Talk:Brian Paddick, Baron Paddick

Relationship between Brian and Hugh Paddick

As this has been questioned a number of times, please see this image, which I hope explains it better. -- Roleplayer 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to meet the guidance of reliable sources as an un-sourced image from a free geocities account cannot count as being a recognized publisher. Consequently this information fails the guidance of WP:BLP. The second source referenced in the article (one-name.org) does not imply any family relationship between Brian and Hugh Paddick apart from sharing the surname and so is also not a source for the text that it is referenced from. On this basis I have removed this long standing claim until published sources are available.—Teahot (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Questioned content

What does the raid on the Button Factory have to do with Brian Paddick attending a meeting? Did he order for it to go ahead? This needs to be made clearer. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It has agreat deal to do with Paddick - he is the Commander of L Division where days earlier he had attended the MPA meeting comitted to formulating a consultative, outreach and diversified approach to local policing. This operation would not have proceeded without his fore knowledge and it not simply a mater of whether he ordered the operration and he may have done so or been instumental in its being agreed. Is it not to be windowed simply because full disclosure has never been forthcoming? It was subsequently raised with him and with the Lambeth MPA representative. Paddick ignored the representations that were made to him. I live in Lambeth and worked for a decade in local government with police connected responsibilities. Why on earth ought not this juxtaposition of events to be discussed in context? Were Lambeth Special Branch also implicated in Operation Dursley? What (obviously selectively speaking) has "ANARCHIST" orientated Paddick comments on a local Lambeth website got strictly to do with "cannabis" policing policy? Its the way the cookies crumble these matters become extremely discursive and if you wanted to talk about all this why did you not talk first instead of deleting my earlier posts? I am extremely unhappy about the way Wikipedia are treating my posts - itis a disgrace. (----) TheGuntz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I think you need to point that out (though you're bordering on original research with a dash of your own point of view). The edit was removed (and has been again by someone else) because the relevance is not immediately apparent.

This operation would not have proceeded without his fore knowledge

Unless you can provide a good verifiable reference to prove that, the article is making a statement that it cannot back up in Court and trust me Wikipedia has been taken to Court plenty of times over much less.

he may have done so or been instumental in its being agreed.

This is circumspection, and evidences to me that you don't have the proof necessary to demonstrate that this claim is factual.

Why on earth ought not this juxtaposition of events to be discussed in context?

Because an encyclopedia is a series of referenced and verifiable statements of fact, not a discussion forum.

Also please learn how to format articles, and particularly references - it makes life easier for other editors. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

To Roleplay - You did not (significantly) respond to my point re why delete a posting without "talk" first. I think it is arrogant and rude. I cannot agree with you that an article partly about policing policy in Lambeth during Paddicks period of tenure cannot reasonably highlight serious controversial police operations that occured during his tenure -and they did occur it isn't conjecture there are press reports with photographs - the posting I made scene-set that Operation Dursley occured 5 days after the MPA meeting that was detailed in the MPA official minutes that were linked to on-line MPA sources. Wikipedia readers are quite capable of scrutinising these links and weighing up the pros and cons - readers are not zombies. Operation Dursley was controversial as was the cannabis situation . That that was a matter of concern is not conjecture BUT FACT and there were online sources linked to my post to verify that. It is verifiable that the MPA meeting took place, that Paddick played a part in it. Operation Dursley took place and is verifiable. Encyclopedia readers are quite entitled to have have that information and reflect upon it as they so choose to do. What "evidences" to me (to use your effete turn of phrase) is that you maybe somebody's minder. I did not say in my article posting that Paddick role played in Operation Dursley but he was the divisional Commander and it is cretinous to believe that he was not a participant at any level in it. My understanding over many years of policing policy is that operations of this order and indeed lesser one's do not go ahead without prior notification to senior commanders. I have not got documentation to this efect to hand but I know it exists. You are showcasing officious nonesensical over-extremism and should chill out. Anyway my posting stated that the MPA meeting took place amd so did Operation Dursley - Paddick was in charge policing and those are facts and wikpedia should not shy away from making tha clear - to do less is cowardly if not worse. The somebody else who also conveniently removed my post I cannot speculate about because I would be involving you in something unencyclopedic - heaven forbid.(----)TheGuntz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you find my edits offensive. It is common practice at Wikipedia however to delete any controversial material that is unreferenced quite quickly. Especially on an article as high profile as this.

My main concern is not that the content should not be included in the article, just that if it is it should be clearly referenced given clear evidence that readers can then go and check up for themselves. I did not say that Operation Dursley and the Cannabis policy were uncontroversial.

You are showcasing officious nonesensical over-extremism and should chill out.

You are making claims in an article on controversial topics about a highly visible and vocal politician, and should be careful that what you write can be backed up. I am nobody's minder, I have not even met the man. My concern is for the encyclopedia, not for Brian Paddick's image. -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

--- to Roleplayer. This won't do at all really. In my original posting which you deleted was brief. So far as the MPA meeting was concerned the link references I gave were verificable and impeccable - the MPA's own full "Minutes" with Brian Paddick's attendance itemised in black and white. For Operation Dursley I gave a link for online verification which referred to a number of named media reports about the police operation - not every word about these matters is on-line but there are newspaper libraries - such as the one at Collindale where there are records. I assume that Wikipedia is not claiming that such sources are not adequate - it cannot be for in the current article there are many news reports linked for verification and information. These items of information stood by themselves as viable. I did not make cliams for them they stand for themselves. I did not link the URBAN75 Paddick chat information it has been very widely publicised and was already withiin the ambit of the article and isn't a matter that Paddick has even been in denial about. To have deleted these factul matters is completely wrong and then to be put on trial almost about views I expressed to you in the talk exchanges which were not actually part of the actual posted article it totally wrong. There is absolutely no reason why the anecdotes I posted but which have twice now been deleted should not be allowed. It is a disgrace. Curiously enough it is a somewhat faceless dilemma of the kind that Paddick himself was (and remains) faced with in relation to the machinations of Commissioner Ian Blair's failings - wikipedia seem to be batting for the wrong side on this one. This is a high profile article but that is not a good enough reason why quite straight-forward police related matters that may not be deemed one hundred percent to the credit of Lambeth policing while Paddick was commander should be supressed. Paddick is not GOD - or even Mayor -,not yet anyway. I think the post should be re-instated and would value asistance for that to happen. I certainly haven't contributed to the detriment of wikipedia in any of my postings - far from it. (----) TheGuntz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --TheGuntz (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Guntz. You've provided references for the fact that Paddick attended the MPA meeting and that there was a police raid on the Button Factory. However, everything else that you have inserted, particularly the innuendo that Paddick somehow acted in bad faith, are not currently backed up by any references. Unreferenced allegations that put living people in a bad light are defamatory and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Also, do sign and date your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your messages. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Jacklee - this is the 2nd occasion when you have deleted posts to this article that I have made without consulting first - at least on this occasion you have posted an after the event message. With the first post I made you insisted that I had no references and so for todays post I produced them. What the post I made is saying in part and it is backed up by the URBAN75 citation was that the police raid on the BUTTON FACTORY was not regarded as an act beneficial to those whom it affected who used that social centre and that information stands on that basis. It was regarded as an act of bad faith policing - in the same way that some regarded in various ways policing policiies in relation to canabis use - which elsewhere in the article is windowed and is not being deleted by you as "defamatory". The URBAN75 citation is there to signify that there was unhappiness, just as to the opposite effect the article points to positive reactions to other policing developments. In any event why have you deleted the Button Factory raid and other information that was referenced and ws NOT defamatory? I am - as with Roleplayer - very unhappy about the arrogant way in which these post are being removed. So far as the one or two technical internet errors are concerned I am gradually learning - as I did this afternoon and that is par for the course. This is not a question of defamation it a matter of posting information that helps for a fuller understanding of the policing strategies that were being deployed in the Lambeth Police Division when Brian Paddick was the commanding officer so that wikipedia readers can better appreciate the community background against which Paddick developed his career. --TheGuntz (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Further for the attention of JackLee. I have just read the following addressed to you from Roleplayer on your "talk" page -

""Brian Paddick You recently reverted an edit by User:TheGuntz at the above page. He is arguing the toss with me on the talk page of that article, and although yesterday I was willing to engage with him today I don't have the energy to read through his third long rant against me and respond accordingly. Do you mind pitching in with your own reasons for reverting the edit? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)"

I am wondering to whom I am to turn to bad mouth your own good self when I get too tired even to read what is being posted in reply to what I have written? Is this how wikipedia operates? Are you being asked to act as Roleplayers wikipedia minder? How does Roleplayer know that I have "ranted" against him if he has not read what I have written? You did delete my much improved and referenced cpost and then left a "talk" message for me - I am unclear whether you were speaking for Roleplayer? Can you clarify? Can you also clarify - energy permitting - why the textual URBAN75 citation contained in the post that I made yesterday was not a valid reliable reference to meet the purpose which it was intended to serve namely indicate commmunity concerns about OPERATION DURSLEY? --TheGuntz (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "Operation Dursley" information

Hi, Guntz. The information you inserted into the article about "Operation Dursley" read as follows:

On 27 March 2001 as L Division Commander Paddick attended the first Metropolitan Police Authority "CONSULTATION, OUTREACH and DIVERSITY COMMITTEE" public consultation meeting. It was held at Lambeth Town Hall and full minutes are available see [[1]]. Controversy arose shortly afterwards on the local URBAN75 website whose chatboards Paddick later joined wearing his one-time Anarchist hat. Riot equipped police had descended on and trashed the squatted Brixton based “BUTTON FACTORY” social centre on 31 March. Estimates of the police numbers varied with the upper estimate being 200. In addition to BBC TV reportage see [[2]]. URBAN75 observed “Urban75 regulars will know that the Button Factory played host to some fine nights and parties as well as a cafe and will be sorely missed as vibrant local venue” see [[3]]. Code named “DURSELY” this police operation was supported by bailiffs and Scotland Yard Special Branch. It was regarded as being inconsistant with with the MPA’s “CONSULTATIVE, OUTREACH AND DIVERSITY” approach supposedly supported by Paddick.

I've reviewed the references numbered 1 to 3 that you included, but still feel that the information should be omitted from the article for the following reasons:

• It was inserted under the heading "Cannabis enforcement", but seems to have nothing to do with that subject. According to the 1 April 2001 BBC News article, the raid on the disused factory was carried out as it was thought to be an anarchist training centre.
• The minutes of the 27 March 2001 meeting of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee do not relate to "Operation Dursley" at all.
• The fact that the operation was called "Operation Dursley" and was supported by Scotland Yard's Special Branch is unreferenced. It is also unclear who apparently regarded the operation as inconsistent with the Metropolitan Police Authority's "consultation, outreach and diversity" approach, or why it was inconsistent.
• More importantly, the inserted text contains the innuendo that Paddick was responsible for ordering the raid on the factory, but there is no evidence to support this at all. In fact, the BBC News article notes that it was the owner of the Button Factory who had called in the bailiffs to execute an eviction order at the address, supported by officers from the Metropolitan, City and British Transport Police forces.
• Even if it can be shown that Paddick did play a part in the raid, how does the information improve the article? If indeed the factory was being used as an anarchist training centre (and there is currently no evidence to the contrary), then the fact that it had also been a "vibrant local venue" for "fine nights and parties as well as a cafe" is arguably irrelevant.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Roleplayer

Message for user Roleplay. I am posting this late afternoon as you may be having a lay-in to recover which I hope you will have done. See from your talk post immediately below

[edit] Brian Paddick You recently reverted an edit by User:TheGuntz at the above page. He is arguing the toss with me on the talk page of that article, and although yesterday I was willing to engage with him today I don't have the energy to read through his third long rant against me and respond accordingly. Do you mind pitching in with your own reasons for reverting the edit? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

that you have been "ranting" against me to another user JackLee on the basis of a talk post of mine that you had no even made the effort to read and at the conclusion of which I had made the following request "I think the post should be re-instated and would value asistance for that to happen". You have not been of a great deal of assistance. --TheGuntz (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding asking someone else to step in, Wikipedia is a community and if you are struggling with a particular issue it is more than acceptable (even expected in some circumstances) to ask someone else to step in and take over. I was due in hospital yesterday for an outpatients appointment and stress was the last thing I needed, so I stopped watching this and asked someone else to step in and take over, which I am pleased to see they have.

Right now I don't really care what you do to this article, nor do I care exactly what you think of me. Right now I want to get on with recovering from my own personal ailments in peace. Please do not contact me again. Thank you. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Paddick: Movement for Justice

You recently reverted an edit by User:TheGuntz at the above page. He is arguing the toss with me on the talk page of that article, and although yesterday I was willing to engage with him today I don't have the energy to read through his third long rant against me and respond accordingly. Do you mind pitching in with your own reasons for reverting the edit? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello I have left various talk messages for you which you have not responded to and there are matters st issue on which I would like clarification on. For instance when you state that the "references" for my deleted posting were unsatisfactory can kindly clearly explain what you mean by references. Do I take it that you do NOT mean that my posting was unsourced? --TheGuntz (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Guntz. I've been abroad and just got back today. I'll reply on the Brian Paddick talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

re your above reply ??????????????????????????????????????????????

--TheGuntz (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC) --TheGuntz (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, am rushing something at work. Will reply as soon as I can, which will probably be at the weekend at the earliest. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

to JackLee - am grateful for this which helpfully puts me in the picture. When you do respond I trust that you will review our talk exchanges in full so that outstanding matters are less likely to drag on. --TheGuntz (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BRIAN PADDICK - MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE - ALEX OWOLADE

Additional matter for discussion - deficiencies with current article. At the point in time when Paddick initially contacted the URBAN75 website chatboards more significant than his very brief connversation about anarchism - which he did not initiate but simply responded to casually on the chatboards - was the question of a local Brixton campaign in connection with two other related matters. One was the then relatively recent police killing of a young Brixton black man, Derek Bennett, and the similarly recent sacking from his Lambeth Council employment of Alex Owolade for having criticised Lambeth Police at a public meeting in connection with Bennett's death. Paddick on contacting URBAN75 did so on the "MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE" URBAN75 chatboard thread and the MFJ produced detailed reports and a great deal of other ephemeral literature some of which was highly critical of Paddick. None of this is anywhere reflected in this article - which appears to be a significant shortcoming. --TheGuntz (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way was Paddick criticized? Also, are there any sources that refer to the matter apart from what is available from Movement for Justice and Urban75? Simply relying on those sources may not satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view core content policies. See, in particular, "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources" and "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Try 'Line of Fire' by Brian Paddick ISBN: 1847371744, 352 - where he identifies MFJ and Alex Olowade as a key to his postings on Urban75 Paki.tv (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Paki.tv. I've moved the information that you inserted about Derek Bennett and Movement for Justice into a new subsection called "Derek Bennett" because it really has nothing to do with what's stated in the "Cannabis enforcement" section. However, I think the section really needs to have additional facts and references added, otherwise it should not be left in the article. Here are some concerns that I have about it:

• Some more brief facts need to be given about Bennett's death. When and how did it happen?
• How did Owolade criticize the Lambeth police?
• What did Paddick do in his "Internet campaign" (as you call it) against Movement for Justice? Over what period did he carry out this campaign?
• The sentence "Paddick contacted the local discussion forum Urban 75 on the "Movement for Justice" chatboard thread and the MFJ produced detailed reports and a great deal of other ephemeral literature some of which was highly critical of Paddick" is puzzling. Did MFJ produce the reports, etc., in response to Paddick's postings on Urban 75, or was it MFJ's materials that led Paddick to post messages on Urban 75? In summary, what were MFJ's criticisms of Paddick?
• How does page 352 of Paddick's book support the facts stated in the subsection? Did Paddick mention in his book that he had posted messages on Urban 75 in response to criticism of him by MFJ? I don't have access to this book; can you reproduce the relevant paragraphs on page 352 on this talk page so we can all have a look at it?
• All the facts in the subsection, and the additional facts that I've suggested are needed, have to be referenced to sources such as news reports and reliable websites.

Are you able to fix this subsection within, say, seven days (i.e., by Monday, 31 March 2008)? Otherwise, I think the subsection will again have to be removed for being inadequately referenced. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The point being made is that the press controvesy around Paddick was not simply to do with cannabis enforcement but also to do with his escapades on Urban 75 - and his personal life. The Urban 75 interventions were principkly based on attacking MFJ - Thats on record in his own autobiography. i'm sorry but i don't have a copy of the book with me either, but you need to check the reference to verify - try a library..? I am also sorry that i do not have time to respond to your points individually and in detail. But i do think that those points need answering, although perhaps pages for Derek Bennett, Alex Olowade and indeed Movement for Justice By Any Means Necessary are necessary. I have started on the latter 2 but I cannot know when i will find time to complete them. Paki.tv (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. But I'm not asking you to explain to me in detail my questions. I'm asking you to provide a bit more information in the article itself to set the information in context. At the moment, the paragraph that you added states:

Paddick had contacted Urban75's "Movement for Justice" chatboard thread and the MFJ produced detailed reports and a great deal of other ephemeral literature some of which was highly critical of Paddick.

This merely says that there were some criticisms about Paddick but doesn't explain what they were or Paddick's response to them. How did the Bennett/Olowade matter relate to him, apart from the fact that he was the Lambeth police commander at the time? What was the gist of Paddick's remarks on Urban75? Why was MFJ critical of Paddick? Was Paddick responding to allegations that MFJ had made, or was it Paddick who started the postings and MFJ that responded to them? Also, how much of what you added to the article is referenced by Paddick's autobiography? Does the autobiography adequately set out Paddick's as well as MFJ's sides of the story? As the editor adding the information, the burden is on you to ensure that it is adequately referenced: see "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence". You need to address the problem quickly; Wikipedia policy also states "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed... Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons" [emphasis added by me]. Therefore, do look into the matter as soon as possible, otherwise the information ought to be removed. If you need more time to properly source the information, it is better to remove the information first, and reinsert it when you have done so. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ok - i've removed the problematic sentence, even though it and the rest is covered by the autobiography. Paki.tv (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are more facts stated in Paddick's autobiography that can be added to the article to explain more clearly what MFJ's criticisms of Paddick were and Paddick's response to them, why not add those facts into the article? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there's maybe some misunderstanding here - MFJ never criticised Paddick - they were taking the Police to task and Paddick was attacking them for doing so. Is that not clear in the article? Cheers, Paki.tv (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. No, that's not clear from the text at the moment. Also, as mentioned earlier, it would be good if you could add a bit more about why MFJ was criticizing the police (referenced, perhaps, to MFJ's website?) and Paddick's response (referenced to his autobiography?). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a ref from the BBC and reformatted the section so it reads in chronological order of events. Paki.tv (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on gay marriage

Hi, why was my edit about Brian Paddick's gay marriage deleted? (http://www.w4mp.org/html/personnel/jobs/disp_job.asp?ref=26731) - seems to have been deleted almost instantly, automatically, and with no reason given? Seems a bit rum we have acres of appearances on TV shows but this guy's views of his marriage, referenced to an audio recording of him speaking, can't be included?AlexFoster (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Hadal (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Brian Paddick, Baron Paddick → Brian Paddick – He is not New York. (nb, this was an attempt at humour in reference to content such as in New York, New York (disambiguation). After reading content I was also not 100% sure that there was not a reason for the title). I'm guessing the previous move was a mistake but it needs an admin to change. He has been given title. GregKaye 12:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye would you mind rewording your reasoning for requesting this move please? Ebonelm (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also like the request to be clarified. The relevant policy guideline is WP:NCPEER, by which the present title is correct unless we consider this page falls under either

• Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell.
• Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon. --Sussexonian (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brian Paddick, Baron Paddick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012034851/http://brianpaddick4london.net:80/mayor/ to http://www.brianpaddick4london.net/mayor/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704211658/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2516664.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2516664.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Paddick, Baron Paddick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012034851/http://brianpaddick4london.net:80/mayor/ to http://www.brianpaddick4london.net/mayor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Paddick, Baron Paddick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116125138/http://libdems4london.org.uk/en/article/2011/509377/brian-paddick-selected-as-lib-dem-mayoral-candidate to http://libdems4london.org.uk/en/article/2011/509377/brian-paddick-selected-as-lib-dem-mayoral-candidate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)