Talk:BART Police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikification Notes[edit]

This article was a direct copy/paste from the BART police homepage. I did a lot of editing, adding, and moving around of the information, but more info should definitely be added to make this a more informative article rather than just repeated information from their original website. I also wikified a bunch of links and updated the infobox DLPanther 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Cell Service Disruption[edit]

BART's disruption of cell service happened and a riot did not, the disruption didn't necessarily stop the riot as the text of the page suggests. This should be edited to reflect this. Also the potential illegality of the action might be worth mentioning. Motor.on (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a minor fix to match the source. According to the source, "BART officials were confident the cellphone disruptions were legal. The demonstration planned Thursday failed to develop. "We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," said BART spokesman Jim Allison." I saw that the ACLU compared BART's tactics to Mubarek's, but didn't see anything that said they could actually be illegal. Can we find a source that mentions this? Sperril (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Safe Protest[edit]

To demonstrate to Luciferwildcat that it is appropriate to remove his text "BART has not published any evidence to support the claim that the protest planned for August 11 constituted a danger to anyone", I present this image from the event. http://www.lee.org/blog/2011/09/23/concerning-bart-protests/ --Gadlen (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Right so that is not evidence which must be scientific and neutral and published. It is just a picture and as thus is not a reliable source except for the fact that a man climbed on top of a stopped train. That this is dangerous or not is opinion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Luciferwildcat, that is a poor argument. You edited the post so it said "BART has not published any evidence to support the claim that the protest planned for August 11 constituted a danger to anyone.". It's amazingly obvious that a large protest held in a live train station is dangerous. I even showed you a photo showing an example of the dangerous activities that resulted from a protest just 1 month before the BART shutdown. Please tell me what is not dangerous about climbing on a train. --Gadlen (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a comment based on Wikipedia policy, I simply reverted to an earlier version. You may think it is dangerous but we don't write articles here based on what you personally think nor what you believe is common sense. It may surprise you to find out Wikipedia does not write truth or facts. We only include verifiable content from reliable third-party sources. A photo from a Blog is not a reliable source. A major newspaper article that references such an event and reports it as dangerous would be a reliable source. And personally speaking, there is nothing inherently dangerous about climbing on top of the roof of a stalled train, but our differing opinions on the matter, yours alarmist and cautionary, mine less draconian and lax are 100% irrelevant on Wikipedia. It would be okay to add into the article that BART stated that, "it finds protestors that climb on its trains is dangerous", but only if BART in fact made such a claim and it was reported in a reliable source.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LuciferWildCat, have fun in your fantasy world. You have won your idiotic war against me. Nearly every sentence you wrote is bunk, but you obviously have more time on your hands and more bats in your belfry than I. --Gadlen (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide Condemnation[edit]

Luciferwildcat, why did you remove my request for a citation of your "worldwide condemnation" post? "Condemnation" is a very strong word. If you can find any reasonable non-San Francisco source that, as you said, "garnered worldwide condemnation of BART", then fine. But I haven't found any. It'd be even more legitimate if you found an article more than a month after the event happened, so that it is clear it is looked at with the eyes of history.--Gadlen (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, I did not deliberatelly remove any particular citation. Rather I rolled back all your edits to a previous version due to the fact that you clear cut sections of the article with a particular POV in mind, including statements that were sourced reliably, that you simply disagreed with on a personal basis. Since the majority of your edits were not helpful, I could only restore the article to previous version. I highly suggest you don't make similar edits. Edits should be done as if with a scalpel especially if there is controversy, disagreement, or a editor such as yourself that is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. This is not Facebook nor is it a social network of any sort that a fan, enemy, or employee of BART may have free reign over. Part of what Wikipedia does is remain neutral and report the good, bad, exciting, boring, and everything else for the sake of posterity. As to your request of a "non San Francisco source", simply NO. It doesn't matter where the reliable source comes from, we don't need a source from Mali or France. The San Francisco Chronicle, SF Weekly, Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, even the East Bay Express, Bayview Newspaper, and LGBT papers are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indepdendent means they are not writing about themselves, so the Chronicle cannot be considered a reliable source about itself or it's parent company for example, but every other imaginable subject such as BART or any other local affair is perfectly okay. It is unreasonable to only include information that has sources after an event, and we are an encyclopedia, we cover history, we in fact hold "old news" to higher esteem, so again, NO.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LuciferWildCat, have fun in your fantasy world. You have won your idiotic war against me. Nearly every sentence you wrote is bunk, but you obviously have more time on your hands and more bats in your belfry than I. --Gadlen (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Use The English[edit]

Luciferwildcat, you changed my edit to "The cell phone shutdown has generated even more negative publicity than has been generated by Charles Hill's shooting." That is poor English. Please set it back.--Gadlen (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not write that, if you think it can be phrased better please suggest that here. I don't see how it is poor English at all. However over time people will fix grammar and tense issues. The only change I would make is to make it past tense as this has already occured, however if it is a quote and states kat amerikka bARt Charl3$ H1!!, we would keep it as originally written, I hope this clarifies things.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LuciferWildCat, have fun in your fantasy world. You have won your idiotic war against me. Nearly every sentence you wrote is bunk, but you obviously have more time on your hands and more bats in your belfry than I. --Gadlen (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cell Service Interruption Policy[edit]

Luciferwildcat, you removed my reference to BART's cell service interruption policy. This is integral to the story of the cell phone shutdown. Please put it back.--Gadlen (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Again as you effectively gutted the article see WP:Content Removal any additions you made were also reverted. Please mention what you wanted added and the link here and I will be glad to help. Also if you don't mind me asking do you have a personal fondness for BART or do you work for the BART police, since you have so much knowledge about the issue?LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


LuciferWildCat, have fun in your fantasy world. You have won your idiotic war against me. Nearly every sentence you wrote is bunk, but you obviously have more time on your hands and more bats in your belfry than I. --Gadlen (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

More Adversarial Edits by LuciferWildCat[edit]

I note that LuciferWildCat has once again removed valid, relevant, impartial edits here by another editor and replaced them with his own incorrect content. I don't know how to proceed with this except to note this poor behavior here. --Gadlen (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

History = copy&paste[edit]

The history section is copy&paste from the BART website - I doubt it was the other way round. Ds77 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BART Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)