User talk:Mr Johnson SI

Welcome!

Hello, Mr Johnson SI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sea Gate (Police|Public Safety) Department

Hello, Mr Johnson SI. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

thank you.

C.Fred I hope this help you understand the different between new york state or city police offices vs nys peace officers. Please look up nys criminal Procedure Law it lists all the police departments in new york state. You will not find seagate listed.

here is the criminal procedure law section. 210.46

What do marihuana (sic) cases have to do with a community's police department? —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you can call the new york state department of criminal justice service for further clarification at 518-457-2667 ext # 5.

In other words, you don't have a published reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did the section say appointed as a peace officer by seagate police or seagate association.

Did what section say that? —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did cpl section 210.46 say appointed as a peace officer by seagate police or seagate association.

Neither. "N.Y. CPL. LAW § 210.46 : NY Code - Section 210.46: Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in marihuana cases in a superior court: Upon or after arraignment in a superior court upon an indictment where the sole remaining count or counts charge a violation or violations of section 221.05, 221.10, 221.15, 221.35 or 221.40 of the penal law and before the entry of a plea of guilty thereto or commencement of a trial thereof, the court, upon motion of a defendant, may order that all proceedings be suspended and the action adjourned in contemplation of dismissal or may dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice, in accordance with the provisions of section 170.56 of this chapter."[1] —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry section is 2.10 number 46.

nys cpl 2.10 section 46.

seagate was a police force back in 1899 ........ alot has change.

And it's still, according to the New York Senate, a police department.[2] —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you referring to state assembly bill S04168 ..... this bill is to create the seagate water a sewer auth and police dept ....... it did not pass.

please read the vote section ..... no votes

please explain how a police dept wants to become a police dept again ??????????????????

please remove all misleading information about seagate being a (police dept) it is a Public Safety agency. A complaint will be forwarded to the nys dept of criminal justice service.

I'm going to pause the conversation and suggest you re-read several policies, including:

That last one is critical. Editors are willing to work with you on-Wiki to make sure material complies with policy. However, filing any sort of suit, complaint, or other legal proceeding - or the mere threat of doing so - can lead to you being blocked from editing. Further, you refers to you as a person, whether you're editing while logged in or logged out (anonymously).

If you retract the threat of a complaint, I'm still willing to work with you. If you don't, however, I'll refer you to an independent administrator to determine what actions need to be taken regarding your account and/or the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Johnson SI, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mr Johnson SI! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Gate Police Department

Do not persist with these edits. The article is not ambiguous and does not portray the organization as a police department. ... discospinster _talk 01:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove to title police department. Thank You

and replace it with Public Safety ... which it is. Thank you

It is called the Sea Gate Police Department, so the article title does not need to be changed. Again, the article states that it was a police department but is no longer considered one. It doesn't need to be repeated. ... discospinster _talk 01:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title is misleading and should be removed.

The information that was posted is true and accurate.

The title is not misleading because it's the actual name of the organization. If you have a concern with it then get the organization to change its name. ... discospinster _talk 02:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question to you is if they changed their name to the seagate federal police .... would you believe it ??????? I would say no, so its the same thing with this agency using a title from 1899 which has been changed by New York State Assembly via NYS CPL 2.10 sub 46. Seagate is empowered by a private association not a city or state agency. Seagate is no different then Co-op City Public Safety. So please stop correcting my changes.

If they changed their name to Sea Gate Federal Police, that's the name we'd use for the organization in the article. We'd describe the nature of the organization in the body of the article, but their name is their name. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello c.fred .............. please lets not start this seagate edit war again.

Your comment to Vera596

You put a message to Vera596 on user:Vera596 which is for Vera596's use. Messeges should go on his talk page: User talk:Vera596. I moved your comment to here: User_talk:Vera596#New_York_Department_of_Corrections. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes "~~~~" Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :jim1138

TBTA Operations

MrJohnson....you seem to like making many edits of many law enforcement agencies pages. At least put correct, accurate and proper info. Are you even a member of any law enforcement agency ? I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.163.250 (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Signalizing (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case opened

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Johnson SI. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just opened a new case. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, while blocked, you may not edit Wikipedia articles at all. That includes attempting to edit while logged out, as you have apparently done twice this weekend:

209.134.15.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

198.50.103.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Those two IP addresses have been temporarily blocked because you have used them for block evasion. Continuing to attempt to evade your block may lead to the block on your main account being extended because of the continued disruption caused by the evasion. It could also lead to the affected articles being protected, such that they cannot be edited by any unregistered editors (IP addresses) or new editors.

If you want to regain your editing privileges, you'll need to follow Wikipedia policy, and that includes the prohibition against abusive use of multiple accounts. If there continues to be a pattern of editing while logged out, however, that could seriously diminish the chances of this account being unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]