User talk:Police,Mad,Jack/Archive 3

▼

Bravo Two Zero - images of Escape Maps

Please do not remove important images from Wikipages, as you did in Bravo Two Zero; it is considered vandalizm. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BinAl-Turki (talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove images containing important information as you did in Bravo Two Zero; it is considered vandalizm. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Furthermore spurious removal of important images discourages those who have original images from supplying them and several images of the original locations may become available after the hot months are over. I am sure I do not have to point out to you that those bringing new information to Wikipedia or original images are rare but those imagining that they might have editing skills very numerous indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BinAl-Turki (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?

So, a direct quote to an inside joke made within the dialog of the US version of "Life on Mars" is somehow not appropriate?

So far, I've tried to make a few Wiki pages and every time, someone wipes out my contribution.

Have you actually watched the pilot yet? People like you are making me stay away from this.

Rhudi (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Rhudi

Hello Rhudi

I reverted your edits because they do not conform with Wikipedia standards, Wikipedia requires all text to be "cited" what this means is that controversial text is needed to be backed up by another Website proving its reliability. This is nothing personal, I am simply helping the article conform to the required status, for more information you can read about it in detail from Wikipedia:Citing sources. My aim is not to deter you from editing, far from it. If you need any help with anything else, you can by all means contact me on my talkpage. Many thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

random reverts

My addition is a direct quote from the dialog of the US pilot episode.

And, if you care to look, there are all kinds of pages about jokes right here, in Wiki-land.

I wonder if I can look up "Joke" in a real encyclopedia?

So, maybe I didn't add the reference in the right manner. Thanks for the help. Teach me to contribute. Yeah, I sound bitter.

Rhudi (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Rhudi

Rhudi, dont make this personal I am just doing my duty to Wikipedia. The thing is Rhudi, I do not doubt that this is not a quote off of the pilot. But on Wikipedia it needs to be referenced as it is controversial, try looking up it on the web and getting another site with the info on it. I would happily teach you to contribute better, but your making it hard for me to get my point across. Most editors would have just slapped a warning template on your talk page, where as I am taking a portion out of my own time to try and educate you. So try to be a little helpful if you would be so kind. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!

Happy First Day of Summer!

A Beautiful Summer Field

Summer is a time for freshly grown fruits and vegetables.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.

Lol I didn't even get to give you one and you already had sent me one :).--Mifter (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in there. I apologise for my use of "the F word", but the anons who continually contribute to the Ritchie Jones article really grind my gears. I know I should keep my cool with these sorts of things, but when people act like that, it's rather vexing. Anyway, thanks for not templating me. – PeeJay 08:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats quite alright, your a good editor and everyone loses it with those damned IP adresses. Yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothin

Nice to speak to you. Not done anything in ages, it seems like everything has been done on wikipedia already> what have you been up to - J.Naven 11:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done a lot of cleanup lately. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I might do some cleanup. show the vandals what happens when they mes with Wikipedia - J.Naven 09:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Special Air Service

There was a type error in the sub-article page. That has been fixed, as you'll see, and is working properly. Thank you for your input though.

RE: June 2008

Hello Mark, I have changed your edits on The Bill article. I think it is much more logical to have Uniformed Constables as exactly that instead of Police Constables because if you have the DCs and the PCs it gives the misconception that the PCs are the only police in the list, thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Police,Mad,Jack. I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on this. Whilst I agree that it may be clearer for those who are unfamiliar with UK Police Ranks, the actual title for constables in uniform is Police Constable, hence their prefix of PC rather than UC as would be appropriate to Uniformed Constable. Similarly with Sergeants in uniform being commonly refered to as Police Sergeants, hence their prefix being PS respectively (although not as widely used and dependent on force culture). As I said, I agree that it may be unclear in this context, but because this is the recognised way I feel it should stay. And surely the fact that DCs remain to have Constable in their title at the absence of Police gives similar connotations? I will post the subject on The Bill's disscussion page in order to archive opinions of other editors. Coincidentally, looking at the history on The Bill at the moment, it would appear another editor agrees with me. Please make your views clear on the discussion page. Many thanks. Mark Bickley 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not disagree with you, I do think it should be made known that PCs and DCs are both police. Because if you knew little about ranks, personally if it was me I would be tempted to think it was only the characters with the "Police" prefix who were in such a service. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Police,Mad,Jack, but I don't think that The Bill is the place to do this. The page is dedicated to providing information on the programme, not the distinction between ranks in the police. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to add this information to Constable and Sergeant, as the sole purpose of these pages is to give information on those ranks? Mark Bickley 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Cheers for the welcome! Mark Bickley 22:08, 01 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure Mark, enjoy your time at the project =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Admin coaching

Sure, I'd be glad to. I'll make the page and we'll start in July? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its fine with me, we'll start when your ready. Thanks alot for accepting. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

b2z revert

yh thats fine. just read the mcnab book cover 2 cover over the weekend n he said 4 carried minimi's n the other 4 had the M16 w/ 203gl's. With regards to pistols, it's mentioned specifically they didn't carry pistols as they would of came in handy when they had hijacked a car. no reason why they weren't issued on the mission as it is a typical sidearm so not sure where to go with that.

Thanks for that anyway :)

oh and gd luck with going into the Police Force! User:Trigg_travers, 1 July 2008 @ 22:00BST

Thank you very much, you are right they didnt use pistols. I will take that sentance out if it is still there. Sorry. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite

"Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time, may be removed by any editor."

The first removal was a challenge, and so I readded it and added a "citation needed" notation so that if a citation can't be found in a "within a reasonable time" it can be removed.

I do know wikipedia policy. Thank you for your time. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time also. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your edit summaries did not appear to be constructive. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Hi Police,Mad,Jack. I don't wish to sound annoying, but I noticed that your latest edit summary on The Bill contained something that could be deemed as inappropriate. Whilst I agree that the edits you were reverting could be classed as vandalism, it is important to maintain a level of professionality, regardless of how frustrating it can be at times. I've noticed that you will beginning Admin Coaching, which I think is very good of you, so I would hate for such instances to reflect badly on you in the future. Cheers. Mark Bickley 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand your concern, if it was truely of me branding another editors work as "Bollocks" in the swearword. I was actually referring to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks, it can be proved that this is what I meant due to me redirecting the page to "WP:Bollocks" whereas if I was using it as the general swear word I surely I would not have bothered to put "WP:" before. I understand that my redirect was not correct as it did not link, but please understand my actions were not as you though. Many thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you learn something new everyday! I never would have thought Wiki would recognise such a phrase in this way. My apologies. Mark Bickley 9:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

None needed my friend, none needed. You did what your gut told you to, I would have done the same thing in your shoes. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

re Alison McAtee

I declined the PROD, and I am about to decline the Speedy, on the basis of the number of google hits. I think she shades notability, and there are no BLP concerns to worry about. If you insist, you might try an AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt realise it had lots of Google hits. I wouldnt have PROD'ed or AFD'd, many thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 07:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting copyediting

Hello. Could you please pay more attention when reverting other users' copyediting work? If you disagree with a single element in a large amount of copyediting, you should correct only that single element - you appear to be reverting solid copyediting work with little or no explanation, going so far as to tell one copyeditor that "Your edits did nothing to help". You're losing a lot of important corrections to spelling, grammar and layout in the process; this might not feel important to you personally, but it is important to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean about this edit not being pure copyedit? It actually just seems like pure formatting, of the "uniform" section being converted into a readable, clearly-flowing series of paragraphs, rather than one-sentence sections. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon, I feel we have had this conversation before. How many times do I have to ask for you not to stalk my edits, I know you will try and deny it but at the end of the day you do. No question about it, the user concerned with the copyedit blanked information which was not neceassary. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If I see an editor making a bad call in an article I'm watching then, yes, I check their other recent edits to make sure they haven't made the same bad call in other articles. You had, so I thought I'd ask you about it.

What information do you believe has been "blanked" in this case? And why did you feel that this perfectly useful copyediting "did nothing to help"? --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem, with this copyedit. Except the lead I think it would make more sense to have this:

Firearms Unit is the traditional name for the section in forces outside of the capital, while that of London's Metropolitan Police Service is called the Specialist Firearms Command, or CO19. Within the media it is sometimes compered to the SWAT units of the United States. A Police Officer cannot apply to the Firearms Unit without first finishing their two year probationary period with a further two years in a core policing role..

Before the text about officers having to complete their probationary period before applying. Because it breaks the text up, and looks out of place. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. But if you don't have a problem with the rest of someone's copyediting, don't revert the whole thing just to fix one sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop doing this, Jack. If you object to a single aspect of an editor's multiple changes, then you should change only that aspect back - you shouldn't revert the whole edit. I know it's easier, but you're deleting useful work by doing this. --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiona Dolman speedy request

Hi there - you have tagged this G6 but haven't explained why either in the template, on the talk page or in your edit summary. Could you please remedy this as there is simply not enough information to make a decision on deletion at the moment. Thanks in advance, Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I didnt even think about providing a reason at the time due to me being tired and late at night, although now I realise one must be given, and have done so in the edit summary. My ignorance comes from that being the first time I have ever PROD'ed or AFD'd, so I am very new. Many thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

reply to where in the UK?

i'm in oxfordshire --Madcow 93 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge, England. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackshod

No worries. I just cannot understand why the likes of this and another character persist in this childish behavior. On military posts, there sometimes appears to be a certain amount of professional jealousy and with one press of a key decides to delete vast swathes of work. I only hope that in the future, the likes of Blackshod can be reprimanded in some way. Take it easy (Archangel1 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)).

Aside from the military thing, he constantly cyber stalks/cyber bullys me. But be wary he is clever, he does this by doing it through his IP adrss and sockpuppets. He has a thing about cyber following me for some reason, honestly believe me I'm not exaggerating. No one i've told seems to care. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome new member to Law Enforcement Wikiproject on the English Wikipedia!

With me, you get both a new to Wikipedia and new to Law Enforcement Wikiproject. You also get the secretary of the Ohio Bail (bond) Agents Association. www.obaa.org I have been involved in bail for 16 years.

Over the past few years, I used Wikipedia thousands of times while doing research, and saw countless errors and omissions, but only recently have I begun to make tiny edits to improve the encyclopedia. Over time, I expect to grasp the proper eticate, culture, and syntax necessary to edit without objection.

I have a special project that I hope Wikipedia contributors can assist me:

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR, AVI, CPR, LPR, LAPI)

ANPR is sometimes known by various other terms:

Automatic licence plate recognition (ALPR) Automatic vehicle identification (AVI) Car plate recognition (CPR) Licence plate recognition (LPR) Lecture Automatique de Plaques d'Immatriculation (LAPI)

I am trying to identify, locate, & unwravel the individuals, companies, & government agencies who produce ANPR software, firmware, & hardware.

Can you assist me in this endevour?

Sponsion (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC) sponsion in North Canton, Ohio

Hello Sponsion

I am willing to help the best I can in anything you need to me to help you with, but I am unsure exactly to what you are asking. Are you asking me to help you set up a project like WP:LE but instead of law enforcement ANPR? Or are you asking me to help you make contributions. Please do reply, because I would be willing to help. Thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

My intent on adding community development & crime prevention institute has nothing to do with advertizing - and I didn't think it was inappropriate. I am just trying to get information out to the proper groups concerning drime reduction. Please let me know why you feel that this is not a good thing? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotterstatter (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indisicriminate collection of links, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not to cater for a list of links. Thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to PC Disambiguation

Hi -- your edits on PC don't fall within the WP manual of style for disambiguation pages:

• Signatures are for talk pages, not articles
• Section titles in WP should not be in "title caps" (every word capitalized) but in "sentence caps" (only initial word and proper names capitalized)
• Entries should only appear once: both Police Constable and Philippine Constabulary are already on the page
• There should be exactly one navigable link per entry: in other words, for Philippine Constabulary, you should not link Philippines or any other phrase
• Entry descriptions should be concise; they don't need to give the entire history of each entry -- the reader is expected to go to the article itself, so you don't need to add what happened to the Philippine Constabulary, you can just say it is a former organization.
• There's already a section including "Law", which seems a reasonable place to have both of these entries.

Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dont know what made me put my signature in such a place. Although that was the only one of the above that my edit was in contrevention of, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

"Here we go again McGeddon, nothing gets through to you does it." - please try to be WP:CIVIL, Jack. I read your edit summary, that's why I added a "fact" tag to the sentence in question; yes, it's unsourced, but it's not obviously incorrect, and it'd be more helpful to the article to flag it for a week or two to see if anyone can provide a source. --McGeddon (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. The speed at what you come to my edits at makes me a little sort of bemused sometimes. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Within half an hour? The article in question was on my watchlist, that's all. If it's a slow afternoon, I'll usually check my watchlist a few times. --McGeddon (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Regarding the page Duane Howe, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because this is an article about a fictional character, not a real person. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Two Zero

Can you please not use vandalism notices to deal with the content dispute you have with User:BinAl-Turki over Bravo Two Zero? Adding a free image such as Image:Bravo Two Zero Escape Map RHS 3.jpg is not, in itself, an act of vandalism; it's therefore inappropriate to template him instead of addressing your concerns via discussion, preferably at the article talk page. Thank you. --Salvador Barley (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is not point in having two images of the same map, especially when the diesired content on the second picture can be seen on the original. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC

Flying Squad

It is an elite branch of the Met and I linked it to a source - why have you removed it? 'Arry Boy (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont wish to fall out over trivial things, if you insist of the "elite" of the squad. I suggest you put something under the text of the lead, "Sometimes within the Media the Flying Squad is referred to as elite" and then your reference. If you do this, you will not be in breach of the point of view guidelines, if you do this hopefully we will both be happy? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No Mad Jack I will do nothing of the kind. And no I am not happy, don't you warn me for insertting sourced information, I will be adding nothing more to this article. 'Arry Boy (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention at all, I urge you to continue editing. If I had not picked up on it, I assure you someone else would have. I was friendly, and polite. But if that is the way you feel best, who am I to try and persuade you differently, all the best. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, being friendly and polite consitutes putting two warnings on my page does it? No, I have nothing more to add to the article. 'Arry Boy (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They are just pre-set templates provided by Wikipedia, I was polite in the sense that I gave you a very clear explanation of the problem. Also I actually gave a reason, you'd be surprised how many editors warn, but dont give a reason, and if they do, its not always polite. Yours, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject

A New WikiProject has been proposed as a sub-project of Medicine. Your opinion would be appreciated as you are listed as a "intrested User" on the Project page. Please take part in the discussion, located here. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Two Zero

For your information, please see my post here. _GB^T/C 12:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Specialist Police units of Britain

{{Specialist Police units of Britain}} is all you need to put ;) ninety:one 21:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

and it goes just before the categories, not in See also. ninety:one 21:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, I didnt realise. Thanks mate. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. On this template. I expect you have an inkling on this already, but it's not entirely appropriate to classify the police force of the Republic of Ireland as a "police force in Britain". Britain is generally defined as equivalent to either the UK or Great Britain. And Ireland (the republic at least) is not a constituent of this. So, including police units of the Republic of Ireland in this context is not really appropriate. I will be removing this template from the Irish police sub-articles as a result. Let me know if you have any questions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Valid point, I will remove the ROI. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Territorial Support Group

why did you revert a perfectly well referenced addition? ninety:one 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

What do you mean by "does not work"? Have you checked the book and found nothing there?

Also, I'm not sure that WP:NPOV means what you think it means. It doesn't mean that we can't quote any praise or criticism at all. --Goldrivet (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A book reference needs to be filled in. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? He mentions the specific page number of a specific book. That is sufficient for a citation.

I have removed your inappropriate NPOV warning from the IP address's userpage, as this edit was not "commentary or personal analysis". --Goldrivet (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This has to stop now, stop stalking me. Any more and I will report you to your provider. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not threaten other Wikipedia users. Also, "stalking" is a very loaded and offensive word and should not be used lightly. --Goldrivet (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But you was stalking me, you was watching what I was doing so you could have some affect on it. I appeal to you, please just leave me the hell alone. I have done nothing to you, all my edits are done with a good reason, Wikipedia is a big place, I have no problem with you, I was even thinking of putting a friendly welcome notice on your talk page. But now, I will be thinking twice about it. Please just leave me alone. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying Squad, Battle of London Airport

Thanks for your comments on my edit to the Flying Squad page. I acknowledge the need for referencing but have no idea on how to do it and would be grateful for any assistance you can give. My main sources are: my father's (Charles Hewett) notebooks and diary entry for the event; my perusal of the Met Police file of the case; an article my father wrote about the case in the London Police Pensioner some while back; conversations with various other officers involved; an article in the Sunday Times of September 18 1960 by Donald Fish; a report of the trial in the London Evening Standard; The Book, "The Flying Squad" by Brian Hilliard. I'd like to get the edit back up by Monday if poss as it's the 60th anniversary of the event. If you can assist I'll be grateful.

Brinyon (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Brinyon

Hello Brinyon

I realise that by me deleting your contributions on the Flying Squad article, you may have though that it was for the sake of it, or even just to be nasty - this is certainly what I though the first time it happend to me. But, it was actually none of the above. On Wikipedia we have a huge problem of people adding utter rubbish to articles, to combat this "Referencing" text has been brought into place. What this means is that the text you submit, should be backed up by a third party site or book. And of course, I will help you all I can to reference this information. If this information come from a book I would strongly suggest filling in this:

<ref>{{cite book |title= (title here) |last= (last name of author) |first= (first name) |authorlink= (optional)|coauthors= (if any) |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |pages= }}</ref>

You can copy this to reference to a sentance in an actual article, after filling it in. If you do copy it, copy everyting except the "nowiki" with brackets like these "<" and ">" at either end. Also the reference should not have any gaps between the words in the sentance that needs referencing. If you are trying to reference any other way I suggest looking at WP:Citing sources, also as I have no desire to make life hard for you, I will restore your additions, but please do reference them as soon as you can. Please write back, so I know you have seen this message. All the best, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi there, thanks for your comments on my talk page and on the Talk:Special Air Service#Merger proposal discussion. It's good to have confirmation that I'm not going mad. :D --Deadly∀ssassin 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, my pleasure. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying Squad, Battle of London Airport

Jack, Thanks for restoring, there's quite a few old boys out there still who'll be looking in over the next few days! I didn't think you were being difficult, your msj made it clear what was required and you've now given me the means (I hope!) to reference. I'll do that later today. Many thanks Regards Brinyon (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Brinyon

The Flying Squad

Jack, The references are on but I needed several goes! Hopefully I'll get better at this!Thanks for your help. Brinyon (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Brinyon

Your very welcome =] Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: userpage vandalism

No problem :). Ironholds 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your'e most welcome:) All the best, 'Arry Boy (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Two Zero

I see that the edit war continues at Bravo Two Zero and that neither you nor BinAl-Turki have taken any steps to resolve the dispute whilst the article was protected. I have re-protected it - please read my comment on the talk page. _Gb^T/c 13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - BinAl usually seems to post around 11.00UTC, so I'll leave it until tomorrow to see if he has anything further to add, then review the discussion to see exactly where the consensus lies. How does that sound? _Gb^T/c 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine =], thanks! All the best, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Charging in flying wedge

• I have been trying to make a CGI (computer-generated imagery) image of a riotsquad charge-in-wedge, and what I came up with was this:
  • Men forming the left side of the wedge: shield on left arm held at an angle facing partly left, baton in right hand.
  • Men forming the right side of the wedge: shield on right arm held at an angle facing partly right, baton in left hand.
  • At the point: one man holding his shield facing straight forwards.
  • All men running in step so that they do not kick each others' legs.
    • Is that how it is done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Anthony

Yes, this is largely how police would carry out such a tactic, although within the British police - if that is what you are trying to model your image on? Only very highly trained officers would be able to carry out the wedge, such as the Met Polices Territorial Support Group or outside of London, the Support unit. I have seen in one of my many books on police, that sometimes they operate in a double wedge like such: ">>" where the first line of officers in the wedge carry heavy perspex head to toe shields to stop projectiles, and the second line in the wedge the officers carry batons and a smaller circular shield. So the answer to your question is that many different forces, basically have many different training tactics in riot control, although your interpretation of it is one of the most common - so I do not see what not you should proceed. Any further questions, I would be happy to try my best to help =]! All the best, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• See Image:Aa flyingwedge plain.jpg. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good, Anthony. I'm sure it will be a credit to the wedge article. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

thebillfansite link on The Bill page

Hello! I don't begrudge the people from thebillfansite having a link, despite the not very useful comments in their link and deletion of the link for the Sierra-Oscar fansite. I wonder if we should let the link stand, but without the strange comment they had?

Many thanks for your time. :)Sonnenbarke (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sonnenbarke

I think it would be worth including the official Bill website, as well as a fansite. So I'll leave this to your discretion to re-add them, but when you see an IP adress or any user add a fansite it must be considered carefully because the majority of fansites are not helpful because they do not add encyclopedic value, many thanks, all the best. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Having been a member of many fansites over the years, I can certainly attest to the varying amounts of encyclopedic value they can have! I may leave the page as it stands and do some research on the Wiki pages of other tv shows to see at what level one should be aiming. I suppose duelling links makes a change from having to deal with the fantasy casting edits! Cheers! Sonnenbarke (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: T/DC Kezia Walker

I thought she had passed her training period with CID, to become detective trained out of uniform it takes a year, and she's been in it since 2006. Also I'm sure I remember her being nervous in one of the episodes because she was going for her final examinations, but on The Bill website it says she's still a TDC, strange, huh? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know I think there is a bit of ambiguity going on. I will have to watch the credits for her next appearance, see what she is credited as playing... Mark Bickley 19:32, 08 August 2008 (UTC)

Philip Glenister Forum...

I changed the PG site as the link to the PG tribute site was a dead link..also ...i think it is only fair as one fan site dies another one springs up...hope thats ok with you.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchfaster (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, thanks for doing that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PG Site..?

Sorry ...why did you delete the..links to the fan sites.?/lugis and The railway arms are linked to on Phils own website...I must be missing something...

Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchfaster (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia it is a rule that on articles you do not include fansites. Because usually these sights have little to no encyclopedic content, due to a fansite being set up in the hope that it exsists to bring fans together to chat, swap stories etc. And you see everything on Wikipedia should be kept encyclopedic, such as the fansite to his actual website etc. I'm sorry if you feel that I am over exerting myself taking off these sites, but at the end of the day - these are the rules. I hope we reach an understanding, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Pg Site..

Hi Sorry dont know how to do the reply...

Im curious to know why you have taken it upon yourself to delete the links that have been on for Months...The railway arms forum is one of the best sites on the web..the writers and actors have all contibuted to the site ...And it is without doubt enhances the world or LOM ...which i have to add the fan site links are still on the wiki page ...I think it is unduly unfair of what you have done...I think it is subjective to say that the railway arms..and lugis are not adding to the encyclopedia...quite honestly it would be poorer without it..I would like to know who else i could speak to regarding this..(with no disrepsect to yourself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchfaster (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont make the rules friend, its just every editors duty to civilly enforce them best they can. The thing is, is that the Philip Glenister sites (some of them) are fansites which even have it in the title I am willing to review all the sites, which I will do now. But I'm afraid some will have to go, the ones which are in breach of Wikipedia policy anyway. And by the way to reply to someone elses message if it is of the same subject their is no need to make a new heading each time, you just put your message under the related piece of text in relation to your comments. Also I see that you have not recieved the "warm welcome" template on your usertalk page. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have included your fansites, in a seperate list. I should not be doing this though, be grateful. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Happy ..Thanks Jack..Enjoy the railway arms..& Lugis...You will find they are not your average "fan" site..they enhance the viewing of both LOM & Ashes to Ashes...Thanks & Regards...--Muchfaster (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Happy...enjoy The railway arms and Luigis..as they enhance the viewing of both series..Thanks & Regards..--Muchfaster (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. All the best. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack .Me again..could you shed any light as to why the links are gone again..as its going to be quite tiresome going over the same ground with the last person that deleted them..I was wondering if you could help with this,,,thanks --Muchfaster (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The links are gone which I fully support to the hilt. THEY ARE IN CONTREVENTION OF WIKIPEDIA RULES, you may think my caps is due to be not assuming good faith, this is the case. But you do not seem to understand me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You dont seriously think I am going to help you after you question my reasons on warning a minor vandal several times, because he vandalised I explained why in the summary. The cheek of some people. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PG Site.

And you didnt seem to have a problem yesterday evening.....i left that message this morning...Im at a lost...I honestly dont know why ye have latched onto these links as they have been there for MONTHS,....and i dont have any cheek that you very much ..i discussed the matter with you yesterday ..and i thought that it was a happy conclusion ....I honestly dont know what the problem is.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchfaster (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got mixed up with another conversation, ignore the bit about you having cheek I really am sorry. It was nothing to do with you, back to the thing about the links: I was being nice letting them be kept, but in all honesty I should have just removed them. Now another editor has removed them (with no persuasion from me) If I go re-adding them, he will realise I was breaking the rules by letting them be put on, I'm sorry I just dont see what I can do to help you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PG.

Thats fine thanks...I was a bit confused about the cheek thing..But getting back to the links..I have no problem with the others but i do feel strongly about The railway arms and Luigis..they enhance the experince of both series add to the encyclo[edia knowledge of both series...They have been linked for Months without any problem..As far as i am aware they do not break the rules hence the confusiobn..and if you go onto the Lom and ashes to ashes wiki ...The railway arms is linked there still...Are those links to be removed?..I have discussed as requested on the page as required by the other editor and await the response before i go editing again--Muchfaster (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Warning

Hello Jack. It's fine to jump to a third warning in the case of obvious bad-faith vandalism, if the second ("no assumption of faith") isn't appropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done that before, and you still created about that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you have, but I've only ever warned you for issuing inappropriate Level 4 immediate-ban warnings and for assuming bad faith and starting warnings at level three, without giving an initial, good-faith level one. --McGeddon (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke now.

Jack this is getting stupid now...I have read the rules ..These links were taken down ..though i cant prove it of course by YOU and someone who happened to come along a delete them as well...I spoke on the discussion page and no one had the decency to reply .. I can read..and nowhere does it say that you cannot link sites...As per other wiki pedia The Bill...Why are those sites still linked...You are not consistent with your editing .And i for one do not belive that I am the one with the problem..And i will be taking this further that you .As I will be editing this page again ..I will be adding the Link.As i do want you to report me ..As I want someone else to look into this ..as you are neither editing impartially or fairly.--Muchfaster (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of orchestrating another username and deleting the links. How dare you, never visit my userpage again. On wikipedia you are not allowed to post stupid utter waste of time, crap links. Thank you very much, dont you dare visit my talkpage again. I forbid you. Never contact me again. Dont accuse me of making another username just to take these links off. What do you mean higher than me? Wikipedia does not have a ranking system, I suggest you do some growing up pretty damn quick, you obviously dont understand the stupidity of your message. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PG Site.

You are protesting to much Jack.you still havent answered if these sites are not allowed why are obvious Fan sites sill on the The bill wiki page..Your argument does not stand up..If it is good enough for one then it is good enough for another..You didnt take the time to check out the sites that are linked AND HAVE BEEN LINKED for Months.....so if you want to stay true to your editing ..go and delete the links that according to you are not allowed on wiki that are on the Bill's wiki page..pot kettle..--Muchfaster (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats all this about the deviation of the point towards The Bill? See the Philip Glenister talkpage for the reasons, I am not answerable to you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bill

The reason why i keep banging on about the bill is that there are Obvious Fan sites in the Links.You are so passionate about upholding the rules about improper links..you dont have to answer to me at all..just pointing out the obvious you are trying to score points..For what reason i have no idea...I am not sitting at home smugly waiting for someone to agree with me and justify my own low self-esteem... So the links dont get on...its not the end of the world..But you should practice what you preach..instead of pitiful, self-righteous, hypocritical vitriol...--Muchfaster (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, this is not about scoring points. This has been demonstrated in three seperate users, that have no personal affiliation with each other taking off your links. What is the chances of three people who have no personal ties victimising you? Also, rules are rules, if you want to edit Wikipedia the editors have to help enforce the rules. Everyone helps each other. Plus, I dont know about The Bill article I will have to check up on it and see if the links are in contrevention of anything. Also, I did not wish to fall out with you, I have explained to you so many times in blatant politeness why the links are not allowed, what more can I do? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

BCU

I was thinking that, but then again why not include it? If it's between a) putting it in with the rest or b) not including it anywhere at all, I pick a. (Plus it would be by itself in the "see also" section of Law enforcement in the United Kingdom otherwise :p). Anyway, I propose one of these (User:Ninetyone/testtemplate) given the concerns raised at WP:LE - the second one looks better imho. ninety:one 10:33, 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)

ok, but Necrothesp was right when we brought it up at WP:LE, the multi-force ones should go into another template. How about this? ninety:one 12:49, 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)☺ 12:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"The problem with this is that it mixes together types of unit with individual named units." [1] Oh yeah, did you copy&paste the page when you archived?! ninety:one 14:03, 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)

In order to preserve the page history, you're supposed to move the page. No worries, you can still see the history from the current talk page. I don't think it's worth worrying about now. ninety:one 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I will bear that in mind for furture reference. But thanks for telling. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi Jack. I'm copyediting, I made a few cuts for flow, particularly of redundancy and repetition. If you disagree that some of the cuts were necessary, perhaps you could just add them back individually instead of reverting to your original version of the text (which reintroduced a typo and removed the "clarify" template that I added to a particularly unclear sentence)?

I'm not sure what you mean by complaining about my "everything must be right" attitude - yes, I'm trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, that's why we're all here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted my revertion. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to go for a compromise wording if you disagree with any of it. A compromise is usually better than a revert, if you've got the time. --McGeddon (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bill Upcoming Character Changes

Hi Jack. I didn't realise Sierra-Oscar required a log-in to view spoilers, sorry. I have posted the link to the PDF from ITV that has all of the changes listed. The document, however, does have other information on, not just that regarding The Bill. I have, therefore, also included a link to billfans.com and this page only contains the appropriate information, word for word form ITV's PDF. Billfans.com, also, does not require a log in. I also am aware that the transition from TDC to DC is not technically a promotion, but I am going off the information provided by ITV. Thanks, Mark Bickley 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Mark, that all seems fine. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Gina Gold leaving is terrible, dont you? And I dont think Rachel Weston should be promoted. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm devestated Gina is leaving Rachel will never replace her! I don't buy Rachel as Sergeant, so defo not as Inspector. I want Gina to stay and Nikki to come back! But hey you should join sierra-oscar.co.uk there is a great discussion going on over there about it all! Mark Bickley 21:45, 13 August 2008

Yeah, I'll have to get around to doing that actually. I wont now though due to it getting late, and I think I'm gonna tuck up soon lol. I think they will write Gina out because of the stress come about with Emma, then it was amplified with Sally and Callum disobeying orders and finally tomorrow it is concluded with Sally nearly being blown up in the building blast. Because its not on tonight, did you know next week we get three eps, tues wed, and thurs. Whats your theory on Gina leaving? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i'm disappointed that that's how they've chosen to write her out. To have been such a strong character for all these years, then to give her a mini-break-down before she leaves. The least they could have done is let her bow out with some dignity. I think she might die, looking at how the Press Centre have phrased it. Her "heroically stepping up to the challenge"... Mark Bickley 21:58, 13th August 2008 (UTC)

The Bill - Reappearing actors

Hi! If you need proof about that those edits I'll add links from Any Previous or IMDb episode cast lists, where appropriate. Sonnenbarke (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'll need inline citations. All content has to be backed up by a reliable site, because Wikipedia onlyy publishes information that has already been published. You can references things by, books, reliable websites etc. If you dont know to reference something all you do is this:

<ref>(REFERENCED WEBSITE HERE)</ref> (without the "</nowiki>" at either end.

Anyway, what is this in relation to? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some details about current TB actors in previous roles on the show. You undid it --> (Undid revision 231646650 by Sonnenbarke (talk Unreferenced))

I did figure out the inline citation linkage, cheers. If the Any Previous cites don't meet the criterion, I could chase up the IMDb episode pages. Sonnenbarke (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Any Previous" looks OK, for future reference, if you ever are trying to reference something from a fansite the best thing to do, is find it somewhere else. Because most fansites request you log-in before you see the page in question, and this is in contrevention of Wikipedia guidelines. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• nods* I noticed Mark had that trouble earlier with his referencing! Sonnenbarke (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most things to include are ok. But everything controversial like character changes etc, have to be accounted for, especially when it is to do with living people. Wikipedia can be held accoutable for any name soiling. Thats why references must be included, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

archiving AFO

You only *need* to archive when a page gets so big it is hard to load, but in practice talk pages get archived after about 20 sections. You really didn't need to archive Talk:Authorised Firearms Officer yet. ninety:one 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to make the place look better. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

template

you can edit the template... ninety:one 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

go to the template page Template:Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. the same info needs to be on all the articles, and editing the one template instead of all 5 or 6 articles is the best option. ninety:one 18:27, 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)☺ 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the template *is * the idea! because then if a person changes one of them, the others all need updating as well which is a waste of time. There is no reason whatsoever not to use the template. ninety:one 19:07, 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)

if you agree that the same info should be everywhere, then surely you don't want to go and make the same edit 6 times when you can edit it just once?ninety:[[User

talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:28, 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)

I see where you're coming from and know it's slightly unusual, but that's just how wikipedia is developing. How about a comment before or after {{Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom}} that says:

<!-- To edit this section go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom&action=edit --> ninetyone:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:28, 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)

I based it on Authorised Firearms Officer, but if you think there's still stuff missing feel free to add it now.

(can you source this: "although now, the decision to arm up with weapons from the boot, rests on an idivduals judgement" - it doesn't say it in the Manual?) ninety:one 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Ex-Met, Chief Super who wrote this:

<ref name="waldren">{{cite book |title= Armed Police, The Police Use of Firearms since 1945 |last=Waldren |first=Michael J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= 2007 |publisher= Sutton |location= England |isbn= 0750946377 |pages= 224}}</ref>

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 think there's a few words missing from that sentence :s but still, if it's not in the book then we can't really include it, especially as the manual contradicts it. i know when i watched one of the endless police documentaries recently they had to get authorisation from up high to draw longs. anyway, if you can source it then we can add it in ninety:one 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I swear, I did not fabricate it, 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)

i wasn't saying you had! the way you wrote your last post looked he had said that in a context other than in the book - clearly my bad. the book says they can carry longs without authorisation? in any circumstances? ninety:one 20:38, 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)☺ 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

if that's what the book says, then i'll go with it, because it's more recent.ninety:one 21:22, 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)

some comments: the Op Kratos policy sounds highly believable but need sourcing still. i changed the text about warnings back to the verbatim from the manual, anything else is simply incorrect. other than that, we're good to go. ninety:one 20:55, 15 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)☺ 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I really must buy this book! The warning text is now simply inaccurate: the manual says nothing about it being loud (there are situations in which it doesn't need to be such as deaf people so the warning doesn't have to be audible) and you can't give a 'warning of instructions'. If you feel there is text that is surplus to requirements then say so, but i think it's a pretty good compact version of the legal situation. I think the Kratos stuff is a bit unnessecary, because the AFO can fire without a warning anyway - the justification used in court will simply be 'I thought he would detonate if I shouted'. This is the same regardless of whether on Kratos or not, because the order from the DSO means the AFO believes that a warning would alert the subject. ninety:one 21:23, 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)

clearly communication on the internets is not well interpreted. my last post was entirely in good faith, and indeed humour. i think the text now is fine, well done. at no point did i say you were 'fabricating', and i would appreciate it if you would withdraw that accusation. i was merely stating that the rules do not include anything about volume. ninety:one 14:10, 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)☺ 16:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

cool. if only everyone on Wikipedia was as constructive as you... (see my talk page). shall i go and put the template on the pages now? ninety:one 16:16, 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? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

my god, this discussion is huge! i will put it on with respect to what is already there. i'm not sure - i always wanted to be in the police but going to uni seems to be the best option now. ninety:one 16:23, 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)

Inspector

Why did you have to remove the link? Reply at User talk:Rsrikanth05#Pink Panther --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not think people would be looking for that, but I see you have put it back. We will leave it that way, for now. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008 talkback

Hello, Police,Mad,Jack. You have new messages at Lady Aleena's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have read DTTR, but I felt it necessary to template you. I do things by the book, and that is by templating people if it is necessary. I do not need welcoming, but thank you anyway. Regards, all the best. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Another reply 10:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Revert

It alright everyone makes mistakes - J.Naven 12:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP: Mf liaison

Dear Police,Mad,Jack...We now have a liaison page for people to sign up as a liaison from another project. Please add yourself to that list. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 23:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting material as "unreferenced"

You might want to take a look at WP:BURDEN; "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references". Unless an edit is controversial or obviously incorrect, it's usually more productive to tag it with a {{fact}} tag and leave it for someone else to delete at a later date.

Regarding your edits to the Gene Hunt article, though - a lot of the article is unreferenced, and presumably you aren't going to delete all of it on the same basis. It mostly seems to be quibbling over equally unreferenced versions of bits of dialogue, so striking one as "unreferenced" doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you could raise your concerns on the talk page instead of telling people "if you don't like it, tough"? --McGeddon (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you dont like it, that is tough. Bite on something next time. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, Jack. If I disagree with another editor's change, I'll revert it with a clear edit summary, modify it to a compromise, or take it to the article talk page. You should be doing the same. --McGeddon (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you are just doing this to prove a point. I reverted those editors because they added controversial unreferenced material. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "controversial" you mean "material you disagree with personally", then we're just back to removing material without giving sufficient time to provide references - sure, you can do it if you like, but it doesn't always help the article. (And in the case of Gene Hunt, you're just reverting to an equally unreferenced version of the article - the editor you're disagreeing with would be totally within their rights to delete your version of the quotes, for being just as "unreferenced controversial" as their own. Obviously this wouldn't help anything.)

The "controversial" card is only meaningful if we're talking about something genuinely controversial, and it's confusing to bandy it around the way you did here, for an issue that you seemed to instantly back down on when challenged. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not back down, in my own way. If you think that, go ahead. It wont stop me sleeping, I thought the information was controversial, that was my opinion. Again what it boils down to is, if you dont like it - tough. I will not revert anymore, but I have not "backed down" Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. In future, it'd be more helpful to explain why you disagree with the edit (did you think it was false information, or misleading, or irrelevant to the body of the article, or badly written, or what?) than to tautologically call it "controversial" because you disagree with it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, I only reverted the damn edits in the first place because they were unreferenced. I was well within my rights, because they were unreferenced. By disputing that, I therefore deemed the edits to be controversial because I thought you didnt agree with them either. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuisance

I'm just copyediting, Jack. In the past you've thanked me for catching your spelling and grammatical mistakes; if your attitude's changed since then, it doesn't matter - this is how Wikipedia articles are built. Take a look at WP:OWN if you haven't read it recently.

I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith and didn't accuse me of only spending my time copyediting "to prove points". I'm trying to make the article a useful resource for anyone who reads it, just the same as you. --McGeddon (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Own has nothing to do with it, like it or not you do it to prove points. And you know it, come on, since I've come here you've always been hiding in the shadows. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What "points" do you think it is that I'm proving, here? --McGeddon (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you did not space my comments on my talk page, you are just someone who whenever someone else is showing a passion in writing something you just come along and spoil it. This can be shown by you never pinning yourself down to writing articles, merely going around pushing POV and other things. The majority of your edits are in good faith, but sometimes in all honesty you are a nuisance, due to just keep hounding edits. Just give it a rest, and take each page as it comes. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone else is showing an exuberant passion for a subject (to the point where they're making the odd typo and mistake, in their enthusiasm), I come along and copyedit it - there are many different types of Wikipedia user, and someone who mostly corrects and copyedits is just as much a part of the project as a user who adds new material (in fact, the two usually tend to work quite well together).

I genuinely appreciate the contribution you're making to articles here, Jack. You know your stuff, and you provide a lot of good, new material - some of it just needs tidying up a bit, sometimes. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was a bit rash in calling you a nuisance among other things. I shouldnt have done, accept my sincerest apologies. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, just keep WP:COOL in future. --McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Forward Intelligence Team article

Hello,

I see you've reverted my edits to Forward Intelligence Team. Can you come over to the talk page and let us know why you removed these external links, as there seems to be a bit of an edit war starting.

Thanks,

Sorsoup (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just removed your unreferenced facts, I would like to see them included but it is Wikipedia rules. Plus, the thing about the external links is they must not be from forums or sites which do not deal in facts. Also, I do not see any problems with your links so I put them back. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Typos

I might be missing your point here - spelling mistakes in an article are fine? This was basically a change to repair a few simple typos in the article, I just reworded a few other things for flow while I was reading through it - I don't believe I added or removed anything significant. --McGeddon (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, typos are not fine. I did not mean it to come across in that way, what I meant was is apart from the typos it reads well, some of the bits I'm sure your just changing for the sake of it, really. Or thats what it seems like sometimes, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of it's pretty minor stuff, but I think it improves the readability of the article ("whose promotion was surrounded by controversy over the events" reads more clearly than "who was promoted surrounded by controversy, surrounding the events"). If there's not much difference, surely it doesn't matter? --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind you cleaning up typos etc, of course I dont. and the fact that most of it made sense in the first place. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I know the feeling, but as Wikipedia reminds you whenever you edit an article, "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Any sentence you submit to Wikipedia is likely to be tweaked and moved and spliced around, over the next few years or decades, so there's no need to feel possessive about anything you write. Take a look at WP:OWN. --McGeddon (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew you was going to say that, its nothing to do with WP:OWN or not wanting my material being tweaked, you are quite predictable. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But you just said "I just dont like my edits being changed in a way contrary to the way I put them".

If you genuinely think that I'm making these articles less readable, then please call me out on it, but if it's just that you don't like your sentences being edited, this is pure, textbook WP:OWN, and you're doing your article subjects a disservice by reintroducing typos and sentence fragments. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you say so McGeddon, if you say so. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've noticed the edits going back and forth over at the article, and sorry Police, but McGeddon is correct: typos should be removed from articles whenever possible, and his rewritings of those sentences do result in more clarity. I won't go into WP:OWN; you've been here long enough to know how that works. Also, as a very friendly nudge, both of you are heading into edit-war territory, and nobody wants that. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said I have anything against him tidying the typos. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, and for what it's worth the comma in my edit summary should have been a semicolon, indicating that a) the article reads better with McGeddon's edits, and b) that the typos are gone. The typos, however, are a red herring; McGeddon's edits result in prose that has more clarity and flows better. As I just suggested over at his page, perhaps you should both together find a disinterested admin to help you sort out the problem.Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What problem is this, as far as I am concerned RDPD matter has come to a close. Let him have what he wants Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems twofold. 1) you seem to feel some sense of ownership ("I just dont like my edits being changed in a way contrary to the way I put them"), which you know is contrary to policy, so I'll let you sort that out yourself. 2) You object to rewriting of the article for clarity. I'll use a change that McGeddon made, and try to explain why it seems clearer.

The original form of protection of such buildings in London, fell under...

The problem with this sentence is that it is overly wordy. In general when writing to present facts to a broad audience, smaller and fewer words are bette, as is a simpler sentence structure. McGeddon's edit simplified the sentence and made it more clear. Yes, they both say the same thing! But one of them is easier to read and conveys the facts more directly.

Beyond that, most of McGeddon's changes are typo fixing, tense agreement, and adhering to various English-language conventions such as referring to someone by his surname, and not his given name.

I'm not trying to put you down here, I'm just trying to explain where McGeddon seems to be coming from with his edits. I suggest, in a friendly way, that if you start having disagreements like this in the future, taking it to the article talk page is the better way to go. Cheers, and if I'm ever on that side of the Pond, I'll buy you a pint. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try. Thanks, lol. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Firearms Units

Your 'fascination' with the police and the SAS is unfortunately your downfall. I have been a Police Firearms Officer for many years. Please leave the detail to those that know what they are talking about. Your 'referenced' items are based on books and the media. I would not have made such an effort to correct your innaccuracies unless I wanted the users of wikipedia to see an accurate picture of the UK's firearms officers. Please refer it back to my amendments or I will report your stubborn innacuracies to Wikipedia. We all have the ability to edit where innaccuracies are shown, who are you to remove another person's amendments? You cleary don't know what you are talking about or you would have been grateful and interested in my input as an experienced firearms officer.

Hoboken15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboken15 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am, sir. All my additions are out of books and are all correct, many of the things you corrected are past tense of what used to be the case. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to stop reverting the whole page or you're gonna be in trouble (3RR and all that). If you have problems with specific sentences, then take them to the talk page. Both of you have good content, and it's worth working with him to get it all included where possible. Remember, just because something is unreferenced does not mean it should be removed immediately. ninety:one 19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to you here – although it may not be the answer you hoped for. – iridescent 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thans Iridescent four you common sense approach, Jack must remember that he is not always right and there alot of experts out there who will challenge his inputs to the encyclopedia. He has listened to what you have said but your suggestions were only a 1/4 of the amendments I made. When i have time i will challenge him on each one individually or the article will remain innacurrate for the readers. Hoboken15 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

City of London Police at the 1908 Summer Olympics

Hi there and greetings from Holland. My addition to the City of London Police is absolutely true. See: Great_Britain_at_the_1908_Summer_Olympics#Tug_of_war. Sadly the Tug of war was an Olympic event twice more, or the CoLP would still be the reigning Olympic champion! Cheers --Maarten1963 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you do not think I was being nasty by reverting your contributions. Its just that at the time, they were unreferenced. But now I have no problem with them, regards. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's quite alright, I'll put something about it back in the article. --Maarten1963 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack, "ninety one" is right - we must work together to sort this out. i feel very strongly that you are misrepresenting firearms units due to you getting your information from book and the media. Please don't elieve everything you read. i feel very strongly about the article being correct. My amemdments are from first hand knowledge which is REAL LIFE not what i have read in books. i refute the claim that I am "out of date or in the past tense". As of today when i was at work as a serving firearms officer everything is 100% accurate. please give me examples of where you think I am wrong and I will discuss them with you but bear in mind you may have to give way like it or not. I knoe what I am talking about and will ot waste my time replying to you if you won't accept reality and accept the amendments. hoboken15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboken15 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I do respect what you think, although a lot of what you did was mistaking past tense for the present and such, and some of the information does not need to be included like the other names for firearms units. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is written is based on a book published by an ex Met, Chief Super. So it cant be wrong, remeber that your additions need to be referenced. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Firearms Unit

Jack, I appreciate you considering Iridescent's views but you have only agreed to a few of my changes. Why do you think you are so right when you get your information from books and the media. Never believe what you read in the papers Jack. The amendments I made are spot on and would bear scrutiny by any other serving firearms officer such as myself. You should be grateful that we are prepared to read and edit these articles in order to make the encyclopedia accurate. Some of your suggestions about the SAS getting involved in all hostage events is pure fantasy on your part. That is just one innaccurracy, I could name 20 on this article alone - e.g UK police carying sub machine guns - only the Armed Forces carry those, we have semi automatic only. You must accept that your 'knowledge' is confined to what you have read about, our knowledge is because we do the job. Looking at your history there seems to be a problem that the editors are already keeping a close eye on. Remember Jack - stick to what you know and don't assume it is true because you can 'reference' it. People like you are valuable to Wikipedia but only if they accept when they are wrong and allow experts to edit without you deleting it all. Unfortunately anyone is allowed to edit on wilkipedia which allows wannabees who are fascinated by certain subjects to write as they want it to be, rather than how it actually is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboken15 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

firearms unit

apologies, forgot to sign the above hoboken15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboken15 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Firearms Units

Jack, amendments don't need to be referenced all the time - some of us deal with reality and first hand knowledge rather than getting our amendments out of a book someone else has written. hoboken15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboken15 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi.. I happened to still have this talk page on my watchlist. It's great that you have firsthand knowledge, but the two-edged sword of Wikipedia's strength is verifiability; readers need to be able to check citations of all facts contained within each article. Otherwise anyone could say anything and readers would assume that the most outlandish things were true. Please note: I am not saying that's what you're doing; I am just explaining why the facts do indeed require supporting references. If Jack's are out of date, surely there must be a book or (credible) website or newspaper/magazine article that covers the changes. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify/expand: the Wikipedia policy of verifiability does not mean that truth is the overriding concern (and frankly, that is something that I think should be in giant flashing letters at the top of every page); it means that someone credible said something or published something, nothing more. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in here before it escalates; while some of PMJ's edits are clearly wrong (and that "based on a book published by an ex Met Chief Super so it cant be wrong" makes me cringe – as well as make me think you've never met a ChSupt), you do need to supply a reference for anything you add. I know you're right, but because Wikipedia's a tertiary source, we're not able to accept original research – basically, you can't say something that hasn't been said somewhere else. – iridescent 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Prince of Canada and iridescent - I didn't realise. Although I understand the protection that is required it is a shame because alot of accurate first hand genuinely true information cannot be referenced, as a result wikipdia will inevitably lack accuracy. As you aware - just because it can be referenced it doesn't mean it is accurate. Thanks. Hoboken15 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. In a very broad sense, what you're saying is true of any compendium of information; by necessity such collections must lag behind the immediate state-of-the-art. I'd suggest looking for newspaper/magazine articles--or, if it's not confidential documentation (or has already been leaked), how about your training manuals? They would be relatively up to date, no? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hint from experience, from trying to drag information out of the Met Police drop by drop while writing Central Communications Command; police forces are very reluctant to release anything, but a lot of police authority material (such as the minutes of meetings where changes in policy were agreed) are on the public record. TJ's unfortunate incident at Stockwell LT has also led to a lot of policy documents coming into the public domain. – iridescent 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for everyones input. The thing is that some of the information you claim is wrong, is actually in the past tense. And yes some of it maybe wrong, I dont doubt that. I am a fifteen year old kid, who is interested in this topic in many many books and in media publications. A lot of my books are written by ex police officers are most of the information is right and referenced. Of course I do not know as much as a serving police officer, that would only be silly to assume. I'm only human, I do get things wrong, sorry to dissapoint. I am just trying to make the encyclopedia better on what I know, I try to help it not intentionally harm it. Also, please do not class me as a "wannabe" because I am not, surely a wannabe would be someone of the age of joining who cant get in or something like that, however, I am in my early teens and do not satisfy for that criteria. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack, although I didn't directly call you a wannabee the reference was clearly there and I apologise. Had I known your age before then perhaps I would have understood your angle sooner and you would have perhaps not received the same content in my replies. All credit to you for coming across as well as you do. The wanabees I refer to are unfortunately very common and usually much older in years, having perhaps harboured desires to do something that they haven't achieved or, more commonly live a fantasy life to the point of obsession, where they begin to believe they are a certain type of person. If there had been as many people in the SF over the years that actually claim to have been in the SF, then it would have been a very big regiment! You fascination with the SAS and the Police is perfectly natural at your age but as you can understand when people much older share a similiar fascintion it can become sinister and uncomfortable. PS thanks for correcting my typo's it was late at night! Regards, Hoboken15 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thats fine, thanks. I do respect you, what you do, and your opinions. And I apologise, if I ever come over hostile, nasty etc. Because of my age, all that I know comes from books, the internet, and the media, because yes, in no way have I "been there and done it" sort of thing, and I respect the people who have, because me myself would like to become an AFO one day. I must admit, I know exactly what you are talking about when you are talking about wanabees now, because yes your right, any interest can lead to an obession, but I like to think of myself and many others on here as people who have intense interests, or a hobby, but not an obsession because in my opinion, as you say, thats when things sometimes go out of rational control. And what you say about the SF, I can without a doubt believe is true. And in your last sentance about when people become older fanscinations can be come sinister and uncomfortable, I can relate to yet again, but as I get older, maturity will set in (I hope!) and the interest will still be there, but it will be countered by maturity. Anyway, thanks for you taking the time to explain. Many thanks, & regards. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack, that was well explained and shows maturity beyond your years in any case. Going back to the article, we seem to be on a sticking point over the routine arming of the 3 forces mentioned - MOD Police etc. The point I am trying to get across is that they are the only ones who routinely arm ALL of their staff, whereas the other forces routinely arm a small number of their staff. In fact I believe now that the PSNI have stopped arming everyone as a matter of routine but that would have to be checked. What do you think? Th other thing that bugs me a bit is where it sounds like the SFO's "will have to do" if the SAS are not available, It sounds like they are a poor relation whereas the reality is that the SFO's always to the job and only in 100,000 times (guesstimate) the SAS are used /consulted. I'd appreciate your view Jjack Hoboken15 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, with the MDP and CNC we should not be trying to get across the point that they arm all of their officers. It would be much better to try and inform of how unique the forces are, due to them being the only ones who carry firearms as a matter of routine. I dont think the SFOs are a poor relation and I did not mean them to come over that way, but I think it is worth mentioning (which is already) about how the SAS would have some part to play in very serious, or domesticated terrorist sieges. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I get your point on the routine arming but we are not quite there, you see in my unit we 'routinely arm' all of our officers, but it is only in our unit, not the whole force. In CNC and Modplod ALL of their officers are routinely armed, do you see my point? In relation to the other issue - SF can and will ONLY get involved in terrorist sieges/hijackings. They CANNOT get involved in any other day to day policing however serious it is. E.g you will never see them at an incident where husband takes wife/kids/passer-by hostage and barricades them in threatening to kill them. But you MIGHT and probably WILL see them if some political extremists take some people hostage while making demands of the UK or a foreign government to do some act(terrorism) Hoboken15 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but on the page it says how the MDP/CNC are routinely armed, because they are the only forces and we dont need that they arm all of their officers because it says that they are rountinely armed, and if you really want to read into those forces more you can click the link, you see Wikipedia requires that when you write about something, however much of an expert you are, you should always write in a style that people who do not have an indepth interest can understand, and that is what the article is set out like. I realise about when the SAS get involved, which I explained in my reply above. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Andy McNab: Killing Josiah Tongogara in Mozambique 1979

As a man who knows Andy McNab, Bob Consiglio, Pete McLish and John Cooke and others like Jock Hutton in Bindura, Zimbabwe, I know and witnessed the event. McGuiness from the Fort of Bindura and Inspector Pimm, the Police Chief in Bindura, are all aware of the subject line. Most are still alive and could verify this. Jock Hutton currently resides in Pudsey in Leeds, England. I recently had a drink with him in the Park Pub in Pudsey. He recognised me by my accent and I him by his colourful tatoo on his arm.

What else do i need to do to verify my claim to this controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th3g3rmb0y (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is all very good of you. But in all respect to you, I do not know who you are, and I do not know that you are/are not telling the truth. On Wikipedia, it is required that all content put into an article, must have been published somewhere else, and must have an external site backing it up. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: RE: My discussion page

I'm allowed to comment where I wish, thanks. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that I will comment where I wish. Welcoming a new user is not 'interfering'; indeed you will notice that I didn't comment on your page, only on his. More to the point, I suggest you re-read WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Accusing a fellow editor--who, it should be said, has done nothing but be polite and helpful to you--of 'stalking' you is directly against both policies. I reverted your removal because this comment would make no sense without the preceding. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerly apologise, it was wrong of me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Have a biccie and a cuppa. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thanks very much. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Territorial Support Group

The TSG do not carry ASPs, they carry Monadnock straight acrylic batons, I don't know why you claim otherwise. Wnjr (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not realise. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IS there something wrong with adding informantion on a book

Hi Jack Would you be able to tell me what the problem is with adding a referance to a book that you deleted from the philip glenister page.As i cant see from the rules why it would not be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.53.103 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends what information this is, although I must warn you, you are obviously the sockpuppet of someone. Because going by your history of edits, you only have three, but have never edited the Philip Glenister article. If you make aware to me what information you want included I will see if it is suitable, and if references can be found to source such information. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet.?? I'll let that go what ever happened to Good Faith... Im actually on my home computer and was logged in from another The number or edits does not actualy mean that you have a Quailty of editing..So you dont actually read the copy you just delete it without checking.? Thats odd. For your Informantion Go Here. http://www.philip-glenister.com/books1.html ..Do you treat everyone new editor like this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.53.103 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? You are a sockpuppet, you just admitted it. Did I ever mention anything along the lines of how many edits I have affect the quality? I do check the copy I am deleting of course, but I do editing on a regular basis, you cant expect me to remember each case, in the smallest of detail. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didnt admit anything.I simply did not respond .. Just because i havent edited the Philil Glenister page FROM THIS COMPUTER does not mean that i have not done in the past...There is no need to get all excited...I added in a useful bit of informantion..and you deleted it for no reason and i am asking you why.As i have manners i asked was it against the rules before i just went and reverted it without a reason ..194.125.53.103 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What username did you add this content from? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt aware that i had to give my editing history to anyone.194.125.53.103 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)It cant be that hard to work out which edit i am talking about it was the alast revert that you did on the page..It was less that 2hours ago.194.125.53.103 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I ask for you to give your edit history to me? No, because if I want to do that, I will look your contributions up. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you most be suffering from memory loss...Highlighted above...Now really is all this needed ..It was the informantion on his book.that will out in Nov 08. I fail to see how this infomantion has got you so annoyed..??194.125.53.103 (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It did not get me annoyed, your distgusting attitude did, you did not scrape me off of your shoe, so do not treat me like nothing more than that. I do not have memory loss, and if I did. That would not concern you, in fact if I did, and you made fun of that, I really would tell you where you should put it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MY ATTITUDE..??? you are reading different posts to me..as i can see nothing only CALM POLITE posts...you might care to point me to my DISGUSTING attitude.? And might i add you still have not clarfied why the book info is unacceptable.194.125.53.103 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An example of your distgusting attitude would be: "well you most be suffering from memory loss", I "wasnt aware that i had to give my editing history to anyone" which is sarcasm, and "There is no need to get all excited". I can name others, but I have better things to do with my time. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well from your First response to me was to call me a SOCK Puppet from NOWWHERE....and if you read my posts there is no Slight intended...And this Disgusting attuide...Please just stop now...There is no slights of sly digs intended in any of the above posts..i was responding to what i thought were VERY aggresive posts. Another editor saw fit to add in the informantion..How many editors have to agree instead of endless reverting.?

Go away, stop trolling. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Philip Glenister article

Hello Jack. I haven't "interfered" in any conversations, I just edited an article that was on my watchlist, in response to an unexplained and inappropriate-seeming revert from you.

I wasn't aware of the above conversation on your talk page - if you want the other editors of an article to be aware of something (although I'm not sure what, from the above conversation), you should bring it up on that article's talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Never the less, you still did a bit of the old routine. Plus dont try and get me to buy you did not know about the above, my talkpage is on your watchlist and chances are you come to see what was going on.Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep cool and assume good faith, Jack. We're all on the same side here (I'm assuming you don't actually have any problem with the Glenister book being mentioned?), and accusing fellow editors of lying really isn't on. --McGeddon (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude, and its not without provocation. It is reasonable to assume that with my talk being on your watchlist, you come to see what was going on. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, assuming that an edit was probably made as a result of an editor checking out your talk page and deciding to "interfere" is not reasonable. This is assuming bad faith. Please, please read WP:AGF.

What does your revert summary of "Fill out a book site" mean, on the Glenister article? --McGeddon (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation is finished. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI versus AIV

Hi there, AIV is for reporting persistent vandals. ANI (or 3RR) is for matters related to the type of complaint you have about edits between the IP on Specialist Firearms Command. At the moment you are having an edit war over what should or should not be included. Indeed on my cursory read if the IP 81.134.13.35 again reverts do not revert back but report them to 3RR. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 10:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Steve :). Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please note I have also put a warning on the IP's page regarding 3RR - you should similarly be careful you do not breach that rule if he reverts. Again best wishes.--VS ^talk 10:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re User talk:81.134.13.35, reports to AIV, and UK Police related articles

I very strongly suggest that you cease interacting with the above ip editor. Your enthusiasm and dedication are noted, but I feel that it is time for you to step back in regard to these matters. If there are concerns with the anon editors contributions they will likely be noticed by other editors, but presently you appear to be the only person who has expressed these concerns. To be short, I don't want to see any more AIV reports regarding this editor and nor do I wish you to place warnings on their talkpage, I also do not want to see any article talkpage comments relating to any issues between the two of you.

I have seen you reporting vandals previously to WP:AIV, and I have reviewed them and performed appropriate admin actions and have previously found you to be diligent and accurate. This matter is disappointing, and I hope you will drop it and continue with your otherwise good contributions. Cheers.

Note to User talk:81.134.13.35: I also don't want to find this notice appearing on your talkpage - if I had wanted it there I would have copied it over.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So whenever he makes an edit I feel strongly against, I just let it happen? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If it is bad someone else will notice it and act accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• No - LessHeard vanU is talking about AIV reports. Simply walk away (if possible) or (if you must) report him as I detailed above. Cheers!--VS ^talk 10:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting here, but I reviewed your AIV report and was about to respond but VirtualSteve beat me to it and I decided to follow up on his note that he would discuss on your talk page. I found your AIV report slightly misleading. You say that the editor is edit warring "despite me asking the user to talk it out on the talk page". As far as I can tell you only asked him in this edit, and the user performed no further reversions after that time. Please be careful about this in the future.

Also, the editor has a point. We discourage duplication of content between articles, albeit not for bandwidth reasons but for maintenance purposes (think how hard would it be to keep both versions of the same content in sync?). -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and its valid. But I do actually keep the versions in sync. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, when this editor tried this before, I did actually set up a conversation on the talk page, but no one replied, and plus he stopped. Me and this editor used to spar alot, but for quite a while this has stopped. Plus, this user is a sockpuppet of someone, I'm sure of it. I'm not naming names because that would be bad faith, but none of the less. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Louisa Lytton previous TB appearance

The link I gave (http://www.sierra-oscar.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=303&view=findpost&p=11818 )contained screencaps of the episode in question, including the relevant credit sequence. TV com, IMDb also list the same info. http://www.tv.com/louisa-lytton/person/360779/appearances.html

If that's some *other* Louisa Lytton who is the same age, I haven't been able to find a link on Spotlight or elsewhere for the mooted Lytton II. Cheers. Sonnenbarke (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Oscar is not a reliable source, like it or not. Please dont be sarcastic with me, it does not work. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment regarding IMDB being an authoritative source is directed at Sonnenbarke. IMDB is already included as a source on the page. I agree with Police,Mad,Jack that a fan site is not reliable. FREON101 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realise where your text was directed. If you have any questions, or need any help, please dont hesitate to contact me, we were all new once. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Not that new. Been on the 'net long enough to know not to take things too personally :) FREON101 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want this to descend into an edit war. I would always assume Good Faith. My link was to provide pictorial evidence, including the credit sequence. Yes, IMDb is a authoritative source, I didn't mean to infer that in any way. Apologies.

PMJ, I wasn't being sarcastic. Sometimes child actors no longer act, I was conceding that it *may* be a different person. Sonnenbarke (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendly reminder about vandal warnings

If you feel the need to give someone a straight-out bad-faith vandalism warning, by all means go for it and stick to your guns; we've got a template for exactly that. But your recurring approach of giving a user three consecutive edit warnings because they have three pieces of vandalism in their recent history (as demonstrated here, before I reverted it) is misleading to other editors, as it implies that the user has received and chosen to ignore three warnings, when the warnings were actually all given simultaneously.

Cheers. --McGeddon (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Please don't edit my user page. I can handle it myself, thanks. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was only reverting someone who posted a good faith comment on your userpage, rather than talk. Just trying to help. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, do not be rude to me, I was just trying to help. If I see someone plaster your page with vandalism, I will not revert it, you should have just showed gratitude for someone helping in the first place, dear me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being rude. You removed something from my userpage without putting it anywhere else, which rather defeats the purpose of the person trying to get in touch with me. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Police officer

Hello! I picked up the case from WP:3 and have provided some comments that have been accepted by the other party. Could you kindly review them Talk:Police officer and provide a comment? Thank you! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Have done, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Special Branch

thanks for the tips; my clumsy typing again! Best MacBiggles.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacBiggles (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. We all make mistakes sometimes, lol. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Police article

see the discussion page of the Police article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.224.110 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

and please stop templating 99.2, it only raises the temperature. Further comments to both of you on the article talk page. --Rodhullandemu 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

He was being rude to me though. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting comments

Hi Jack. By cutting a comment from one page and pasting it to another, you're making it look as if the editor intentionally replied on that second page (and in response to the exact comment above it), which is misleading. I know it's the same context, but other editors' comments are sacrosanct, and you should be as careful as possible when editing or moving them, in case you misrepresent someone.

Putting quotes around it and explaining that you've put it there yourself is exactly the right way to go - thanks for that. --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Child Abuse Investigation Team

What is this edit summary supposed to mean? Oh, I got the book btw. Very good it is too! ninety:one 18:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a good book, very good. I hope you enjoy reading it =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. It's just that the text you re-instated is unsourced. Can you source it? ninety:one 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons

Not really my area, but I think you can just use Wikimedia commons pictures as if they were already hosted on the Wikipedia servers, without having to copy them at all. --McGeddon (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Riotsquad helmet file name

• See Talk:Riot protection helmet#Name of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Garda Water Unit

Sorted, thanks.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Jack. Thanks for your efforts in archiving pages, but if there are a few recent-ish unresolved threads sitting around, it doesn't hurt to leave them on the main talk page. (Even if all the raised issues have been resolved, it's arguably helpful to other users if a few threads are still there, to show them that the talk page is in use and that they can join in.)

Please try to assume good faith in your edit summaries, though.. --McGeddon (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Armed Police, The Police Use of Firearms since 1945

I now have that book, and have noticed twice where you have cited from it inaccurately. The first is at Covert policing in the United Kingdom, and secondly at Metropolitan Police Service#Police stations. Please try to find accurate sources for this information. ninety:one 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will, I apologise. Please dont delete it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, how many times have you done this? This is not in the book either. ninety:one 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert to Iridescent's page

[2] Please excuse me for finding this revert very funny; given a lot of the (extremely odd) messages on Iridescent's page, this edit seems to make perfect sense! :-) I will leave it to Iridescent to decide whether or not the post should be restored. Thanks for the smile. Risker (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well thanks, I guess. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Echoing) - I know you mean well, but please don't remove posts from talk pages (except your own user talk page) unless they're blatant vandalism. If you read the conversation of which the post you reverted was part, it made perfect sense in context. It's not down to you, me, or anyone else to censor conversations. – iridescent 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise! You thought you were doing the right thing. General (perhaps one of the most important) unwritten rules on Wikipedia is "don't remove something without a reason to do so, don't add something without a reason to do so". – iridescent 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Louisa Lytton

Hi Jack. Just wanted to check whether the citation for Beth Green's departure on The Bill was working for you? The link goes to Digital Spy, but I get an error page saying Internet Explorer Cannot Display the Webpage? Cheers Mark 13:46, 01 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want it to work for me, or not? I if you get what I mean. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well I told McGeddon that he should make his source available because I assumed there was something wrong with digital spy, but then he said he was refering to the source already there, which made me wonder if it was just me? Thought i'd check your end seen asthough you knew what i was talking about... Mark 14:52 01 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, ok. I'm not sure what my answer should be, but at the moment it does not work for me, but I'll check it again in a few hours to see if it does work, or if it needs to work. lol, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Andy McNab fix

Greetings Police,Mad,Jack. Am about to revert your revert of my changes to the above article. I know you've done a lot of work to it, but believe me, the syntax changes I've made are the correct ones. Likewise, you also deleted a fact template I had added - as you know Wikipedia needs such references, so if you can add one (have I missed it elsewhere in the article?). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again. I just realised that I reverted your edit without any edit summary, making it look like I was reverting vandalism. Sorry! --Technopat (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats OK, dont worry about it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Cambridge meetup

19, although apparently I look younger; at the last london meet I was congratulated by a 17-year-old user for "being the youngest one there":S. On that topic; are you not going to the london one? Ironholds 18:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well looking younger isnt a bad thing, your the envy of everyone who'd like to look younger but dont! I'm afraid I cant come to the London one , because I live near Cambridge, and I'm only 15, so it would mean having someone to take me too. Just out of interest, is the London one before the Cambridge one then? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tis next weekend, kind sir; why can't you travel down on your own? Ironholds 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why bother, when I have one on my doorstep though? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I'm having to travel for both of them (I normally live in london, but term time and all means uni calls) and it's a bugger; If I could avoid doing so I would. Ironholds 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you study at university then? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Politics at the moment, although I'm hoping to take a CPE and become an american coffee waitress (barrister). I'd recommend politics as a course, although it doesn't usually lead anywhere all on its own. Ironholds 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. I hope to go to university one day. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pushing the words around"

If someone's copyediting seems "pointless" to you, why not just leave it? Either they've fixed a mistake that you haven't noticed, or the article is no better or worse than it was before, in which case it neither benefits nor suffers from being reverted. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why you constantly cyber-stalk my edits. Its just creepy. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Police vehicles in the United Kingdom

Hello Jack. I sometimes edit an article within half an hour of you because we have some of the same articles on our watchlists, and when you edit an article, it shows up near the top of my watchlist. You do understand this, right? I'm not "stalking" you.

As I saw it, a new user added some information to Police vehicles in the United Kingdom, and you reverted it without any explanation. You have now reverted it again because "Its not adding of content", but I don't understand why you say that - the editor has added a decent amount of new information about police vans, police cars and the cases where each is employed (including clarifying that compliant suspects are sometimes taken away in cars).

What's your objection? This looks like useful information. --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of the content is actually already on the page. And if it was not, most of that can be found on the Police van article, and as its linked. I feel it unnecessary because if anyone wants to find out more about the functions of police vans, they would be compelled to click the link. Also, very few forces allow that prisoners be transported in a car, due to the fact that just because someone is not resisting arrest does not mean that they will be like that all the way back to custody. I realise that some of the pages I edit, are on your watchlist. But you have to appreciate my point of view, because in all honesty it frustrates me, when I do something, and you basically "jump on it" so to speak, because everything I do, if you can, you will change or dissagree with it. Regards, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair call. There's clearly room for some compromise if the current wording is incorrectly stating that it is "not possible" to transport a suspect in a police car in the UK, but you make a fair point otherwise.

Mention this sort of thing in the edit summary next time? It may be obvious to you why you're reverting something, but other editors can't always see it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Hello there. Thanks for not using the template! I'm actually not in breach of 3RR though - 3RR states you can't make "more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". I made exactly three on September 23. As regards admin involvement, I brought up the editor's conduct on WP:COI noticeboard, but nothing was done about it. Thanks again for not templating! =) Fin©™ 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks! Fin©™ 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Garda Public Order Unit

I'm not sure you are quite au fait with 3RR. The rule forbids more than three reverts in 24 hours. That was my first edit of Garda Public Order Unit in ten days.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats nice coming from you, I dont think you are quite au fait with the rule that you battle it out on the talk page instead of keep reverting, which helps no one. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be confusing me with someone who keeps reverting instead of battling it out on the talk page. I can't force people to talk to me if they're not inclined to do so. The notice you referred to on my talk page was put there by someone who has since been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeteering. Silly, really.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Andy McNab page

Hi. I changed 'his real name is unknown' into 'kept hidden from the media and public' and you said 'that's obvious since it's a pseudonym. I beg to differ. A lot of actors and authors use pseudonyms but their real names are known as well. Not kept hidden. In McNabs case: 'his real name is unknown' is not true - a lot of people know his real name, family, friends, colleagues etc. But it's kept hidden to the public and media (for security reasons). In my opinion that's a difference :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACatharina (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dont be silly, of course his family know his name, that goes without saying. And anyone who knows about the SAS will realise that it is a fake name for security reasons, we do not need this. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind reply. It was my impression that Wikipedia drives on contributions from the users. I guess I was wrong. If you have a difference of opinion it's the law of the 'strongest'. ACatharina (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Transport Operational Command Unit Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary MI4 Metropolitan Police Authority Bow Street Runners Thyristor drive Los Angeles School Police Department Great North Air Ambulance MI19 Civil Nuclear Constabulary Assistant Commissioner Wiltshire Constabulary Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch National police National Crime Squad Basic Command Unit Len Duvall Stephen Lander Tayside Police

Cleanup London Police Service York Regional Police Right of asylum Merge Socialist law Zacarias Moussaoui Detective Add Sources Police Federation of England and Wales Incident Command System Billings Police Department Wikify UNTAET Crime Scene Detachment Navajo Tribal Police Heena Expand Scotland Yard Police academy Special Duties Unit

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you for your welcome (please pardon punny phrases). I won't be able to be very active, as I don't have much spare time I can dedicate to the Wikipedia project and I do not have Internet access at my home, but I will do what I can to assist. Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your very welcome, lol. It doesnt really matter, just do what you can, when you can sort of thing =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)