This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RAF Rudloe Manor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about UFOs, black projects, conspiracy theories, or anything not directly related to the improvement of the RAF Rudloe Manor page on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about UFOs, black projects, conspiracy theories, or anything not directly related to the improvement of the RAF Rudloe Manor page on Wikipedia at the Reference desk. |
RAF Hawthorn - SW ComCen was also located in the underground facility as a seperate command. Wwwhatsup 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
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)Truthseekers666 Matthew Williams 2-2010
You now title this personal attack by Truthseeker> This is the pot calling the kettle black after calling our work that of "nutters and idiots", and removing many refs and additions to the wiki of RAF Rudloe Manor. You redact and redact and now that this matter has been raised you consider it a personal attack? Well to stop this upsetting you any further please try and maintain information when it is posted on the Wiki, Today you removed two pieces of information I put up and also have now lost a link to a picture uploaded specifically to illustrate the points I am trying to make in helping this Wiki page not suffer from your redactions all the time. We have been through this 6 months ago when I uploaded lots of informatiopn and it all dissapeared because of you. Its time to grow up and face the music. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone in the know expand up the abbreviations in the article, spotted the following unexplained abbreviations
Keith D ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
ROC = Royal Observer Corps. RNSD = Royal Navy Stores Depot, DCSA - Defence Communication Services Agency - P&SS = Provost & Security Services. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Although I have stated that the inlcusion of P&SS UFO investigation scan and the letter from MOD to C Fowler relating to P&SS UFO file handling of a more recent date are important as they are direct evidence which shows the working status of P&SS in the UFO debate which up until I gave these ref was classed as "Conspiracy Theory" by user ALR. Now that these scans are in place so user ALR can no longer make the claim that these things are "Theory" but are actually FACT, user ALR keeps removing saying that "This has been referred to enough. We are talking about the media link on the end of the ref 2 being the following words "PHOTO HERE"... which ALR keeps removing. He says that the words are "cluttering up" the page. Two words! Cluttering. Yet again I am asking for this ALR and his motives to be looked at. I am very unhappy that I got banned last year for much much less than ALR si up to now. How can this be? I was banned from wiki by IP because I put the said same information on the page. Now I am a user of some standing ALR cannot ban me. Now he is just choosing to keep removing this information. The words censorship and pride come to mind. I am just interested in accurate portrayal of facts which is what citing refs is all about. I am properly citing refs not only by saying them, by prividing the actual documents to cite them with. ALR what is your excuse. Remove refs, remove evidence... alter facts! Very bad show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
User ALR: Chris Fowlers letter (the one you seem keen to remove the refs to) says UFO reports were sent to London... not low flying complaints. So we are talking about the UFO side of things. You have not cited any reference to be able to say "all flying complaints sent to London", as this is your opinion. Who knows it may be true, but what are you basing your opinions on? What I was giving with the bit about the UFO reports is backed up by the MOD letter stating as such. As a cited reference the letter was a question asked by Mr C Fowler about RAF Rudloe Manors involvement in UFO reporting. He got a direct reply. So in this instance in order to make it clear to the Wiki reader that this is not just speculation in a subject matter such as UFOs which is highly controversial and colored by some peoples opinions, it is very important to cite references. Simply stating the existence of some hitero "Letter to Mr Fowler", as a ref of a point, the Wiki reader will possibly say to him/herself "what letter to Mr Fowler, what was he asking, where do I read this letter". It is surely more helpful at that point to say, here click and see, instead of leaving the Wiki reader floundering around in the dark. Being someone who requires "Illumination" in ones life you should know this concept by now. Your quite happy to leave the ref in, which hints there is more to know, but not to allow the user to press the clickable link to easily go to the ref page which to me seems crazy. (Aside: So whilst we are at it why not take the steering wheel of your car off too, you know where you can buy one and refit one yourself!) What I am saying is lets put all the information where it should be easily accessable and not make people have to jump through hoops to find it. USER ALR: It was probably you who suggested my research was a "conspiracy theory" and titled the WIKI as such. Now you say you have removed the **MY** title "conspiracy theory". I doubt I would ever use that title when I was always in receipt of proven facts by the docs I had back then and have put up now. So please do not ascribe me as the originator of P&SS as Conspiracy Theory. Whilst we probably both know of the wild stories that are out there about Rudloe Manor I have kept those out of this page to keep it entirely factual. However I may put a "cpnspiracy theory on RNSD page re underground train link to London" as this is one of those highly talked about myths that seemed to circulate in Military and Public circles when discussing the secrets of the base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you cant see that this is a document relating to an investigation of a UFO then I am flabbergasted. Its titled UFO Seen at Trull Taunton. Not Low Flying Complaint! So how is it you cant understand this Milbourne? Have you read the document before commenting here? Sorry to be this blunt. It is a miltary UFO investigation. No where it is concluded that this is an aircraft. If you think this is low flying then that is your opinion. Go with what the document says. Go with the facts. On that basis you cannot then decide that this document is of no use based on its being Low Flying Investigation related and of no significance. Yes the department who looks into this also handles low flying complaints but this is not one. Re read, rethink and come back with something that follows the facts please. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As a reader of wikepedia i have to say i'm with Truthseekers666 on this subject. There is no point in deleting each others submissions just because people have other opinions. After all wikepedia is a source for everyone not just for those who contribute to it but for anyone who is interested to get to know the both sides of this subject. Truth are conspiracies for some and vice versa. It' always the majority who puts down the minority no matter who is stating what. I guess you get my point.
Another Truthseeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.111.208 ( talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that the removal of entries, including those by the origonal author: Arthur Warrington Thomas is absolutley obsurd. The information that User:Truthseekers666 has provided is useful as well as genuine. What ever happened to the freedom of information act? Does that not apply no longer here? This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.194.100 ( talk) 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hi Milborne: Thanks for quick reply. Are you wishing to put the information up? Would be handy if you wanted to put some brief info in those links to get the ball rolling, seeing as you seem to know something of these sections. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Well I have put right the fact that as the first document to reveal P&SS involvement - subquent confirmed lies by National Achives to parliament over the documents whereabouts and proving that the MOD did send out officers to interview UFO witnesses which the MOD denied up to that point, this document is of unique significance. Not being a UFO researcher you simply cannot see this because you are not immerised in the subject. As such I would suggest you leave decisions about validity or importance of this document to the Ufologists who specialise in this type of material. We are Wiki users too, not just military buffs who seem to be deeply personally offended by UFOs being connected with the military, which as these documents prove is a fact... Isnt it odd how some people want these docs pushed out of the way. As a final note, if I were allowed to state the documents importance on the RAF Rudloe Manor page I would do so but I know what would happen there, all sorts of tantrums from old RAF Boys who treat this page like their own personal property rather than an open and fair resource for information. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well apply the same rules to ALR when he called UFO researchers "nutters and idiots". Whats good for the goose is good for the gander old chap. Or should I call you Flight Commander? Wouldnt want to cause any offence to someone on the inside of rank. The point is you and ALR are jumping all over this page because of one thing UFOs. You want to redact the information and it is clear you have an agenda which goes beyond the needs of Wiki and its users. Please tell us are you now or have you ever been employed in the Military. I think we should know this in order to best decide who is wanting this inormation dampened down. More over what are your names please too. Mine is Matthew Williams, Bishops Cannings, Wiltshire and I have nothing to hide what so ever. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I made no such claim to have written the letter. Its is from P&SS and part of MOD files from the National Archives. Please read above asection why I think it is wrong for curent or ex MOD personnel to be actively seeking to banish comments on UFOs etc from the RAF Rudloe Manor pages as they have vested interests. I wont repeat it all again here, read the above. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this question just resulted in yet another personal attack I'll raise it in a new section, the points are germane to ongoing editing efforts.
ALR ( talk) 09:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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}
Notwithstanding that the persistent calling into question the motives of other users is a form of attack considered as a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, the ongoing accusations of a conflict of interest are rather wearing and disruptive. The Wikipedia policies that apply to content are verifiability and No Original Research both of which essentially render ones knowledge or history with respect to the topic moot.
Guidance around how to edit when one has a conflict of interest is available at WP:COI and advice can be sought at the noticeboard
Clearly Truthseekers666 has a self declared conflict of interest around this topic, given that he appears to gain at least some compensation from writing about the topic of UFOs and related topics. This reinforces the need for him to provide credible sources to support his assertions, something that he appears unwilling, or is unable, to do.
ALR ( talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Truthseeker did provide you with documentary evidence of RAF Rudloe Manor and UFOs and you chose to delete his pictures and text. Now you state that he did not give evidence and was unable to do so. What is with you? I think he is right, this is a Military stitch up! Petey Brizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are the rules not being applied to editors who do this such as ALR also? I think this is a fair question to ask.
If no one has any objections I'm going to remove the last external link added as it's self-motivated promotional spamming by a user with a CoI. Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I object to the removal of this link I have a great interest on this subject and have viewed the evidence on the website and I think of the pictures to be real and truthful because I live near the area and have seen these places in the photos. I have no knowledge of who Truthseekers666 is but viewing his website have belief that what he says it true. I am currently seeking a way to get hold of the documents from the national records office for myself to see if these are real documents and I will tell you here what I find. Pete Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 ( talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Could someone else please add the following to the page. Also, this requires the removal of the image of the manor and the coordinates. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{infobox military structure |name = RAF Rudloe Manor |native_name = |partof = |location = [[Corsham]], [[Wiltshire]], [[England]] |image = [[File:RudloeManorHawkins.jpg|250px]] |caption = Rudloe Manor main house |map_type = |latitude = |longitude = |map_size = |map_alt = |map_caption = |type = |coordinates = {{coord|51|25|14.28|N|2|13|0.70|W}} |code = |built = |builder = |materials = |height = |used = 1930s-2000 |demolished = |condition = Standing |ownership = Private, Military |open_to_public = No |controlledby = |garrison = |current_commander = |commanders = |occupants = |battles = [[World War II]], [[Cold War]] |events = |image2 = |caption2 = }}
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)
{{
editprotected}}
The unreferenced template could potentially be switched to a refimprove template. Any opinions?--
Rockfang (
talk)
06:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Noone has commented against my suggestion.-- Rockfang ( talk) 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
According to the RAF Police Association HQ P&SS moved there in 1977 and then moved to Henlow in 1998, when the station closed. heere not a reliable source but an indicator.
Other units were No1 Signal Unit, No6 Signal Unit, No1001 Signal Unit Hawthorn Detachment and the Principal Network Control Centre. All there until the site closed. No1, No6 and the PNCC closed in 2002 to be superceded by the GOSCC and 1001SU closed in 2005 to be superceded by Paradigm Secure Communications, a PFI outsourcing deal for the Skynet 5 constellation. Most of those have been picked up from personal sites so not referencable. ALR ( talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:
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
OK
After looking through this page and seeing the comments from Truthseeker I have to agree with his points about Rudloe, why not mention the fact that Rudloe used to investigate UFO Sightings ???????
It seems that the reason for this user been banned is that he questioned WHY!!!! and the reason for his ban is stupid and childish, 2 members jump on his comments and attack the user and both users are similar (belonging to the club no one mentions).
UFO's are littered through Wikipedia but when it comes to Rudloe ....no mention of them come on guys be fair this place is not ran by the military or the MOD........IS IT ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Without sounding condecending or argumentative I have read the artticles and pages, I think I would have to be pretty stupid not to have read the pages, and I understand "Outing" ...However surely this should be personal choice if users wont mind forwarding their information then that should be fine.
BUT!!!! WHat I was trying to say (maybe not as well as I should have, why is there censorship on WIKI when Factual evidence can be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I think I get it tahnks for explaining things :) as I said DONT get me wrong I was not been argumentative OR Aggressive, Also I wrote a brief explanation on WINUAE (Amiga Emulator) and it was deleted may I ask why and what I did wrong for the article not to be placed ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am NOT here to cause trouble or disrepute
I am here to ask question and understand the rules, which I have to say have been explained in a nice and pleasant way, I may not agree with some of what you say or the way Wiki is Ran BUT I can understand it.
What I say on Other Websites has nothing to do with Wikipedia these are my Observations and Opinions, I admit.....I could have worded things in a different way and will openly say that if I came across as a Troublemaker then I apologize to all of Wiki and its staff.
My actions ion this site have not been "Troublesome" or caused Disrepute, in fact my last comment was about something completely different.
you mentioned "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" as a comment I wrote, and thats fair enough I can see how that looks but I dont know about where you come from but where I live we use the word "SLATING" to mean Investigate as for the rest, please have a sense of humor I thought the Gnarly Frog part was obvious in the joking department, and seen as though the person I was talking to was Truthseeker then thats why the banner, if I was defending this site I would say "With my Wiki Banner in one hand and a Encyclopedia in the other" .......its just a comment a turn of phrase.
You also said "It is obvious you are not here in good faith but to disrupt the encyclopedia" ..... thats YOUR opinion BUT! show me one bad comment or one bad thing I have said here........! there is none I respect the rules I have been polite and not attacked anyone.
"When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus"
The above is what I read in the rules part of Wiki I am here, I have apologized and am trying to resolve the problem, I have looked at it from both mine and your point of view and have said I can see why you would think this. The rules of this site are the rules of the site, I respect them and (although not fully) understand them.
Finally you said "with fellow recruited user Tidgeypudd" Fellow recruiter I think not I am not the government or some Army Office I dont recruit.
I will happily discuss ANY part of who I am and what I do with any member of Wiki I have nothing to hide,.
SO all I can say is To the Wiki staff if I have caused any trouble dispute or conflict then I apologize and hope we can get along better and put this behind us —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out lol I forgot so I have (I think Amended the issue) not sure why your comment was so Brash but hey all done -- AMSCPC ( talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RAF Rudloe Manor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about UFOs, black projects, conspiracy theories, or anything not directly related to the improvement of the RAF Rudloe Manor page on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about UFOs, black projects, conspiracy theories, or anything not directly related to the improvement of the RAF Rudloe Manor page on Wikipedia at the Reference desk. |
RAF Hawthorn - SW ComCen was also located in the underground facility as a seperate command. Wwwhatsup 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
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)Truthseekers666 Matthew Williams 2-2010
You now title this personal attack by Truthseeker> This is the pot calling the kettle black after calling our work that of "nutters and idiots", and removing many refs and additions to the wiki of RAF Rudloe Manor. You redact and redact and now that this matter has been raised you consider it a personal attack? Well to stop this upsetting you any further please try and maintain information when it is posted on the Wiki, Today you removed two pieces of information I put up and also have now lost a link to a picture uploaded specifically to illustrate the points I am trying to make in helping this Wiki page not suffer from your redactions all the time. We have been through this 6 months ago when I uploaded lots of informatiopn and it all dissapeared because of you. Its time to grow up and face the music. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone in the know expand up the abbreviations in the article, spotted the following unexplained abbreviations
Keith D ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
ROC = Royal Observer Corps. RNSD = Royal Navy Stores Depot, DCSA - Defence Communication Services Agency - P&SS = Provost & Security Services. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Although I have stated that the inlcusion of P&SS UFO investigation scan and the letter from MOD to C Fowler relating to P&SS UFO file handling of a more recent date are important as they are direct evidence which shows the working status of P&SS in the UFO debate which up until I gave these ref was classed as "Conspiracy Theory" by user ALR. Now that these scans are in place so user ALR can no longer make the claim that these things are "Theory" but are actually FACT, user ALR keeps removing saying that "This has been referred to enough. We are talking about the media link on the end of the ref 2 being the following words "PHOTO HERE"... which ALR keeps removing. He says that the words are "cluttering up" the page. Two words! Cluttering. Yet again I am asking for this ALR and his motives to be looked at. I am very unhappy that I got banned last year for much much less than ALR si up to now. How can this be? I was banned from wiki by IP because I put the said same information on the page. Now I am a user of some standing ALR cannot ban me. Now he is just choosing to keep removing this information. The words censorship and pride come to mind. I am just interested in accurate portrayal of facts which is what citing refs is all about. I am properly citing refs not only by saying them, by prividing the actual documents to cite them with. ALR what is your excuse. Remove refs, remove evidence... alter facts! Very bad show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
User ALR: Chris Fowlers letter (the one you seem keen to remove the refs to) says UFO reports were sent to London... not low flying complaints. So we are talking about the UFO side of things. You have not cited any reference to be able to say "all flying complaints sent to London", as this is your opinion. Who knows it may be true, but what are you basing your opinions on? What I was giving with the bit about the UFO reports is backed up by the MOD letter stating as such. As a cited reference the letter was a question asked by Mr C Fowler about RAF Rudloe Manors involvement in UFO reporting. He got a direct reply. So in this instance in order to make it clear to the Wiki reader that this is not just speculation in a subject matter such as UFOs which is highly controversial and colored by some peoples opinions, it is very important to cite references. Simply stating the existence of some hitero "Letter to Mr Fowler", as a ref of a point, the Wiki reader will possibly say to him/herself "what letter to Mr Fowler, what was he asking, where do I read this letter". It is surely more helpful at that point to say, here click and see, instead of leaving the Wiki reader floundering around in the dark. Being someone who requires "Illumination" in ones life you should know this concept by now. Your quite happy to leave the ref in, which hints there is more to know, but not to allow the user to press the clickable link to easily go to the ref page which to me seems crazy. (Aside: So whilst we are at it why not take the steering wheel of your car off too, you know where you can buy one and refit one yourself!) What I am saying is lets put all the information where it should be easily accessable and not make people have to jump through hoops to find it. USER ALR: It was probably you who suggested my research was a "conspiracy theory" and titled the WIKI as such. Now you say you have removed the **MY** title "conspiracy theory". I doubt I would ever use that title when I was always in receipt of proven facts by the docs I had back then and have put up now. So please do not ascribe me as the originator of P&SS as Conspiracy Theory. Whilst we probably both know of the wild stories that are out there about Rudloe Manor I have kept those out of this page to keep it entirely factual. However I may put a "cpnspiracy theory on RNSD page re underground train link to London" as this is one of those highly talked about myths that seemed to circulate in Military and Public circles when discussing the secrets of the base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you cant see that this is a document relating to an investigation of a UFO then I am flabbergasted. Its titled UFO Seen at Trull Taunton. Not Low Flying Complaint! So how is it you cant understand this Milbourne? Have you read the document before commenting here? Sorry to be this blunt. It is a miltary UFO investigation. No where it is concluded that this is an aircraft. If you think this is low flying then that is your opinion. Go with what the document says. Go with the facts. On that basis you cannot then decide that this document is of no use based on its being Low Flying Investigation related and of no significance. Yes the department who looks into this also handles low flying complaints but this is not one. Re read, rethink and come back with something that follows the facts please. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As a reader of wikepedia i have to say i'm with Truthseekers666 on this subject. There is no point in deleting each others submissions just because people have other opinions. After all wikepedia is a source for everyone not just for those who contribute to it but for anyone who is interested to get to know the both sides of this subject. Truth are conspiracies for some and vice versa. It' always the majority who puts down the minority no matter who is stating what. I guess you get my point.
Another Truthseeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.111.208 ( talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that the removal of entries, including those by the origonal author: Arthur Warrington Thomas is absolutley obsurd. The information that User:Truthseekers666 has provided is useful as well as genuine. What ever happened to the freedom of information act? Does that not apply no longer here? This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.194.100 ( talk) 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hi Milborne: Thanks for quick reply. Are you wishing to put the information up? Would be handy if you wanted to put some brief info in those links to get the ball rolling, seeing as you seem to know something of these sections. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Well I have put right the fact that as the first document to reveal P&SS involvement - subquent confirmed lies by National Achives to parliament over the documents whereabouts and proving that the MOD did send out officers to interview UFO witnesses which the MOD denied up to that point, this document is of unique significance. Not being a UFO researcher you simply cannot see this because you are not immerised in the subject. As such I would suggest you leave decisions about validity or importance of this document to the Ufologists who specialise in this type of material. We are Wiki users too, not just military buffs who seem to be deeply personally offended by UFOs being connected with the military, which as these documents prove is a fact... Isnt it odd how some people want these docs pushed out of the way. As a final note, if I were allowed to state the documents importance on the RAF Rudloe Manor page I would do so but I know what would happen there, all sorts of tantrums from old RAF Boys who treat this page like their own personal property rather than an open and fair resource for information. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well apply the same rules to ALR when he called UFO researchers "nutters and idiots". Whats good for the goose is good for the gander old chap. Or should I call you Flight Commander? Wouldnt want to cause any offence to someone on the inside of rank. The point is you and ALR are jumping all over this page because of one thing UFOs. You want to redact the information and it is clear you have an agenda which goes beyond the needs of Wiki and its users. Please tell us are you now or have you ever been employed in the Military. I think we should know this in order to best decide who is wanting this inormation dampened down. More over what are your names please too. Mine is Matthew Williams, Bishops Cannings, Wiltshire and I have nothing to hide what so ever. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I made no such claim to have written the letter. Its is from P&SS and part of MOD files from the National Archives. Please read above asection why I think it is wrong for curent or ex MOD personnel to be actively seeking to banish comments on UFOs etc from the RAF Rudloe Manor pages as they have vested interests. I wont repeat it all again here, read the above. Truthseekers666 ( talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this question just resulted in yet another personal attack I'll raise it in a new section, the points are germane to ongoing editing efforts.
ALR ( talk) 09:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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}
Notwithstanding that the persistent calling into question the motives of other users is a form of attack considered as a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, the ongoing accusations of a conflict of interest are rather wearing and disruptive. The Wikipedia policies that apply to content are verifiability and No Original Research both of which essentially render ones knowledge or history with respect to the topic moot.
Guidance around how to edit when one has a conflict of interest is available at WP:COI and advice can be sought at the noticeboard
Clearly Truthseekers666 has a self declared conflict of interest around this topic, given that he appears to gain at least some compensation from writing about the topic of UFOs and related topics. This reinforces the need for him to provide credible sources to support his assertions, something that he appears unwilling, or is unable, to do.
ALR ( talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Truthseeker did provide you with documentary evidence of RAF Rudloe Manor and UFOs and you chose to delete his pictures and text. Now you state that he did not give evidence and was unable to do so. What is with you? I think he is right, this is a Military stitch up! Petey Brizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are the rules not being applied to editors who do this such as ALR also? I think this is a fair question to ask.
If no one has any objections I'm going to remove the last external link added as it's self-motivated promotional spamming by a user with a CoI. Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I object to the removal of this link I have a great interest on this subject and have viewed the evidence on the website and I think of the pictures to be real and truthful because I live near the area and have seen these places in the photos. I have no knowledge of who Truthseekers666 is but viewing his website have belief that what he says it true. I am currently seeking a way to get hold of the documents from the national records office for myself to see if these are real documents and I will tell you here what I find. Pete Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 ( talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Could someone else please add the following to the page. Also, this requires the removal of the image of the manor and the coordinates. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{infobox military structure |name = RAF Rudloe Manor |native_name = |partof = |location = [[Corsham]], [[Wiltshire]], [[England]] |image = [[File:RudloeManorHawkins.jpg|250px]] |caption = Rudloe Manor main house |map_type = |latitude = |longitude = |map_size = |map_alt = |map_caption = |type = |coordinates = {{coord|51|25|14.28|N|2|13|0.70|W}} |code = |built = |builder = |materials = |height = |used = 1930s-2000 |demolished = |condition = Standing |ownership = Private, Military |open_to_public = No |controlledby = |garrison = |current_commander = |commanders = |occupants = |battles = [[World War II]], [[Cold War]] |events = |image2 = |caption2 = }}
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)
{{
editprotected}}
The unreferenced template could potentially be switched to a refimprove template. Any opinions?--
Rockfang (
talk)
06:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Noone has commented against my suggestion.-- Rockfang ( talk) 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
According to the RAF Police Association HQ P&SS moved there in 1977 and then moved to Henlow in 1998, when the station closed. heere not a reliable source but an indicator.
Other units were No1 Signal Unit, No6 Signal Unit, No1001 Signal Unit Hawthorn Detachment and the Principal Network Control Centre. All there until the site closed. No1, No6 and the PNCC closed in 2002 to be superceded by the GOSCC and 1001SU closed in 2005 to be superceded by Paradigm Secure Communications, a PFI outsourcing deal for the Skynet 5 constellation. Most of those have been picked up from personal sites so not referencable. ALR ( talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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:
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
OK
After looking through this page and seeing the comments from Truthseeker I have to agree with his points about Rudloe, why not mention the fact that Rudloe used to investigate UFO Sightings ???????
It seems that the reason for this user been banned is that he questioned WHY!!!! and the reason for his ban is stupid and childish, 2 members jump on his comments and attack the user and both users are similar (belonging to the club no one mentions).
UFO's are littered through Wikipedia but when it comes to Rudloe ....no mention of them come on guys be fair this place is not ran by the military or the MOD........IS IT ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Without sounding condecending or argumentative I have read the artticles and pages, I think I would have to be pretty stupid not to have read the pages, and I understand "Outing" ...However surely this should be personal choice if users wont mind forwarding their information then that should be fine.
BUT!!!! WHat I was trying to say (maybe not as well as I should have, why is there censorship on WIKI when Factual evidence can be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I think I get it tahnks for explaining things :) as I said DONT get me wrong I was not been argumentative OR Aggressive, Also I wrote a brief explanation on WINUAE (Amiga Emulator) and it was deleted may I ask why and what I did wrong for the article not to be placed ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am NOT here to cause trouble or disrepute
I am here to ask question and understand the rules, which I have to say have been explained in a nice and pleasant way, I may not agree with some of what you say or the way Wiki is Ran BUT I can understand it.
What I say on Other Websites has nothing to do with Wikipedia these are my Observations and Opinions, I admit.....I could have worded things in a different way and will openly say that if I came across as a Troublemaker then I apologize to all of Wiki and its staff.
My actions ion this site have not been "Troublesome" or caused Disrepute, in fact my last comment was about something completely different.
you mentioned "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" as a comment I wrote, and thats fair enough I can see how that looks but I dont know about where you come from but where I live we use the word "SLATING" to mean Investigate as for the rest, please have a sense of humor I thought the Gnarly Frog part was obvious in the joking department, and seen as though the person I was talking to was Truthseeker then thats why the banner, if I was defending this site I would say "With my Wiki Banner in one hand and a Encyclopedia in the other" .......its just a comment a turn of phrase.
You also said "It is obvious you are not here in good faith but to disrupt the encyclopedia" ..... thats YOUR opinion BUT! show me one bad comment or one bad thing I have said here........! there is none I respect the rules I have been polite and not attacked anyone.
"When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus"
The above is what I read in the rules part of Wiki I am here, I have apologized and am trying to resolve the problem, I have looked at it from both mine and your point of view and have said I can see why you would think this. The rules of this site are the rules of the site, I respect them and (although not fully) understand them.
Finally you said "with fellow recruited user Tidgeypudd" Fellow recruiter I think not I am not the government or some Army Office I dont recruit.
I will happily discuss ANY part of who I am and what I do with any member of Wiki I have nothing to hide,.
SO all I can say is To the Wiki staff if I have caused any trouble dispute or conflict then I apologize and hope we can get along better and put this behind us —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMSCPC ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out lol I forgot so I have (I think Amended the issue) not sure why your comment was so Brash but hey all done -- AMSCPC ( talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)