User talk:Ashattock

This user contributes with Twinkle.

Hello, Ashattock, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

I added a substantial amount of information that I remember from working in Data Control. Heath Graham now lives in Battle, Hastings, England and is employed by a company in London. Scott has expanded his company and it appears to have become a major multi-national corporation. As I am the originator of the information, there is little more that can be added or disregarded since this is not research, but facts from source. Many of the Zimbabwean companies mentioned have since merged, liquidated or been sold and the original employees are scattered across the globe. There are no reliable sources on the Internet left and the last of Clint Sim's words are only available on www.linux.co.za. Long may they survive. I make special mention of him because his children will one day come across that information and know his dad was worth something and a much cared for person. Please, don't allow that to be taken from them. Ashattock (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a true story of the origins of the Gorle Victoria Cross' loss. There is much work being undertaken to retrieve the medal and returned to the original family from whence it was removed without permission. The reason it is being documented is to highlight how valuable items with a registered serial number can be stolen and paraded as legitimate gains to collections under the guise of legitimacy. Fraud cause immense losses annually among the collectors' worlds and this is one that has interesting historical relevance and subsequent methods of detective work used to regain an historical object for private individuals and families.Ashattock (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Do you have any reliable sources for this accusation? If not remove it immediately or I will --Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately for Kernel Saunters, I do have reliable sources. The family who owned it are the source. The half sister of Robert Gorle owned it when it mysteriously disappeared. She never authorised it's disposal and it was her wish to have it returned to the family heirlooms. Her heirs still have the mini cross that usually is sold with the medal itself, to the best of my knowledge. Ashattock (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:No original research.--Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Kernel Saunters would do well to remember that that Original Research rule does not apply to talk pages. Please note that this is a talk page. Ashattock (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion about this on the article talkpage to provide you with a forum without getting into an edit war over the article itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Any assistance on expanding this article would be greatly appreciated. I am writing a reliable article and the fact it need time to be fleshed out should not be an hindrance to its creation and discussion. Having said that, it is remarkable that Wikipedia doesn't desire to hold original research as being within its capabilities of factual issues even if there is no written record of the facts attributable to anyone. Such articles should be noted as being titled as "Inconclusive and Unverified" as the main header of the article. There are facts and truths that are not able to be proven based on evidence but the final outcome itself may well prove the initial event. The difference is the time between conclusion and initiatives to clarify the source.

The primary problem with that is that encyclopedias, which Wikipedia is one, do not use original research, but they rather synthesize previously published material. That said, if you can dig up reliable sources like newspapers or magazines that cover your topic, you can add material based on them to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for unpublished sources to be referenced? Ashattock (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, but published sources are greatly preferred. See

WP:PRIMARY. And even then they should be publicly available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

That in itself is interesting. The definition of publicly available does not necessarily mean globally available in that the published items may only be available to view in a local police station on documents that are written by hand and never transferred digitally to the wired world. That evidence cannot very verified by anyone except the viewer and the inherent trust is vested in the viewer as opposed to the researcher. The fact that a verified viewing of the source cannot be produced for global viewing but is publicly available at the localised source means that arguments against its existence are futile and cyclical. This is a case in point in this particular article and I think the only thing I can do is produce photographic evidence itself for the article and let readers decide on the veracity of the claims themself. it is a single known case that Original Research is actually not research but direct from witness instead. So therefore it is not original research at all. Comments?Ashattock (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content of automated email reply from House of Lords after sending notification to Lord Ashcroft through official channels. No reply has been received as yet. Thank you for your email which has been received by the House of Lords Attendants Office.

This email address is strictly for contacting individual Members of the House of Lords and emails for individual Members will be forwarded. However, the address cannot be used for bulk mail shots or to forward one message to multiple Members. Any identical messages sent to more than six Members of the House of Lords will be deleted.

For Information about Lords membership, work, role and function please email [email protected] or phone 0207 219 3107.

Freedom of Information requests to the House of Lords should be sent to [email protected]

Any sales promotions, advertisements or duplicate lobbying emails will be deleted.

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail."

Received 24th March 2015, 14H30 GMT

Articles are required to be neutral in POV and that's hard to do when working with primary documents. The key thing with primary sources is that they generally are not neutral (see

WP:NPOV) and must be used with circumspection. The main point about publicly available is that somebody else can access them, even if physical access is required for off-line sources. We're well aware that much information, maybe even most, isn't digital, so file numbers, etc., are necessary when citing primary sources so that that particular bit can be located. Original research also includes conclusions that you draw from sources, so it's not just documentary in nature as you've seemed to conclude above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Further to this story is that a person of interest has been established as the suspect. Whilst I know who it is the name shall remain withheld. Ashattock (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The physical evidence is now in my possession alongside the original family records written in 1965 complete with original photographs. Unfortunately British police refuse to investigate the case without Zimbabwe Republic Police request for assistance through Interpol which means the thief has got away scot-free with the international crime. Ashattock (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partially fulfilled Ashattock (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the biblical punishment for false prophecy? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Robert Mugabe. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether UN convention on human rights is sufficient to remove colour distinctions in favour of ethnic or political distinctions instead?

I have never met a people who identify as purple, green or orange so why is it acceptable to use yellow, black or white? I have met white Africans and African Americans along with Caribbean Britons but none are the skin time you'd expect to see. Or these people in darkness and racial Discrimination becomes nearly impossible. Ashattock (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable to write "white" in articles because

reliable secondary sources use the term. We follow what the sources say. Elizium23 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

While "reliable" sources use it, it is racial discrimination terminology and as such should be removed from encyclopedia pages because it is a form of unbalanced bias. Ashattock (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Martin P. A. Jackson, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

No. Can't be arsed. 92.40.182.156 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Ashattock. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]