
582:
581:
578:
577:
574:
573:
566:Coventry articles
507:
506:
503:
502:
418:
417:
414:
413:
268:
267:
226:
225:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1189:
568:
567:
564:
561:
558:
541:
534:
533:
528:
516:
509:
479:
478:
475:
472:
469:
448:
441:
440:
435:
427:
420:
384:
383:
380:
377:
374:
360:join the project
349:
347:Biography portal
344:
343:
342:
333:
326:
325:
320:
309:
302:
285:
279:
278:
270:
256:this noticeboard
228:
220:
206:
205:
196:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1137:
1136:
1091:
1052:
1027:
955:
747:reliable source
589:
565:
562:
559:
556:
555:
522:
476:
473:
470:
467:
466:
433:
381:
378:
375:
372:
371:
345:
340:
338:
315:
286:on Knowledge's
283:
222:
221:
216:
193:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1195:
1193:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1051:
1048:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
983:
982:
954:
951:
925:
924:
923:
922:
908:
864:
862:
861:
846:
845:
815:
814:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
710:
709:
708:
707:
667:
666:
660:
651:
645:
639:
588:
585:
580:
579:
576:
575:
572:
571:
569:
542:
530:
529:
517:
505:
504:
501:
500:
493:Mid-importance
489:
483:
482:
480:
463:the discussion
449:
437:
436:
434:Mid‑importance
428:
416:
415:
412:
411:
408:Low-importance
398:
388:
387:
385:
351:
350:
334:
322:
321:
310:
298:
297:
291:
280:
266:
265:
261:this help page
245:poorly sourced
231:
224:
223:
214:
212:
211:
208:
207:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1194:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1142:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:82.134.28.194
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:HMS Endurance
1108:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1049:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1030:
1024:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
994:
991:
987:
981:
978:
974:
971:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
952:
950:
949:
945:
941:
937:
936:
930:
921:
917:
913:
909:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
892:
889:
885:
884:
883:
882:
878:
874:
869:
866:
860:
856:
852:
848:
847:
844:
841:
836:
831:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
813:
809:
805:
800:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
757:
756:
755:
752:
748:
744:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
706:
703:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
671:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
638:
635:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
618:
615:
614:
610:
606:
600:
597:
595:
592:
586:
584:
570:
553:
552:
547:
543:
540:
536:
535:
531:
526:
521:
518:
515:
511:
498:
494:
488:
485:
484:
481:
464:
460:
456:
455:
450:
447:
443:
442:
438:
432:
429:
426:
422:
409:
406:(assessed as
405:
404:
394:
390:
389:
386:
369:
368:documentation
365:
361:
357:
356:
348:
337:
335:
332:
328:
327:
323:
319:
314:
311:
308:
304:
299:
295:
289:
281:
277:
272:
271:
263:
262:
257:
253:
249:
246:
242:
238:
237:
232:
230:
229:
210:
209:
204:
200:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
25:Bob Ainsworth
22:
18:
17:
1114:
1092:
1055:
1053:
1034:
1031:
1028:
984:
956:
934:
926:
870:
867:
863:
834:
816:
777:
683:
668:
665:- The Herald
619:
616:
601:
598:
593:
590:
583:
549:
492:
452:
401:
353:
294:WikiProjects
259:
247:
240:
234:
198:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1119:HMS Roebuck
1095:92.3.129.31
644:- Telegraph
148:free images
31:not a forum
1141:Categories
1060:EdJohnston
1037:Off2riorob
959:Off2riorob
940:Off2riorob
912:Off2riorob
898:Off2riorob
873:Off2riorob
851:Off2riorob
804:Off2riorob
778:considered
761:Off2riorob
715:Off2riorob
688:Off2riorob
623:Off2riorob
605:Off2riorob
730:Chrisp728
373:Biography
313:Biography
252:libellous
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
973:WP:UNDUE
557:Coventry
551:inactive
525:inactive
520:Coventry
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1115:atleast
1075:—WWoods
495:on the
284:C-class
199:11 days
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1000:Duncan
290:scale.
126:Google
1014:Rd232
990:Rd232
977:Rd232
888:Rd232
840:Rd232
786:Rd232
782:WP:RS
751:Rd232
702:Rd232
674:Rd232
650:- BBC
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1128:talk
1099:talk
1089:POV?
1079:talk
1064:talk
1041:talk
1004:talk
963:talk
944:talk
935:Mimi
916:talk
902:talk
877:talk
855:talk
835:have
823:talk
819:Jprw
808:talk
765:talk
734:talk
719:talk
692:talk
627:talk
609:talk
362:and
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
487:Mid
241:BLP
176:TWL
1143::
1130:)
1105:)
1101:)
1081:)
1066:)
1043:)
1006:)
965:)
946:)
918:)
904:)
879:)
857:)
825:)
810:)
767:)
749:.
736:)
721:)
694:)
629:)
611:)
410:).
316::
197::
156:)
54:;
1126:(
1097:(
1077:(
1062:(
1039:(
1002:(
961:(
942:(
914:(
900:(
875:(
853:(
821:(
806:(
763:(
732:(
717:(
690:(
659:)
625:(
607:(
554:.
527:)
523:(
499:.
370:.
296::
264:.
239:(
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
