User talk:Police,Mad,Jack

▼

Welcome to my Discussion Page

'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this going on 'ere, then?'

Archives: Archived manually when 100 posts are reached.

• Archive 1 (9 Aug 07 - 22 Feb 08)
• Archive 2 (22 Feb 08 - 16 June 08)
• Archive 3 (16 June 08 - 10 October 08)

UKTV Gold

It looks like UKTV Gold split into two new channels recently (one of which kept a similar name, but became a comedy channel), but maybe Freeview is lagging behind, or it's not rolled out across all areas yet. --McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I didnt realise, sorry. How do you feel about putting "UKTV Gold/Watch" or something of the like? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Spooks

Check out WP:SPO merge proposal. 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

It's good practice to give an edit summary, so that other editors can see why you made a change. Looking at the article history, you actually seem to have a good argument for Okaro not being included in the list - it would have been good to repeat that, however briefly. (Even "as per earlier revert" would have helped.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Police officer reverts

No problem. --McGeddon (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Regarding your demand that I "stop overriding [your] decisions about material" - if you're talking about this edit, I was just adding back a sourced sentence, after you had (I assumed accidentally) deleted it when clearing out unreferenced material. --McGeddon (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Could you please stop delinking red links. There's absolutely no mandate to do this, as redlinks become bluelinks in time. As you may notice from the AC and DC articles, I am steadily creating articles for all these officers, so I'm not sure why you feel delinking is necessary. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I do not appreciate you reverting all my changes. Please see this from my view, I have contributed to the articles in question by removing the brackets to red links, and generally tidying them up. And it seems bad faith, when you just come along and revert them, if you disagree with one thing such as the "service" not being used back when the DDI was a rank, then just change that. Please think about the time I have taken to do the work, which is not in breach of any guidelines. I am not going to edit war, you win. But just think about it please, and maybe in the future observe WP:AGF and WP:OWN, thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 09:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not reverting your edits because I think I "own" the article or because I don't believe that you were acting in good faith, but because I do not believe your edits have generally improved the articles. In fact, they have in several cases actually lessened their usability. If they added to the articles I would certainly not revert them - if you look through the edit histories of articles I have created you will see that I don't just revert edits for the hell of it. Please note the following points:

1. Removing red links is specifically mandated against in the guidelines unless they will never lead to an article. The links you removed blatantly do not fall into that category.
2. I have not simply reverted your edits. I have incorporated many of them (such as more specific linking), as you would see if you examined the edit histories.
3. Short or stub articles do not need to be divided into sections. This is only necessary for longer articles. The suggested minimum article length for section headings is 400-500 words.
4. Our opinions on "tidying" appear to differ. I think the articles were considerably tidier before. This is the reason I reverted some of your changes, not because of any false beliefs in ownership.

You seem to be telling me that I shouldn't object to you changing an article I put a lot of work into, but also seem to be upset that I am changing work that you have done. Maybe if you think about it you will see the irony in this? Please don't take things like this to heart. I'm sure your edits were in good faith, but I'm afraid that in general I don't agree that they improved the articles in question. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Its OK, lets just call it quits =]. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 10:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

"Please stop reverting my edits, just to prove a point." - please stop accusing me of only editing articles to prove some continually unspecified "point"; it's needlessly antagonistic, and very bad faith.

If you're talking about Metropolitan Police Service, I fixed up a compromise edit after you reverted a new user's well-meaning edit entirely, and I corrected some grammar which you reintroduced to the article. Both of these were for the good of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm bored of arguing with you. Just go away please. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted here because you left an accusatory message on my talk page. If you don't want me to respond to your comments, stop posting them to my talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

Thanks. You too. I'm good mate, you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish MacKellar (talk • contribs) 11:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not bad mate, you doing anything for halloween? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, not really. Homework mostly, as I am near the end of half term. :( Being hinest, I have never actually been trick or treating Hamish MacKellar (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you up to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish MacKellar (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I went trick or treating a couple of times, when I was younger. But now, most of the kids our age use it as an excuse to cause misery for other people. I also have homework to do, I have to finish off my history coursework. But apart from that, sitting in a nice warm house, lol. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 11:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats odd. I have to do history work as well. Well, I'm meant to but I'm not. Do you have Skype or MSN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish MacKellar (talk • contribs) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have MSN, but thats a bit dodgy at the moment, sometimes it lets me in, sometimes it doesnt. When its fixed, I'll give you a shout, and we can add each other. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 12:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool! :) I should probably get some work done now. But I don't want to. Hard choice Hamish MacKellar (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Haloween

Thanks for the message and happy haloween to u too - J.Naven 15:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It was alright, yours? SGGH ^speak! 14:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it wasnt bad, didnt do much though, lots of coursework and all the rest of it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Was working, so no. You? SGGH ^speak! 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Only about six, but that was OK with me, because I could have all the sweets left over, lol. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cleanup tag

If you refer to the redlinks, you appeared to have reached a consensus on your talk page. If not, I suggest you state on the talk page of the relevant articles exactly what you think needs cleaning up. ninety:one 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When did I refer to the redlinks? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here and it was mentioned in Neo's revert here. I also resent your accusations that I am spoiling for an edit war. Please withdraw them. ninety:one 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it back then, but this is now. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being nasty, and acting in bad faith? By reverting a simple link fix. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it was not an accusation, I believe you are. You obviously do not like the way I operate, not that I do anything that is wrong or in bad faith, and you show no mistakes about showing it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with you, so I dont seem what makes you different. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no longer sure what you're trying to say, but if this isn't an accusation, I don't know what is. Both articles meet WP:MOS, but again, please take it up on the relevant talk pages.

On Law enforcement in the United Kingdom, you edited the section title rather than the link underneath. I reverted what was a mistaken edit, yet you saw fit to accuse me of a 'bad faith revert'. ninety:one 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not an accusation, I did not say "you want an edit war" or anything like that which is stating that you are doing something, what I actually said was different. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But it was a bad faith revert, my edit was good faith. And instead of just reverting as soon as the page saved, you should have instead edited it, which would take little more than the time it takes for the page to load again, with your revert. Bad faith edits (which mine was not) you should revert, but please see this from my point of view, I was only trying to help, and it was only fixing a link that was not right. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mine was not a "bad faith revert". Your edit could be in the best faith in the world, but it can still be reverted if incorrect. All I could see was the dif, from which your edit was in good faith but a mistake. If I had the time to check the copy of the page, and had seen the redlink you were trying to correct, I would have corrected it. I don't, however, have the time to check the full copy of each page. Oh, and for the third time, please state what you believe needs cleaning up on the relevant talk pages. ninety:one 16:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from checking each page, you could have just read my edit summary, that stated my exact intentions, thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you do not have time to review edits you are reverting, I suggest you DON'T. You should not revert edits, unless you have clearly established that they are bad faith, or clearly wrong. You did not do this, because you have claimed that you did not have enough time. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was clearly wrong, which is why I reverted it... ninety:one 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way was it wrong? All I did was link a word, under what Wikipedia guidelines have I done something wrong, giving you the right to revert it? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How was my edit wrong? All I did was link an organisation which had a page. I think you should wind your neck in. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Y ou changed a blue link to a red one. That was indisputably wrong (in terms of effect, not intention). Please desist from comments such as "I think you should wind your neck in". They do nothing to help towards writing a better encyclopedia. ninety:one 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

When did I do this? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 21:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. If you checked the revision of the page before I tried to fix the link, you will notice that HMIC was red in the first place, learn how to check revisions without accusing people of "changing a blue link to a red one" the link was never blue, it was red before I made it blue, but despite me making it blue, you still had a go at me in bad faith. If anyone, it is you who should give an apology. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 22:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, wasn't the link but the section title. Same difference. ninety:one 22:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Now this is what really gets me: "you still had a go at me in bad faith". I haven't "had a go" at you, but even if I had it would not be in bad faith. You made an edit that was wrong, incorrect, bad. I reverted it. I could have corrected the link below, but I was under absolutely no obligation to do so. We really should stop worrying about such a small matter anyway. ninety:one 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, you could have just left a friendly note saying that in the first place, or you could have not been so offish and revert trigger happy, lets leave it now shall we? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 22:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, calling me offish is uncivil and could be construed be a more easily offended person as a personal attack. ninety:one 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Offish is not a personal attack, a personal attack is where you blatantly offend someone by means of insulting something personal to them, offish is a fact if someone is acting like that. And lets face it, you have not been whiter than white when it comes to civility have you. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, calling someone "offish" is not listed as what constitutes as a personal attack, according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FTA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." End of discussion. ninety:one 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not an insult or disparaging, I believe you were being "offish". I have a right to an opinion. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

TSG

I don't think the it's appropriate to discuss such edits on the talk page, it's not simply a difference of opinion over interpretation, what you added was based only on your own ideas, in addition to being incorrect this is against the basic principles of WP. Wnjr (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to what edit? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

UK law enforcement agency categories

Hi, just a quick note to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories). We're setting out the UK LEA category guidelines there, and in particular whether to withdraw the "Police forces" categories and just use "Law enforcement agency" categories. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ninety:one 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

Thanks Jack, you just made my day! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish MacKellar (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, you deserve it! [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 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) 00:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Why have you reverted my copyediting of Diplomatic Protection Group and City of London Police? You have reintroduced typos and other grammatical mistakes by doing so. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Central Operations

We can just leave them at the bottom for now, but I've never heard of Met officers reffering to the ASU as a CO designation so I think you're right. I have a feeling that they all come under one OCU, but again I'm not sure. However, I did change C&V back because there is no evidence of it being called "Operation Clubs & Vice". I'm creating the article now. ninety:one 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on this, the whole area of the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department. According to this:

“ Specialist Operations is part of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and is divided into three sections known as commands. Within these three commands, there are seven units whose roles are to help keep safe people who live in, work in and visit London. ”

it looks like the structure is something like this:

• Specialist Operations
  • Counter Terrorism Command
  • Specialist Protection (Command)
  • Royalty Protection (Command)

But, according to this page, it's something like this:

• Specialist Operations
  • Counter Terrorism Command
  • Protection Command
    • Specialist Protection
    • Royalty Protection

If you know which it is, or have any other ideas, please tell! I'll go ask on some forums but this seems to be somewhat of a mystery... ninety:one 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, regarding the structure it probably would be best to go with whats on the Met's SO page. I created the Specialist and Royalty Protection Command article, within SO, but instead of making two articles it made more sense to just make one, as it is a command. Regarding the Clubs & Vice thing, you are right about it being a unit, I dont know where I got Operation from. Regards, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Templating the regulars

Please don't patronise me with warning templates and directions to read basic edit-summary policy, Jack. You know I'm an established user, and it's clear I understand edit summaries, when 99% of my edits have them.

If a user deletes a comment from their talk page, it means that they've read it and don't need it repeated. Re-adding your template warning with a mocking edit summary of "It still stands, lol, you hate it when you get something wrong" is a pure personal attack. Please don't add this or anything like it again. --McGeddon (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It only felt patronising because you made it feel like that, I directed you to read the edit summary page, because you did not leave an edit summary, which is fair enough, I did not do anything wrong. If you understand edit summaries, surely you patronise yourself even more so, by not providing one, and 99% of your edits do not have one, according to your edit summary usage:

Edit summary usage for McGeddon: 90% for major edits and 98% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, 94%. This should be enough of a clue that maybe a user understands edit summaries after all. That and the fact that I recently mentioned the exact same policy on your talk page.

I read and dismissed your first template with good faith, but your reposting of it a couple of hours later saying "lol, you hate it when you get something wrong" is a completely unconstructive personal attack. Please try to restrict your commentary to content, not contributors. --McGeddon (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, you hate being wrong, you have displayed this. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)