Talk:Matthew Banks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Matthew Gordon Banks

According to the Telegraph "Matthew Gordon Banks" is the name of the former Conservative MP for Southport.[1] "Matthew William Gordon Banks" is a Conservative Cotswold District Councillor for Northleach.[2] I'll change the name. Rwendland (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are one and the same. Commonly known as Matthew Banks he is Matthew Gordon-Banks, or simply surname Gordon Banks. Confusing I know. He was both MP and Cotswold Cllr. My update was to create a more accurate picture for readers. There have been some silly postings but what Strathisla1 has typed is verifiable and true. His Christian names are Matthew Richard William. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

User:Strathisla1 has added a number of commentsto the article in an inappropriate manner. They need to be removed and his concerns addressed here rather than in article space. Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible that there is a direct connection between the article and User:Strathisla1? 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of one warning

Now Strathisla1 (the subject) knows the rules there will be no further attempt to personally alter the record and further changes will be sought via experienced editors. I hope the second warning could therefore be removed as it will now confuse readers.

I will seek to have the alleged citations from the Daily Telegraph which do not exist removed by editors. I believe that this page was altered by someone from the Intelligence Services using my file last month. Editors have already removed the "main" problems but one citation is a photocopy of a previous online Telegraph article which the DT has removed my name from several years ago. Now who would have a photocopy of of that? hence where I think the tampering came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Might i add that this sounds absolutely insane? Why do you think that a 'secret service' is trying to defame you? (ISI?????) Rhumidian (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

International Institute of Strategic Affairs

Dear MilborneOne

As I am trying to clean up a mess created by someone, who left no finger-prints, last month, I am most grateful to you for trying to properly check my Think Tank exists and be accurate. I would be most grateful if, rather than deleting my present role, you used the following as a citation: UK Companies House 09041328. You could check this by putting the number into the search engine for "searching for companies" at www.companieshouse.co.uk You should see details for Intl ISA Ltd and the company trades as International Institute for Strategic Affairs. Prior to this I worked for something you will find more easily on the internet by simple search engine, The Institute of Islamic Strategic and Socio-Political Affairs at www.iisa.org.uk (2010-14) I would be happy for you to add this if you so wished.

Having worked for the MoD my new company is never likely to advertise and does not currently require a website. It's clientele are government depts. The registered address is my home address in Oxfordshire, with work being done in London.

I hope this is helpful and that you can allow the retention of my current work against my name to complete the picture for any readers.

Best wishes,

Strathisla1 (MGB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have copied this from my talk page - as it is probably more appropriate here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Strathisla1 you really need to sign you posts the instruction are on each editing page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I can see the company is connected to subject but I cant see anything that connects it or declares it trades with the term "International Institute of Strategic Affairs". With zero web visibility if User:Strathisla1 is Mr Gordon-Banks then perhaps you can supply us with something reliable that links you with the company and the use of the term "International Institute of Strategic Affairs" and some indication that it is notable, a consultancy with the MoD frankly is not that notable to mention. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim Farron

I cant find any reference that the subject was a "Foreign Policy Advisor to Tim Farron" again if User:Strathisla1 is Mr Gordon-Banks then he should be able to point us to some reliable source for this information. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should seek evidence as to whether User:Strathisla1 is Mr Gordon-Banks? Rhumidian (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesnt matter really as even if it was they are not a reliable source for themselves. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering he is a politician, does he have a blog or paper? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 Rhumidian (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhumidian's Edits

Hei, I am Rhumidian. I was editing the page of MGB due to the need for additional verification. I am responsible for some of the greater edits in deleting existing edits. What i have done to the page was delete a lot of the content that wasn't properly cited. What i have done is 'clean' the page so to speak, and i did it within what i thought was wikipedia rules. After i deleted and cleaned most of the uncited sources the article was short, it was a stub. Then I began researching MGB to try to recuperate the page. What i found online was new articles linked to MGB, Some had been attempted to be deleted under google's right to be forgotten (which i had to retrieve from databases, HTML Banks and Wayback machine). These were articles about fraud. I found so many incidents I created the heading 'Allegations of fraud', I think it is wrong not to write about these things. Now I apologise to mod's if this might have created quite a mess, but there is nothing wrong with the publicization of the truth, and it annoys me that people would unknowingly read a biased article. I believe that most the edits I made were right, weren't' libelous and expressed freedom of journalism that wikipedia so greatly expresses.

I have dug into previous edits and have found user angus gordon banks ( who i believe might be the son?) to have edited the page without any citations. I dont believe that it is right to allow a relative to post on a page without any citations, (forbidding weak citations).

I would be happy for Mr Banks to contact me below.

Thanks. Rhumidian (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rhumidian we just need to remember that we have rules about biographies of living people which requires reliable sources and citations and we need to balance the article and take care particulary when it involves allegations that are not proven or later acquited. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand, I think this topic requires greater research, and that the article be written to be a better reflection of MGB.

Is it possible you could get someone who is better knowledgeable in writing complex 'legal' english, so they can clear up any of the current issues we have regarding libel. I am sure that MGB cannot sue and get a gagging order (forced censorship).Rhumidian (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We dont need to write legal English we just need to report what the reliable sources say in a balanced manner. MilborneOne (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked the Danison stuff to try and get a better balance as we need to remember he was cleared of any involvement and the sucide bid was related to his PTSD and this incident, leaving it unexplained in the family life give the wrong picture. User:Rhumidian so as not to cause any more issues with neutrality with the article can you please get a consensus here before you edit again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i was going through old changes and undid one, I didn't have time to read it. I will discuss before editing. sorry.Rhumidian (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Copied from User:Rhumidian talk page just confuses the issue here

Matthew Banks I appreciate you are trying to help Rhumidian but it may be better if you raise any changes you want on the talk page first as we are trying to keep the article neutral and balanced, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Matthew Gordon-Banks Hi there. I am the subject. Just tell me where to email my passport, Who's Who entry, or any other document to ensure you are confident I am whom I say I am. Please take me up on this suggestion. My page was altered last month by someone unknown (I have good reason to believe it was the security services) without leaving a footprint. I am only keen to do the following 1. Make sure it is accurate and 2. Give any reader a sense of my career. At present there is far too much emphasis on untrue fraud allegation. Contrary to your remark any removal of comments were made by the Daily telegraph. I have never contacted Google as you state. It is a fact that there is NO public information on my becoming a Foreign Policy advisor to Tim Farron MP, the Lib Dem FCO spokesperson. I would have to get Tim to confirm it after the election. However, that said I do not know how it came to be on my page anyway even though it is true and ought to remain. Equally someone has deleted reference to a Ltd company International Institute for Strategic Affairs, my current employ (Int ISA Ltd at companies house; public doc) At present there is virtually nothing on my career it has been removed. I worked for a Govt dept (MoD) over seas. It is in Who's Who and has been for years. I am going to have to ask someone independent to edit this. At present it does not help a reader know the full picture. Try and be a bit more sympathetic. I have been shot at, blown up, de-frauded and goodness knows what. It is tough having those things listed inc PTSD. I try to present a face now of good health and work. Please take me up, even though you have been the least sympathetic reviewer recently, on my giving you proof of my ID. Also my son DID try and alter the page and I told him off for doing so! He was only young. Best wishes, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Matthew Gordon-Banks 2 Your comment: Does anyone know if there is any source for this ″Originally pursuing a career as a British Army officer, he was commissioned into the Gordon Highlanders before being war pensioned in 1984.″. It isn't properly cited and there is no information that confirms this statement. Rhumidian (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC) I am absolutely certain that someone took this statement which is absolutely true from my original election address in 1992 in Southport. Not sure how it ended on Wiki but I was on a Regular Commission not Short Service hence the "originally pursuing a career..." I have nothing to hide other than that which you know but what to expand so a reader can know more about my career. For ten years I have been trying to "prevent Pakistan imploding" on behalf of UK to quote an intelligence colleague. if you allow me to identify myself I will try and give you as much corroboration as I can. At present the re is nothing much in my career section! I know people are looking as I am standing in a local council election. best wishes and sorry i do not know how to sign properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC) To sign a post do a quad tilde "~" at the end of your post. Rhumidian (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Matthew Gordon-Banks Thanks for the advice. Here goes with a signature attempt. Please take me up on proving whom I am. I CAN even get you in contact with the journalist who removed my name from Daily Telegraph online items. Not that I think you need it but he is called Richard Eden and is now diary editor of the Daily Mail. I would just like my career to have some a bit more detail. Strathisla1 (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Open letter to MGB Mr Banks (Strathisla1), There is no need to send your passport. I hope you realise that that would be a borderline idiotic thing to do, (you would be best to send your national insurance number ;) ). As to the who's who, if you send a photocopy/picture of the page of the most recent entry on you to this talk page (submit it to https://imgur.com/ and post the address here) then i will add it and its incuded info to the references on your biography. Regarding getting someone independent to edit the article, that would not be possible. I hope you realise that wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, where anyone has freedom to publish any information (past or present). It might not be possible to remove any recent entries without proper evidence contradicting it. Any legal action regarding wikipedia is not possible, and it is most likely to be shot down. Onto the topic of secret files, I would like to highlight a few points; The right to be forgotten cannot be confirmed, but when searching for you on google, the notice does come up on the pages with your name on. On other search engines I can better yield results (duckduckgo.com). You are an MP and I hope you take security seriously, but you are struggling to convince me. If you have taken up the official secrets act then you should be trying to refrain from talking about your job in middle eastern analysis. I dont want to continue editing your page, You have come off as a bit of a bigot and don't seem notable enough to require a wiki page, but i will continue to monitor it. I hope we can neutralise your page and clear up any inaccuracies. My revisions are final. Thanks, Rhumidian (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Biographical issues

Does anyone know if there is any source for this ″Originally pursuing a career as a British Army officer, he was commissioned into the Gordon Highlanders before being war pensioned in 1984.″. It isn't properly cited and there is no information that confirms this statement. Rhumidian (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly controversial but I have added a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we need additional references for "After leaving the Army he worked in Banking and in 1984 he was elected as a Conservative for the Heswall Ward on Wirral Borough Council, serving as Chairman of the Schools Committee from 1985 to 1987. He was re-elected with 75% of the vote in 1988 before standing down from the council in 1990. In 1987 he fought Manchester Central for the Conservatives, retaining second place. In 1990 he was selected to fight Southport. He was elected Member of Parliament (MP) forSouthport in 1992, gaining the seat from the Liberal Democrat Ronnie Fearn. In Parliament he served on the Transport Select Committee from 1992-7. In 1997, Fearn won the seat back from Banks" ==

If we cite this properly we can remove the citation notice at the top of the page.

Where you not asked to refrain from editing this article and talk page following your personal attacks? MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud

I have boldly deleted the section "Allegations of fraud' for two reasons. Firstly it mixes allegations against Banks for which he was never charged, with fraud where banks was the victim. Secondly, under WP:BLPCRIME we need to be careful about including unproven allegations of a crime. Politicians are not automatically regarded as notable enough for include unproven allegations and allegations where charges have not been laid. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You are aware before being so bold that accepting a police caution is an admission of guilt so it is not an unproven allegation? MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Accepting a caution is not an admission of guilt, nor is it a conviction. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure as that is not what the Police say "You have to admit an offence and agree to be cautioned. You can be arrested and charged if you don’t agree.." https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It goes on to say "A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime." - according to WP:BLPCRIME we need to be very careful about posting unproven allegations where the alleged had no ability to defend themselves in court. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a raw admission of guilt. I think it is very noteworthy(BTW: I know i shouldn't edit although I added citation warnings, but i am free to participate in discussion). I think that the changes should be reverted, or we should consult a more powerful admin? I think that it is absolutely a necessary addition to the article. I dont know why you would remove an entire section without posting in talk first? Rhumidian (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhumidian I followed WP:BRD and immediately opened a discussion n the talk page. Further, BLP violations always require the content to be removed. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at MilborneOne, The law of england says that what MGB has done is admit to a crime. That makes the crime a noteworthy event, Does it not?

"You have to admit an offence and agree to be cautioned. You can be arrested and charged if you don’t agree."

References

A bit of emphasis on Admit Peace out,Rhumidian (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)':::

Rhumidian It is simple, the subject of the article was not charged or convicted. Cautions are by definition minor and not significant enough to warrant inclusion in a biography of a living person. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out is broadly correct and at least one of you is putting very significant mental pressure on me. I have twice successfully sued two newspapers and I wish to resolve this amicably. I am a person not just a simple Wiki page.

Even if I have received a caution - and it is the subject of an IPCC issue as I was not given a medical or a solicitor before interview - under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, were this a (significant) "conviction" (which it is not) it would be SPENT. The only exception would be in the case of a sexual offence including a Caution where it is public record (sexual offenders register)In any case the Royal Household would not have invited my wife and I to Buckingham Palace if the allegation was true. If you research Kedge Martin from the Charity you will see the Royal family sacked her from her role as CEO of Prince Harry's charity when certain truths emerged, which ought to tell you something.

What is more important is that some editors have got in a twist because they cannot, yet, find a citation for eg 2004-10 Senior Research Advisor, Advanced Research and Assessment Group, Defence Academy, MoD which is one of many things in my Who's Who entry; or even a simple voluntary role like advising Tim Farron MP. Readers of Wikipedia want to know jobs done and the problem I have is that I list it publicly in Who's Who but those in certain government roles are not the subject of publicity by press release. When they are, as in Pakistan, it can be life-threatening. Finally, my www.matthewgordonbanks.com was taken down when Mr fingerprintless altered it. You might be interested to know that its only contents were a complete copy of the wording of my then Wiki page. I just want a fair biog. Strathisla1 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally, to be fair to Rhumidian, I have never ever sought to have items in Google removed - unless they were defamatory and the Daily Telegraph acted very responsibly when knowing all the details. Google will always have items which cover the two frauds. It is just not appropriate in Wikipedia biogs for the reason Flat Out has stated. I mean this in good part.Strathisla1 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If i could interject. I now have changed my thought. I think that the 'Allegations of fraud' Should be removed, but i feel that their should be a brief (2-3 lines/ condensed) statment in the career section regarding the 3 incidences. I think that it is important that they are mentioned, but as Strathisla1 has said, they are part of his biography, and i think having a fraud statement occupying most of a biography is not fair. This is especially true when you consider that such a statment is larger than his career heading. The article is clearly causing stress on MGB, and i think it would be only fair that we accept Flat Out's changes. I think that the only statement that should really be included is the home office call, which has direct links to Mr Banks political history. Takk, Rhumidian (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This matter is under discussion at WP:BLPN and we need to wait for a decision there. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

http://whoslobbying.com/uk/matthew_gordon_banks If you look at this public link you will see I went to the Cabinet Office to complain under the heading Overseas Development the "injustice and ill-treatment of Moslems seeking to visit UK". The cabinet Office took it up with Home Office, Home Office did not like me highlighting their failures and had me arrested! My wife remains Private Secretary to the Cabinet Office Minister Letwin and the police did not like being used as a political tool to hit back at me.Strathisla1 (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Outside input

This source is probably not reliable, but the Telegraph is.[3][4] I don't think we are prohibited from covering court cases that are not yet resolved, so long as it's clear that the case is still ongoing, the article-subject's point-of-view is included, and it should be incorporated into the chronology of their biography, rather than placed in a dedicated section. CorporateM (Talk) 23:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Understand where you are coming from CorporateM but look a little closer the sources 4 & 5 you quote have changed. Your sources 4 and 5 have been removed. Be aware that (and it only came to my attention very recently) the website hosting these two old Telegraph items are a private archive. it is not the DT. The DT has either removed my name from articles or removed the article completely and your colleagues are right to steer clear. For what it was worth the Telegraph did not have me in its sights. It had been gunning for the CEO of Prince Harry's charity for months and when facts were known the Royal family had her sacked! I just got caught in something nothing much to do with me when I returned from time in Pakistan. I hope that info helps. I will be in touch with that archive website to remove the DT article. Thanks. Strathisla1 (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with that proposal, thanks CorporateM Flat Out let's discuss it 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Only thing is the Telegraph has removed those two stories from its current live website, while other unrelated stories from about that date are still live, eg [5] and [6]. This gives credence to the notion that the Telegraph removed them under legal pressure (so perhaps the Telegraph was worried there was some libel/unfairness there). This all seems quite murky, and my inclnation is to continue to leave it out. Rwendland (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am having a change of heart. I started vetting the sources once more in order to re-incorporate the content that was reliably sourced, but both Telegraph stories were practically incoherent and it was often unclear what they were trying to say. Rwendland's point of those stories being retracted is also relevant. Plus I see the author now works for the Daily Mail, which I recently discovered thanks to user:Doc James, is notoriously erroneous. Many of the other sources were written by folks like "Southport Visitor". I also see that the article-subject is a politician, so it is unsurprising that a bunch of attack content has been published most likely by political opponents in sources that attempt to give the appearance of being reliable. I oppose re-incorporating any of this material without better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that is wise. This is something I researched and wrote at the same time as you were writing the above, and worth keeping for the record:

NB Any UK editor who is thinking of reinserting (republishing) any mention of any possible caution, ought to consider what section 8 of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 "Defamation actions"[7] says, and this helpful guidance to journalists.[8] Mr Banks has stated above "Even if I have received a caution - and it is the subject of an IPCC ... under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, were this a (significant) "conviction" (which it is not) it would be SPENT." Personally, I would not republish it as it seems to me that in the UK I'd have a pretty poor defence against any Defamation action - not somewhere I want to risk going. Rwendland (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am an editor residing in the United States and I claim no expertise in British law or British politics, though I have generalized affection for and interest in all matters British. But my real interest here is in defending our firm policy regarding Biographies of living people. Strathisla1, my most sincere apologies to you if this article has brought unjustified grief to you in any way. Dubious material does not belong in Wikipedia biographies. I commend my Australian friend, Flat Out and all the other responsible editors commenting here. Let this biography not be a hit piece. I will be watching. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the time you guys have spent on this - my life at times has been a living hell. I have tried to be honest with you. The Daily Telegraph were good at removing things that should not be there. Ultimately, currently, two sites I found out about this month have never known to take the stuff down so I will contact them if I can. I also think that in the general overview at the beginning it would be better for the average reader to be told after dates of being an MP "before joining the Liberal Democrats in 2004". Otherwise a researcher has to read the whole lot. I think the overview is best placed for this. Equally I will go away and try and find something to allow you to put my career in as it is unnecessarily thin at present. Thanks.Strathisla1 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to remove something from the internet. It will almost always be archived at time of creation, and there are so many different websites archiving these webpages. The best place to start would be their sources. If you want you can remove them from google by using their 'Right to be forgotten'. Hope this helps.Rhumidian (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Views from Matthew Gordon-Banks

Following serious vandalism on my page in March a number of you have tried first to remove what was added and then edit the page.

I will not attempt to add anything to this page unless I put it on this talk page. I have yet to find time to try to argue for the replacement of virtually ALL my career details simply because they are not easily seen on the internet.

However, I do object to my name being changed. My passport says Matthew Gordon Banks. I put a dash in it to make it clear sometimes that it is a surname. I would appreciate it if you would change the heading of my page to my full name Matthew Gordon Banks. I helpfully try to point out that between 1992-7 I was known as Banks as an MP. I reverted back as I had left active frontline politics.

I hope someone will do this - it is a pretty reasonable request. If you go to Who's Who and look up Matthew Banks it tells you to look up Matthew ordon Banks with no other information.Strathisla1 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: You moved this from the redirect previously citing WP:COMMONNAME, I would say the full name is more common than just Matthew Banks. Do you have an objection to a move back? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Although if he was known as Matthew Banks while he was an MP then it seems to me that this is probably his WP:COMMONNAME as he's not really known for anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

My Name

Necrothesp has stated in his blurb he does not like people on wiki whom are not interesting/important or whatever his view is. I regard it as slanderous to suggest I am not known post 1997 by my proper name Matthew Gordon Banks or given his remarks not known at all! That the most important part of my life working for the Ministry of Defence on the Middle East and South Asia has been removed from my career details is a source of disappointment since many people look me up on this website and the details are markedly few in comparison to Who's Who. The MoD does not and never will place on the internet details of its employees. 86.146.24.190 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Special:Contributions/86.146.24.190|86.146.24.190]] (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that if more information is held on the subject of the article in Who's Who, it is added with clear references to the publication. WatermillockCommon (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Who's Who is a blacklisted source on wikipedia. This is because it is a primary source with original research, ergo it is not reliable. Partly due to the fact that who's who articles are updated by the subject of the article. It is asked-not to cite contentious information with a who's who article, but instead use reliable articles.And remember ALL CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED.Rhumidian (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that! I must admit to having used the 1914 edition for several articles on British Army officers. I'll need to do some editing! User:WatermillockCommon (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@WatermillockCommon: You didn't know it because it is 100% not true. The British Who's Who is an entirely reliable source, is considered to be one of the most important sources for British biography, and is not in any way blacklisted. Please don't take any notice of this editor's claims and feel free to keep material sourced from WW in your articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If you really are who you say you are I would have thought you'd be more familiar with the definition of slander, less sensitive and less convinced of your own (self-)importance! I would also suggest you read my "blurb" again, as it certainly doesn't say what you seem to think it does or anything similar. Mr Gordon Banks was known when he was an MP as Matthew Banks and it is as an MP that he is undoubtedly best-known. Looking at his Who's Who entry, I'm not sure his subsequent work alone would make him notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. He has an article solely because he sat as an MP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%, The only reason this article exists is because of its WP politics significance. No other information about MGB should be included!!!Rhumidian (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course other information should be included. Just because one thing makes him notable doesn't mean other stuff shouldn't be included. This is illogical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest info

Two of you have a problem. My work as a Senior Reasearch Fellow of the Advanced Research and Assessment Group at the Ministry of Defence, Defence Academy - the Staff College for all three Services, is of far more important that ever being a Member of Parliament. During that time in January 2007, my accomodation was bombed by islamic militants killing my two body guards. For someone who has difficulty working due to serious disablement the sheer tenor of both your remarks is more than upsetting. Between Thursday and Sunday, not for the first time I was bed ridden. I have stated before I would prefer no entry at all that one which is incomplete and subject to the public abuse you have given me.86.136.120.46 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is not how important you think your work is, but whether it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability! I think it would almost certainly be held that only your parliamentary career made you notable enough for an article here - individuals do not decide themselves whether they are or are not worthy of articles (otherwise many of us would probably decide we were!). You have been subject to no abuse whatsoever, only to some possibly unwarranted editing. I'm afraid to say you do come across as somewhat self-important, which is bound to attract negative comment. May I suggest you leave your own article alone unless it is patently inaccurate, and then it would be better if you contacted an administrator to sort it out rather than editing it yourself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Slander

Necrothesp "If you really are who you say you are I would have thought you'd be more familiar with the definition of slander..." Given I have successufully sued two national newspapers I think I know rather you than you think. I wish to up-date over a period of time what WAS in my page before someone destroyed it in March. All of it was accurate. I shall await my day. I regret Rhumidian is on a personal crusade to prevent my page being re-formed.86.136.120.46 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear he is, and that is clearly unacceptable. But it would be best if you left it to others to deal with it instead of getting angry here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added sourced information from Who's Who. If Rhumidian or anyone else tries to remove it again they will be blocked. But please note that all material must be sourced from a reliable source (which does include WW, despite the claims above). Hopefully this will resolve the issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and minor alts

May I thank you very sincerely Necrothesp for stepping in. Life is not perfect but at least things show something of my career. Thank you. There will be minor grammar or similar changs from me which surely no one could disagree with.86.140.55.21 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional Information

Whilst I am very pleased and appreciative with attempts to re-create my page following serious vandalism in March by persons unknown there may be additional info but I will try and make sure of sources to quote. Having made minor grammer alterations I confirm I will make NO attempt to change the page, but will place any issues on the Talk Page.≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.55.21 (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Intelligence & International Relations

The following was removed from my page by persons unknow. I have now found a source(s) to allow this to be re-entered.

"From 2005 Gordon Banks has worked for the Advanced Research and Assessment Group of the UK Defence Academy at the Ministry of Defence. He has suffered complex post-traumatic stress disorder after being injured in a bomb blast in Pakistan in 2007 when working for that UK government, for which he still requires treatment. He also has a war pension for a 30% physical disability"

SOURCE: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/ex-southport-mp-matthew-gordon-banks-3360228 Liverpool Daily Post and Echo covering the North West and North Wales.

Please insert this previously deleted item of important career history.86.140.21.32 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

University Attended

I see WatermillockCommon has reverted Sheffield Hallam University to Sheffield City Polytechnic. The later is correct but is defunct it changed its name. I will check my Who's Who Entry and change it to Hallam if necesaary. I thought it it a fair change and anyone delving would know the dates were before the change. = to Royal Agricultural College Cirencester now being Royal Agricultural University Cirencester.86.140.21.32 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's Sheffield Hallam now but it wasn't then. We write as things were at the time we're referring to, not as they are now. Anything else would be revisionist, and we don't do that - it's what totalitarian regimes do! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Further to Necrothesp's point, you will be interested to know the same policy applies for Sandhurst. If someone attended the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, then that is what is recorded in his article. If he Sandhurst after it became RMAS, then that is what is written instead. WatermillockCommon (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And indeed people who were commissioned into the Gordon Highlanders but never served in the Royal Regiment of Scotland! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guys!

Watermillock Common & Necrothesp

Thanks Guys. No grumbles. I understand the policy, your actions, and I am happy with that!

I did put in a link to info that was in my profile before vandalism in March. It might be interesting for the reader for it to be put back and it does explain why I am further disabled due to bomb blast - covered in BBC website too. Thanks.86.140.21.32 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

Surprised at this: I was an Advisor (job title)to each organisation specified as per Who's Who and my own CV. If we cannot put a capital A in front of it please at least can we spell it correctly. It is Advisor. Adviser and Defense are americanisms.86.140.21.32 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"In the UK, Ireland and Asia the spelling is traditionally adviser, though US spelling advisor is becoming increasingly common." See Wiki usage notes or the Oxford Dictionaries, both of which say 'adviser' is the UK spelling, and 'advisor' an Americanism... WatermillockCommon (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The OED also prefers adviser. Certainly not an Americanism. First recorded in the 16th century. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)