Jump to content

User talk:Ninetyone/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Ninetyone

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josefritz (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 14 April 2010 (→‎Palda Records: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


e


The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Epping Forest Keepers

My point is that the police act 1996 etc supersede that archaic specific extension of the MPD so although the law may still be enacted it is irrelevant as the MPD and Essex Police area are defined by much later legislation. Regards Dibble999 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ninety, you have lost me. As an historical interest point the law that extended jurisdiction in the past may technically still be in place, i.e. no Act has actually abolished or repealed the Epping Forest extension. I would be happy for this to be part of the article in an historical section. Bear in mind that at the time a constable's jurisdiction ended at his force boundary generally.
However, as modern law stands now the 'historical extension' is irrelevant and a legal hangover with no actual purpose to the current status and situation. For starters under current legislation constables of both Essex and the Met have jurisdiction (in its real sense) throughout England & Wales as per the 1996 Act. In terms of police force areas (i.e. areas of responsibility) then its the Police Act 1996 and Greater London Act 1999 (both as amended) that set out the Met and Essex police area. Part of Epping Forest is in the MPD and part in the Essex force area - no 'historical extensions' needed.
There is no original research as far as I am aware - its in the law of the land in black and white. So my point is: the law is quite clear no jurisdiction issues, no police area issues, this was sorted by the modern legislation. The article should reflect this - by all means refer to the historic legislation in an 'history section' but in terms of the practical legal situation now and more importantly, to inform those reading the article about the current status of law enforcement in the forest the modern legislation applies. Dibble999 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Never suggested the Act had been repealed, however it has been 'superseded' by more modern law. As the article read it gave the impression the old extension had a relevance to the modern situation - it doesn't. The charging, although not disputing its not been repealed is also slightly misleading without a context explanation. Again this would go back to a time when policing was very different - well over 50 years ago Scotland Yard used to send detectives to the shire forces to deal with murders beyond their capability etc etc and charge for it. I would seriously doubt that Epping Forest Keepers would or have in the last few decades billed the Met or Essex for their services. I can just imagine the response they would get!! As you probably know there are countless laws on the statute book which have been left in place which are of no relevance to today and no longer enforced... Regards Dibble999 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that could be interesting!! I can just imagine a new money making policy being developed in some back room department!! Dibble999 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Kosovo note

Hi, Ninetyone. Please read User_talk:2007apm#January_2010. We agreed in Kosovo note consensus that as kosovo is disputed, we must add kosovo note next to word kosovo in all related articles. In order to avoid Serbia, disputed province of Kosovo, Kosovo/Serbia, Serbia/Kosovo, etc... Please, revert your edit. All best to you, --Tadija (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can talk to admins Ev, Dab, Prodego, Moreschi, ... or to see any major kosovo related article to see that that agreement is in use. Please, you are the first to question that after agreement. It is not that questionable? :) Be good! --Tadija (talk) 23:45, 23

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Courts Tribunial & Enforcement Act 2007

Hi, I see that you are interested in the law. I’m a former Cert Bailiff & HCEO. I’ve started a web site and I’m writing a book, both of which are aimed at business people to help them use the court system in England & Wales. I’ve spotted and corrected a couple of minor errors on the pages, no idea who made them. To be honest I am very new to Wiki, not really sure how the community works, how Wiki works, how to navigate wiki (apart from searches of course) or what all the code is. What would you suggest a newbie do to learn his way around? I also notice that there is no mention or reference to the new act and the implications to bailiffs & HCEOs Would you be interested in a joint venture? Steve Moore I'm not sure I could get back here, so an email would be cool. No this, what ever this is? Stevemoorecfab (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Your request for rollback

Hi Ninetyone/Archive 8. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Crossbencher

Hallo, recently you removed some interwikis in this text. A Bot has added these links again. Are you able to prevent this? Sorry for my rough German-English. Kind regards--BKSlink (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.--BKSlink (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
the bot has added the interwikis again this morning (Feb 4, 2010). That's some sort of The Sorcerer's Apprentice... Have a nice day as far as possible--BKSlink (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
we will see what happens...--BKSlink (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
the changes were made by bots like User:VolkovBot. On the talkpage of this bot in de:wp it is mentioned that the person behind it does not have good knowledge of the German language. Kind regards--BKSlink (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
in the meantime a German user who is familiar with bots has arranged something. Hopefully this will solve the problem. Kind regards--BKSlink (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Harder

You need to look harder. Just because I'm not currently using an account doesn't mean I'm a vandal. While I'm not a newcomer and I won't be scared away from Wikipedia because you reverted me, I think this kind of careless reverting more often than not will have that very effect. Please be more careful about what to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.5.206 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

IP rant

I was wondering how providing more information on a vague statement (i.e., listing information such as the organizations that performed a study, when studies were performed, and where they were published instead of leaving a page to say "a recent study" when more than one study had been performed) was "unconstructive." I had made formatting errors that I was attempting to correct as a result of being somewhat new to linking pages and references in Wikipedia, but other than that I didn't see anything unconstructive about my edit since it provided links to factual information instead of vague statements that didn't refer to a specific time or place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.82.29 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Reza Ghassemi

Reza Ghassemi is a notable Iranian. Develop the article rather than claiming that he is not notable. Zohairani (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

biscuits

find a sense of humor dummy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.190.186 (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take note. ninety:one 13:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Welsh Assembly Traffic Officer

Yeah thats fine. Thanks also for creating that article with the 3 Trunk road agencies gtanswell (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed

Hei. What happen. How is posible one country have the name of a continet. Thats so wrong and must be changed. Just say me? thats right?? and all the world must be quite with this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepin1234 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I feel your answer like everybody have to write what think the North American persons. In International Geography America is a Continet and the people live there are named American. So USA is not America it is just USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepin1234 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank. But remeber that South Africa is not named Africa in English. So if the Unites States feel is the owner of all. step to step that is changed. The world is sick because all these things of you, Wars ect etc.... Ah!! one thing more. I am not terrorist ok!!! just a citizen of the world. Our world not yours —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepin1234 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Generic vandal

hi sorry, just getting used to this, thought i could do stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okthen123 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Cincinnati Police Department (Ohio)

I rolled back this edit and many more because they added a nonfree image, File:Seal of Cincinnati, Ohio.png, which has no fair use rationale except for the Cincinnati article, and which patently does not fit fair-use criteria for the other articles. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris

Hi Ninetyone,

to be honest, I am not.

I am faced with dealing with this Brahma Kumari follower who is attempting to discredit the topic page of his religion with unnecessary and oversized tags, the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University.

I see no other way beyond the problem. He really has no other interest.

What do I do? --Fear based teachings (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK ... thanks.

Be warned though, you are just 'yet another' admin that the cult has roped in to support their agenda, something has to be done about it. --Fear based teachings (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert war with banned user

Hi,

User:Fear based teachings is almost certainly a sock of banned user User:Lucyintheskywithdada and as such there is no obligation to accept any edit he makes. I am awaiting the result of the SPI.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Taliban active fighters strength

On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper and its also too much femous on internet.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on the BBC

Hi there, thanks for the warning - not sure why you think I need it and the other user concerned doesn't. He's the one reverting with some nondiscript tweets to his edits. I'm the one who's tried to sort out the article in line with my comments on the talk page from last month! Mighty Antar (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Eurovision 2010 Songs References

I'm sorry, if I did something wrong. I just thought that, the songs are known now and the references are not needed anymore. I'm sorry. Redpower94 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

One short question

Is it Ok, that I change the colors in the f.e Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 from something like red in to gold and write them in bold. Bye.Redpower94 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Deletion problem

You deleted my article on the 1940s record label, "Palda Records" because you thought it was a band. It is not and was never a band. It was a record label based in Philadelphia that released hundreds of albums by regional polish bands. Please undelete or restore it.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Palda Records

You deleted my article on the 1940s record label, "Palda Records" because you thought it was a band. It is not and was never a band. It was a record label based in Philadelphia that released hundreds of albums by regional polish bands. Please undelete or restore it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ninetyone/Archive_8&oldid=355889322"