User talk:McGeddon

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Current

FYI

Just thought I'd let you know that 87.194.4.21, whom you have noted as a vandal, has now also been reported as a sockpuppet. --Keithpickering (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or more correctly, as a sockpuppeteer. --Keithpickering (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I add something to be said to McGeddon..I have no idea what all this is about..Why did they erase everything I attempted to put on the IEV Media stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorehead (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Welcome back, I noticed you havent been around for a while. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit of SFO it looks better now :) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As we edit the Article Firearms Unit in unision now, I thought i'd let you know that I added a new section on Firearms Intelligence the CID unit. Regards Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know mate its in my watchlist too, which I use now too I was just telling you I added a section about the intelligence role of it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you from England? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, i've seen your good editing on Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes related articles. Would you consider joining the project? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok fair enough m8 Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go at making it more coherent. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I had a go at it, maybe you would care to take a look see. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UNCLOS logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:UNCLOS logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Citations

Okey dokey mate, I'll ave a go at doing that next time =) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because the new added sources cancelled them out mate. I wasnt just wildy deleting I swear Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have replaced them would you mind going through them and doing the honours by doing footnotes and all the rest of it? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

Ok thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)

Fanboy talk

Whatever man, if you want Wikipedia to join in on the cookie-cutter 'because the majority says so, it must be true' philosophy then I ain't got no problems with that. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev Boy (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Firearms Unit

Good Afternoon McGeddon

How are you today then? Anyway as you know we have been editing Firearms unit and Specialist Firearms Officer in unision and I thought it would be cool if both articles had a picture but i'll level with you I dont know how to get a picture from one article to another the picture I have in mind is one on Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom if you could make sure it is ok to be tranferred please could you do that I dont want you to think i'm being lazy I just dunno how to do it and you know how to do most things on here. Thanks in advance Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks alot I owe you one. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and another thing I have brought this book [1] yesterday and it has reveled information I didnt know about like the old weapons the police used to use would it be worth including them do you think? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah i've decided to drop the idea the referncing would be a bloody nightmare. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation

Six revert warning by Using Second Alias Skittle/Mcgeddon

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Smarties (Nestlé). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolutio —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYBAN (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please kindly stay out of my talk column. I question your judgement and integrity - Your opinions, viewpoints and/or corrections are not welcome.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYBAN (talk • contribs)

Welcome templates

Hi,

Thanks for the information, it was cut and pasted from a text file, have added "</div>" to the end now so hopefully that should resolve the issue….

Regards, --Badgernet (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

Thanks mate, the ones we have trouble with citing are in a book i'm reading would it be cool if I used the book as the cite? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at it, is that how it is supposed to be? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a bit of a mess of the spaces and stuff would you mind taking a look please? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see now, thanks =). Would it be appropriate if we removed the tag? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

Note that I have already reported the sock-puppet and it was not investigated properly. No IP numbers were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Never expected IPs to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.2.25 (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't reply on your talk page because you seem to be switching between IP addresses. If you give me a link to the report, I'd be happy to look into whether it was investigated properly or not. --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the complaints about sock-puppetry using the names Hulangu and Temujin123.

It was said that BLP concerns prevented an investigation. This amounts to admitting that a sock-puppet was being used. Many other excuses were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about this, which was rejected as "Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP" - if you didn't provide any evidence, this seems like a reasonable response, and in no way "amounts to admitting that a sock-puppet was being used". --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has described the autobiography as " a puff piece". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.249.18 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing your edits, I think you're confused about what a sock puppet actually is. A sockpuppet is where a person has several Wikipedia accounts and is using them in an abusive way. If a person creates a Wikipedia account and edits an article about themselves or their company, then it's simply a conflict of interest issue, and although it merits scrutiny, it's not a banning offence, and will be rejected if reported as a sockpuppetry. --McGeddon (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FFDP

I can see where your coming from with the ffdp card game, delete it for now just at least untill the website goes live, that website will contain all news reports and press cuttings as well as video's of the game being played in tornaments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nialljames (talk • contribs)

Firearms Unit, new section created

Hello McGeddon

Two paragraphs under "Organisation" I thought would be better suited to a "History" section so I went ahead and made one of them, just thought I'd let you know! Happy Editing! [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have seen the full link name on other articles, and I was hoping to do that but I dont know how if you could please fill me in? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

_________

I had reverted him before and I explained exactly why Firearm detail should not be present in the lead, but still he thought he knew better. But I will take your message in mind. Thanks [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also sorry for belated reply, I got dragged out shopping just after I reverted the users edits and got in about half an hour ago. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you review the labeled budgie image?

Hi McGeddon,

Would you mind stopping by the Graphic Lab and taking a peek at the labeled budgie image you requested? Thanks!— ʞɔıu 10:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible picture for Firearms Unit and Specialist Firearms Officer

If you would care to take a look at this picture, do you think it is suitable? [2] [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And this one as it is an Armed Response Vehicle. [3] [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism tools

Good morning. Could I ask what tool you are using to make notes such as this one about vandalism? There are a couple of minor problems with the way the tool is working but I'm not yet sure which part needs fixing. It does not appear to be the template itself. If you could drop me a note, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the escalation (even though the chronology was reversed) is to document the pattern of vandalism and, more than that, to document that the prior vandalism has already been checked and reverted. I've never really liked that answer because, as you say, the vandal hasn't had the time to see or react to the first warning yet but I don't know of any other process that meets the needs of the other editors reviewing the vandal's behavior. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange Cat

On the Firearms Unit article in the cat section there is one about what does this mean? It seems to have nothing to do with the subjct. Is it vandalism? as when you try to edit the section it isnt there to edit. Please see to this. Thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 12:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, it just looked so arbitrary but now I know, thanks!. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Theory: by Robert David Clifford Wilkinson

This is Not vandelism. It's the solution. Stop erasing it because that is a cover up conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtron5000 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alice Gomme

Just wanted to say thanks for that. I'd copied from the Chekov page, using it as a model, and forgot that the copy had overwritten the copied internet address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N p holmes (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolls are a dime a dozen..:)

How come we do not have Igor Chudov in the Troll (Internet) article? He got 1996 Troll award of the year http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/usenet/palm-chudov.html his website http://igor.chudov.com/ Read this also http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/337904/ShowPost.aspx The original group http://groups.google.com/group/alt.genius.bill-palmer Maybe we should do a section on this? Igor Chudov and Bill Palmer Troll incident. Igor Berger (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of English Kangaroo Words

I completely disagree with your opinion that the entry should be deleted. Surely there is a place in the internet to archive a wiki collection of known English kangaroo words. They are rare and deserve to be listed. I have separated them into a different page/entry so that it doesn't confuse the readability/neatness of the article already. The sprawling list of words is outside of the main entry. In fact, they are not sprawling, but an archive of rare objects. By your logic, we should also delete List of palindromic places. Sorry for the flame, but people have spent a lot of time to collect all known kangaroo words for you to just delete them. I challenge you to come up with 10 new legitimage kangaroo words. If you can do that, then maybe you can delete this list. We have spent a lot of time on the kangaroo word wiki well before you ever came along and decided that our collective reference is just "sprawling". Powerslide

You made a mistake.

Don't touch my talk page again. If I delete a warning that is no longer valid over a month ago, you shouldn't put it back. I assume you did so by mistake, but it would be better if you just stayed away from reverting user talk pages. I almost reported a bot because of this edit. Either be more careful, or leave the anti-vandalism community. -- trlkly 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(bold text added after the fact.) -- trlkly

I think you must have misread the page history; I didn't re-add any deleted warnings or revert anything. It was a bot, a month ago. --McGeddon (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is I blanked that section over a month ago, but it came back. I got a message yesterday saying there was a new addition to my talk page. You were the only person who edited the page this month, so naturally I assumed you were the one who added it back. Perhaps my blanking didn't take or some other technological problem happened. Either way, I'm sorry to have accused you.

On the other hand you did sign a response that I left unsigned. Sinebot does not autosign user_talk pages unless asked, and I don't appreciate you doing it either. I still think Sinebot sounds pretentious, and could easily be reworded. And I also think it's stupid to make people sign pages when it's obvious the technology exists for it to be done for them. Using the bot is only one method. It isn't that difficult to modify the wiki software to automatically add the tildes itself whenever a user edits anything in the Talk subspace. I'm pretty certain I've seen wikis that do just that. I'll post examples if I find them.

Anyways, if somebody intentionally doesn't sign their post, why should anybody add anything to it? Either way, you are still modifying the original post. And when it comes to my talk_page, if you sign any of my posts ever again, I will have to report you, as I have given full warning that I do not want you (or anybody else) doing this. Reporting somebody may not be the most effective solution, but it is the only recourse I have. I am not trying to be uncivil, I am just telling you what the consequences of your actions will be. You will effectively be violating WP:POINT, which I'm not sure you didn't do already. I can only assume good faith for so long.

-- trlkly 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure my previous comments had already indicated I didn't want anyone to sign comments for me. Apparently, that was not the case, so I added the appropriate templates to my user page. As far as I'm concerned, a user's wishes should override "standard operating procedure", in non-essential, not-quite-policy matters. You seem to agree with me.

As for the tilde thing, I don't edit Wikipedia often enough to bring it up at this point. But regarding the false positives: methods already exist to indicate that you actually don't want something signed. I would personally want a checkbox that says, "Sign this talk page comment for me", with it's default state set in my options. Using templates (including ~~~~) and bots is a bit clunky, in my opinion. We can do better.

As for wikis that automatically add information to comments, the one I'm remembering added info as soon as you hit the edit button, so you could easily remove that text if you didn't like it before submission. I'll look around for it.

Sorry for being so verbose. I have a hard time summarizing comments in 100 words. Anyways, I just wanted to add that I am impressed with your disciplined responses. You are a credit to the Wikipedia community, even if we happen to strongly disagree. -- trlkly 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I just remembered! The YKTTW page at the (TVTropes wiki) does a good job, even with antiquated wiki software. -- trlkly

I wasn't so much upset that you signed my comment (I can always remove the template and sign it myself if I see it.) What bothered me was that you did it on the one page where I explained that I didn't like having my comments signed in that manner. You also resumed an old conversation that I didn't really want to talk about again, but I can't expect you to know that last part. The whole reason that conversation is there is because Sinebot (or its equivalent back then) automatically went back and signed a comment that I was already in the process of signing myself (I accidentally clicked Save instead of Preview) I left a comment in the edit summary that I "hated the autosigner", and somebody was curious why. It never really bugged me that much, and definitely doesn't anymore. But, because I thought you were being insensitive (by apparently ignoring what I'd said in the previous paragraph), I got mad enough to bring up my old arguments against the system.

Also, I rarely want to leave unsigned comments anyways, but I know how to do so now without any problems, if it ever comes up again. I add !nosine! to the summary and an HTML comment to the effect not to sign it, especially with the template. If the person ignores both of those, they'll probably still get an earfull, but I'll take into account that, since it is "standard operating procedure", it was probably added without thinking. I'll try to keep it more civil, though. What do you think of this, "Hey. I noticed that you signed a comment of mine. You apparently didn't notice the numerous markings indicating that I didn't want it signed. Please notice on my user page that I have opted out of automatic signing, which includes any use of that template. As I said in my post, anybody who really wants to know can look at the history. ~~~~"? -- trlkly 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to leave something, and as you mentioned, if they aren't ever going to see me again, they probably won't be reading my edit summaries. The point is not to get them not to sign the post I flat-out said I don't want signed, but to get them to pay attention to their surroundings before mindlessly following the rules. We have bots to do that for us. We humans, I think, should strive to be a little smarter. -- trlkly 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iram and the Necronomicon

The necronomicon not only tells you where to find IRAM it also tells you details about the city and WHY the city was destroyed. In the bible it says, god destroyed the city because he was mad or something. In the necronomicon, it give the actual scientific proof that the city fell because the Limestone walls dried and cracked under the city after the water under the city was being used for 1000s of years. we may be talking about R'lyeh. What better place to hide the greatest secret of man kind! Not only is it in a SEA its in a SEA of SAND. And its BURIED under a CITY ! If the necronomion is completely fiction, then how did lovecraft know where the city is? Is he a prophet? Because he even says that the way to find the city is to follow the camel caravan paths and find out where they intersect. Thats exactly what NASA DID! they found the roads. they found a buried city, in the middle of the largest desert on earth, and they didnt even need to figure out what happened to the city, because the necronomicon did. It explains it rather clearly. And again to assume that there isnt something really important buried there is a denial. It could be R'lyeh for all we know.

The additions to the Necronomicon page site where Iram was found, but don't point to anywhere in any story that Lovecraft "predicted" this. This really needs to change, or else the section says basically nothing. - Vianello (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If Lovecraft was the first person to write in detail about how Iram fell, and how to find it, and was later proven to be correct, than that's certainly of interest. However, we need to find a reliable source (such as a newspaper or academic paper) that writes about it - we can't document it ourselves based on his novels and the NASA dig, as that would be synthesis. Have you got anything? --McGeddon (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh i think i understand, we just need a 3rd party that is reputable to reference stating that nasa found irem in 1980? (man this encyclopedia stuff is a pain haha, so you cant create new information yet you also cant cite information unless its backed up by some other source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgoSanus (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghoti

Atcheavy and I have made a truce until the newspaper article comes out, that way we can settle its meaning one and for all. Solo30 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for telling me how to properly ues citations, and for you're tireless contributions to Wikipedia. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

COI

I know it probably looked like vandalism, but I really was going through and putting the title in all the relevant places I thought it belonged. Got it though. TheRegicider (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lego

You removed information that needed to be mention. GoTLG 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vandal warnings

The warning was appropriate, it was blatant vandalism. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do stop defending these vandals, you try having your hard work tarnished by them. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your right actually, I should observe the vandalism warnings. And yes that is why I didnt leave my signature so no attacks are brought against me. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 09:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the user has left? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a coincidence, he could have got bored with Wikipedia he could be ill he could be on holiday his computer may have failed to work. I could make more feasable reasons but I'm not going to just because he has not come back doesnt mean his never going to. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, i'll do it from now on. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake what the hell is the matter with you? He must watch The Bill to be interested in asking that question, and in all my years watching The Bill no story line has even slightly even minisculy implied/involved rape between Sergeant Callum Stone and Constable Emma Keane in fact Emma is now dead as of last night and Stone come well after she first appeard in The Bill. This question was not innocence it was someone trying to be silly on the page. If you watch The Bill you know who Callum and Emma are and none of the episodes have been sexually sugesstive between either of them, not even slightly. This user deserved this warning, my opinion. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that did come over rather rude towards you but that is basically the story, you have given me lots of chances to reform this but I truely believe this user deserved the warning, where as in the past many havent. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang about now, thats not the case and if you dont mind me saying so I think your wrong. I'm not going to bore you again with what I think because I'm sure I did that well enough above, but I did not issue a level four warning because I was worried about work (For reason see explained version above again), Your not stupid you know full and well what I have stated is true but I believe your doing this just to prove a point regardless of reason. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And for your information I am not scared of these vandals, if I was I would not bother to warn them at all. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, have a nice weekend. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hangman as a book cover

Hi. So you reverted three of my edits within less than half a day because—well, because, as you say, what I added was "trivial." I assume it did not violate any of the numerous Wikipedia policies. Would you agree that what is trivial to one person is a remarkable fact to another? As far as I'm concerned, if I wanted to have my way, I'd want to delete a whole batch of articles as "trivial." All the best to you in your capacity as Counter-Vandalism Unit member, <KF> 10:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: User page vandalism

Its fine mate, your welcome. damn vandals eh. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rm hungover talk in article

Fair enough - but if you take a look at the linked article you'll see that the inverse gamblers fallacy is nothing like what is described - any chance you could fix it? Cheers 81.149.250.228 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychic intro

The intro stated "....refers to the ability to perceive things....". The ability. That is blatant POV, a statement that an ability actually exists. I have added the word "claimed" to make the intro accurate, and give Wikipedia some semblance of being unbiased. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Dead (film) Calendar

I was wondering why you orphaned the picture I put up comparing an image from the Gorillaz album to the opening screen shot of the movie. Given the excessive similarities in the two pictures as well as the fact that the same album samples music from the original Dawn of the Dead, I think it obvious that the band was emulating the opening screen of Day of the Dead. Also, you left the whole bit in the article stating how the two pictures are similar, yet removed the actual visual evidence from the article showing just how they are similar. Danielhalton (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008

Given that the Gorillaz have sampled music from other Romero Dead movies on more than one of their albums, it shows that the band are fans of his movies and that they knew exactly what they were doing with that image. Their picture has the month of October starting on a Tuesday and ending on a Thursday (just like in the movie, but obviously this alone does not prove the point) and all the days are Xed off with big, bold red Xs (it could have been just as easily black Xs, but they chose red, just as it was in Day). Also the calendar itself is not just a flip down calendar, but is spiral-bound and is pinned to a bare Concrete block wall (both of these being in the opening shot of Day as well). Literally the only difference between the two images is that the Gorillaz have Trick-or-treaters as the image on the calendar (as opposed to a field of pumpkins, albeit the most prominent trick-or-treater is wearing a giant pumpkin head) and where in Day it says "OCTOBER" in all capital letters, the Gorillaz' image says "NOVEMBER HAS COME" also in all capital letters. Honestly if they hadn't gotten Romero's permission to sample his work, the image itself would have been borderline copyright infringement. Danielhalton (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2008

Outdated?

By means of the existence of this article on wikipedia I want a dispute resolution on whether Einstein's view of relativity and gravity must be updated, to current established thought, on the same TOE page that wants to combine QM with General Relativity

In the very least it deserves an outdated tag for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.83.20 (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chris Morris

I actually think it's a bad thing that the article is 'readable'. I don't mean it should be literally unreadable, of course, but I kind of think that the flow of the article should be constantly interrupted if it's full of speculative, unreferenced and questionable claims. It reminds people that they can't trust this information, much more effectively than those {{Refimprove}} boxes, in my opinion. The one at the top of Chris Morris has been there since August 2007 - they stay there for ages and people don't seem to pay attention to them; they read the article anyway and don't improve it. I think that article is in serious need of attention, and I don't think a box at the top makes much difference. Anyway, that's my opinion, readability should be interrupted if accuracy is in doubt, but please tell me if you disagree. I don't know if there's an official policy/guideline on this?

Also, I think inline 'citation needed' notes are useful because they draw people's attention to specific things; they help new users learn what sort of claims need sourcing.

BTW, you removed not just the fact templates, but also the 'who' templates (weasel words) and the 'clarify' templates and you have not replaced them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spandrawn (talk • contribs)

OK, I see what you mean. But I think there is maybe a case for heavy 'fact' tagging if a section template has been there for several months and it still hasn't been addressed. My point is it's good to make the article less readable to average users - not to frustrate them, but just to avoid misinforming them (and reflecting badly on the site). It's better that an article is unreadable (or even empty) than misinforming. Oh and I didn't notice you had reworded the 'clarify' bits - sorry. And I see what you mean about 'who' templates. Spandrawn (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just thought of a better way: move the unsourced statements over to the talk page so other editors can gradually source them and put them back in the article. Avoids having unverified info on the article page, and also keeps it readable, and allows time for people's unsourced contributions to be sourced by other editors. I think I'll do that in future. Do you think that's a good approach? Spandrawn (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BiteFight (figured the talk page was going to be deleted)

Well I decided that it wasn't worth it as I just wanted to keep one of my first pages from going to waste, and I couldn't find any other sources besides this, so I'm DB-g7ing. ~Ttony21 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Journalisted - External Links

Hi McGeddon, Thanks for the conflict of interest note – we’re quite new to Wikipedia! We’re a not-for-profit website with links to all the journalists’ articles, information about them, web links, blog and comment information etc, and we thought drawing it to the attention of Wikipedians would be useful. If you’ve got any other advice on how we could do this, we’d really like to hear it! I’ll suggest our links on the relevant talk pages from now on. Best Journalisted Mert1651 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Reverting Copyediting

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. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 09:44, 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. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 10:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I know we dont always see eye-to-eye, but I appreciate you helping me with the firearms unit article. Thanks =]. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Civility

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

Fan

But I am a fan. Should the fact that one can just talk to him and that he's not unreachable like some big shot artist be a reason? I wouldn't do this if I wasn't a fan. It's what I do, I make fanpages. Why should wikipedia be any different? Someone even made one for Valensia. And there are loads of links to peoples personal fansites for Valensia, and they all know the artist (and the creator of this page as well probably) because he's only a small time musician, people have his home address and everything. And I am sure there are many more pages like that on wikipedia. I like what that last guy said, its not an advert cos then there'd be a pricelist. If you look at the criteria and compare it with pages about other 'famous' people, it's no different, in fact it now doesn't even have ref links, so if the argument would hold up, you're basically saying all artist pages on here are adverts, but of course they are not. It's called promotion. Be it informative or not; any page in any way about any artist, that also means on here can be seen as promotion. So should all artist pages be removed? I am just trying to understand the difference. in my humble opinion he's a man who deserves a place on here and so does his brother, for whom I wanted to make a page as well, who's a professor who studied the Holy Grail and knows all about legendes and lores. This is English History, British legacy, these men are historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoelpistina (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Flying Squad

Thanks for restoring that, I was having a bit of trouble. After bending the rules slightly to get unreferenced contributions included for a seemingly nice editor - how silly of me. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT people from Great Britain

yeah basicly, it's to make a "less political" collection that's all. Kramer John (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: User talk:86.150.216.147

Please dont just jump from the first warning, to a higher level without them vandalising after the first to your userpage. Thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Removing my Links

Why do you keep removing my link to an external energy drink review site? You let others post links and I looked at the External Linking Guidelines and rule 4 states that you should add: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

Please explain what I did wrong, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone here, and I will gladly listen to anything you have to offer. AlexPBenes (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What defines an 'Amateur Site' as you put it?