User talk:Ninetyone/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Military police and Infobox LEA
Hi Ninetyone,
Just a note to let you know that I think I have 
Done your request at Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency#Military police, and more. Peet Ern (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Military provost categorisation
Hi again,
You seem to be about to sort our articles about military provosts?
If so, can you categorise them consistently as you go?
I have taken the liberty and created a template {{Countrymilitaryprovostcat}} to allow the consistent construction of categories for militrary provosts for each country.
If you have any issues, please let me know at Template talk:Countrymilitaryprovostcat.
declined speedy. asserts notability with international tour and competition. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of Information Act
Ninty:one I received your email; you failed to mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) anywhere in this email. However before you start with you do not have to mention it, I have authorised the standard reply you received as member of the public requesting such information. I would thank though not refer to the FOI Act without need when your request was so common, and simple to deal with. In addition, I note you have mixed in and taken out parts and refer to old opinions of your own. Did you mean to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TopCat666 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Russian Monument move
Hey there, can you please link me that rule saying we should put the distinguishing feature in brackets? I've always named my Sofia articles "…, Sofia" till now, and it's inconsistent now. Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy tag on Sams soda recall
Hi - just to let you know that I have declined the speedy on this, since it was clearly not patent nonsense. I'd suggest checking over the description of the G1 criteria - the text has to be incoherent. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Templates
It looks good as it is much easier. I'm not sure if I'll create articles for pre-1980. Sources are extremely difficult to find. But did you happen to change the templates from 1980 forward? --FourteenClowns (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's alright, thanks for the heads up and taking the time to update them. Have a good one! --FourteenClowns (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
RE:Specialist Police units of Britain
Oh right, I didnt realise. Thanks mate. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: Territorial Support Group
Your into all this sorta stuff, surely you dont want to see such a silly addition into the article which has no encyclopedic value. Anyway, it is NPOV. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Plus, the reference does not work. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Ninetyone. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
categories
Have responded at my talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
RE: Basic Command Unit - Specialist Police units template
Hello Ninetyone
I'm not sure the inclusion of the Basic Command Unit is defined as a 'specialist police unit', the inclusion for the template surely is police units that are truely 'specialist' like the Firearms Unit, CID and the rest. Whereas the Basic Command Unit is a geographical organisation, of how units fall under its area. What do you think? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I would go with "A" too, We'll leave it in the Specialist Police Units of Britain template then. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What did he bring up at WP:LE? And yeah I dont see any problem with including the multi-force ones. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought copy and pasting the text is what you was supposed to do? Am I wrong? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I will bear that in mind for furture reference. But thanks for telling. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
RE: Archiving AFO
Just trying to make the place look better. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
RE: Template
How do I go about doing that, it needs to be easy to edit. Like when you edit the section it all needs to be there rather than just {{Police use of firearms}} etc. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, we dont even need a template on that subject. With fixed text. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a good idea, but I dont agree with the template. Why not just copy all that information into the articles in question. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a reason, please dont put the template up yet. We need to sort this out, we need it when you go to edit the page, all the info is there. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That was the procedure before, and no one ever batted an eyelid. Its not that I am "knocking" your tamplate, far from it. Its just that I dont like the idea of going to edit the bit and just seeing a template, people wont understand what it is. I wish to come to some agreement, I dont like bad feeling you know. Thanks Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats a good idea which I am willing to run with, the thing is though I think it would be a good idea to put your template with the exisisting information. Instead of just pasting over it, because the exsisting information is by and largely important, and so is yours. What do you think? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
He says that in a less threatening situation authorisation has to be gained from an on call ACPO officer, and whether threatening or not you always used to get authorisation. But according to Mike J Waldren, due to the officers not always being avaliable when desired, the rule about getting authorisation in a non threatening situation such as an armed search due to all firearms officers carrying pistols as a matter of routine, and if an immediate threat to life is present officers may draw "long arms" from the boot if an immediate threat is present. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I swear, I did not fabricate the evidence, thats what he has written. I can and will source it, if thats ok with you? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry mate I thought you meant something else. What did you mean by "i think there's a few words missing from that sentence :s" then? In the book, it states that they used to have to get authorisation from a senior ACPO officer despite it being an immediate risk to life or a search, because those were the days were shorts wernt routinely carried. But the the problems of this were quickly realised due to senior officers not always being avaliable, after this they made short carrying as a matter of routine, and now it rests upon each member of the ARV to draw longs. Although I should think they would be hip deep, if they drew them for any other reason than an immediate threat to life, or the searching of an escaped armed criminal in wood land etc. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Right then, thanks for that. Glad we have come to an agreement =]. I'll consult you in the morning sometime about working that info in, as I'm tucking up for the night now. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont think its a good idea to just paste over the information already on such articles. This template should be dramatically cut down to just include the rules set out by ACPO due to them changing seldom, and a few other minor things, that should always stay the same due to factual nasties and confusion being rife. All the information in your template is already at the articles. What do you think? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please Assmume Good Faith, your tone has become a problem. Please Assume Good Faith on my part, saying that I am fabricating. I think on your template we should cut it down to just the rules, because these dont change often and factual nasties will get included by IPs etc. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. I take that back, sometimes I cant work out if someone is being sarcastic or difficult in a crafty way, you know what its like when its not face-to-face. I only removed some information on the template becaus what I thought was is that basically, most of the appropriate information about factual information (excluding the rules) is pretty well covered on most of the police use of firearms orientated articles. However, the rules regarding ACPO, and the use of force guidelines are not, so now we have a good template that deals with all that, because if ever something on those articles falls pray to factual nasties it is the rules, due to many different sources, publishing different rules, some wrong, some right, and some just out of date. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, well I do try. Of course I get things wrong etc, I'm not a super breed lol. Yeah, I'm cool with you putting it on the pages. But I would appreciate it hugely, if you did not just paste over the old text already on the page. How about above it, or making a new section on the use of force etc? Are you looking to join the police when your older? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, well you never know. If you decide to join the police and enter the High Potential Developers Scheme, you could be looking at a Sergeant within four years of joining, and thats not bad. But whatever you do good luck, all the best. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your contribution to the Wandsworth Police article. I hope we can agree you are getting a bit excited and overbearing. Please read my edits and think about them. If you think they need editing you have every right to do do as I have. Do not simply undo and claim vandalism my edits are as valid as the next Wikipedian.
Also I am not happy about you complaining to the WPP about me. They cannot stop me even if they wanted to. They they do not know which Police Officer is TopCat666 and will never know. :)TopCat666 (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks 4 the Thanks
Thanks for the backhanded compliment about acting in good faith what about you?
After 27 years existence I am sure that Wandsworth Council's Police Service, with all the qualified and unqualified opinions. Shall continue Stop & Search, carrying batons, arresting where warranted, etc, etc. Shall continue regardless of editing on the article. You seem desparate to have your edits vindicated. I do not believe there is any one who cannot see an agenda. You do not need not keep highlighting it with Templates refering the article to other bodies. You may may not like the answer you receive. :) look still smiling.TopCat666 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Onesided blog
See 3rd July this page for Dictionary References. I need not add links to documents you have already put links to. Citing does not have to be supported by links to documents. We both have copies of Wandsworth Council's policies, why don't you stick them on? I have them here so no alteration, omissions etc. Not that I think you would. ; ) You are making the mistake of trying to turn the article into a onesided blog, instead of a simple site where Wikipedians can view information on the oldest surviving Council run Police Service. Do you really think your efforts to try and convince me to hang up my badge and not deal with crime where ever it occurs will be ignored?TopCat666 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
At last you acknowledge these reports and opinions are inconsequential when it comes to the legal positions of Police Constables sworn in under the 1967 Act. I am going to leave it there you have proved my point. There is no legal truth in what you state, I merely report what the Wandsworth Police do not what you think they should do and my edits reflect this. Ta TopCat666 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove the catagory "municpal police departments of the united states" fromt his article.? The department is a municpal PD in the US EMT1871 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom
Hi. I noticed that you are adding Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom to a number of articles. Unfortunately, many of these are already contained within the sub-category Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom, so you are effectively duplicating the category structure. The articles should either be retained in the sub-category without reference to the parent category, or be moved to the parent category without reference to the sub-category. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- That really doesn't make sense. Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom is a direct descendant of Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom. If the article is recorded in the sub-category then it shouldn't be in the parent. If it is recorded in the parent then it shouldn't be in the sub-category. Can you please provide a link to policy or guidance that supports your position? Road Wizard (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. As you seem to be emphasising the relevance of Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom, shouldn't Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom also be a sub-category of the defunct category? Road Wizard (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like the category structure really needs a rethink. The list category is a child of the current category because it contains lists of the current offices. It also contains lists of defunct offices but cannot be a child of the defunct category because it contains the lists of the current offices.
- By the same logic it shouldn't be a direct child of the current category because it contains the defunct lists.
- From the way that you want the category structure to work it sounds like the current, defunct and list categories should all be at the same level. Perhaps a sub-category for the current offices like Category:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom would solve the problem? Road Wizard (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. As you seem to be emphasising the relevance of Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom, shouldn't Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom also be a sub-category of the defunct category? Road Wizard (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Ironholds/Sandbox2
hey, thanks for the edit; it is actually going to be put back into the mainspace after i've got it to FL status, but until then I guess it's useful not to clog up categories with sandbox pages :). Ironholds 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Section headers
I don't know if your deletion was intentional, but please try to use meaningful section headers on talk pages like Talk:Wandsworth Parks Police, so that other editors can follow threads of conversation. This is part of the reason why the RfC editors are finding it hard to get involved with the discussions on Wandsworth Parks Police. --McGeddon (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, just checking. Accidentally editing the wrong version is easy enough to do. --McGeddon (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
UK Airport Rescue and Firefighting Service Article
Thanks for you recent clean up and improvement of this article. You removed the info box however but we have decided to re-instate this as it mirrors the info box used to describe other UK fire and rescue services and maybe of use to other members. Please do not label as uselss or remove without discussing your planned changes in future - what you may feel is useless may not reflect other peoples views. Best then to discuss first to garner opinion. Thanks again for improving the article. Keep up the excellent work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.109.33 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on article talk. ninety:one 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: CAIT
It is a good book, very good. I hope you enjoy reading it =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit summary, I should never have put it. It just annoyed me how you removed information for what really did seem like the sake of it or a trivial reason, your information is good, and deserved a mention, but that did not mean you had to blank mine, considering it was the foundations of the article for a long time. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the correct link of that book, sorry:
By the way, would you mind me asking where in the UK you are? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Re:Municipal police/City guard
I disagree. The concept are not one and the same: historical city guard is much older, and there are countries (ex. Poland) were city guard is not the same as municipal police. If you disagree, I suggest taking it to AfD and seeking a community support/opposition for a merge there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Preview before save template
Just a thought, perhapsd a mention of the {{under construction}} template would be good in your above message? :) SGGH speak! 20:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency - specialities
Hi Ninetyone,
Further to your request at Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency#'speciality' parameter:
I have a beta test version of an updated Infobox Law enforcement agency template available at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Infobox Law enforcement agency, if you would like to see how it performs on a few articles.
This version allows up to 6 specialities, 'speciality1', 'speciality2', etc. 'speciality' and 'speciality1' are equivalent, so existing articles require no changes. I have added, but not documented yet, new specialities of 'transit', 'primary', 'secondary', 'tertiary', 'nontertiary'. I chose these (latter three) terms because they have a broader world view common understanding than terms like school, college, etc.
This version also implements nearly all of the extended automatic categorisation for agencies with specialities, but is obviously dependant on the appropriate categories being available. If it cannot find the preferred category, it will use the next available one "up the category tree".
I would appreciate any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. If you have any, please leave them at User talk:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Infobox Law enforcement agency.
I will not have Internet access for at least 2 days, possibly 4 days, so I will get to them and finish this version off late next week.
Cheers.
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Forensic Services
A tag has been placed on Forensic Services requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)