User talk:Ninetyone/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ninetyone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Your NPWatcher application
Dear Ninetyone,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
—αἰτίας •discussion• 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: Book
I will, I apologise. Please dont delete it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of "County Court Bailiff"
The deletion of an article you created, County Court Bailiff, has been proposed for the following reason:
You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thank you. -- Matthew Glennon(Talk to me) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Post-privatision railway companies cat
Is there a reason you have been doing this, for example Fastline Talltim (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you are having Post-privatisation FOCs and Post-privatisation TOCs etc? I'm a bit confused. the FOCs and TOCs already have Cats.Talltim (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Get you now Talltim (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Prosposed deletion ACF units
this was a propsed move, but just so happened whilst I was doing this I had a power cut so hold your horses remove the speedly deletion tag otherwise I will list you for vandalism--Pandaplodder (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have--Pandaplodder (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
List of Air Training Corps squadrons there you go proof, why are you incapable of checking history?--Pandaplodder (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: Shriti Vadera
Ok, for the benefit of a relatively new contributor, can you explain to me precisely what I am missing here? I post a verifiably true fact about this person, and you immediately revert it as "non-NPOV". She is a senior member of the UK government, but has never been elected to anything, not even her local parish council. Most people would agree that this is a significant feature of her political career. It is not necessarily a hostile point, since it is quite possible to hold the POV that the government has the right to appoint worthy folk to the House of Lords so that they can play a role in government. Why not leave the comment alone and let people make up their own minds? 79.79.8.63 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You replied: You didn't reference it, and because she is alive she falls under WP:BLP.
I respond: How can I "reference" the fact that somebody has never done something? Do I have to list the voting outcome of every parliamentary election she has not stood in? Again, I emphasise that this is a verifiable fact of general interest.
You replied: It's not a special case; may people currently fall into and have previously fallen into this position. It's not outrageous; it's not borderline illegal, it's not a rarely practised method.
I respond: But this is the whole point. I maintain that this is an important fact of general interest. It is one thing to be appointed to the House of Lords in acknowledgement of public service. It is quite another to accept a succession of senior government positions without any attempt to be approved by the electorate. Others (for example Tony Benn, formerly Viscount Stansgate) have had the honour and courage to resign their peerages and stand for election to the House of Commons so that they might take senior government office.
Anyway, I am not going to argue this point any more, since the disagreement between us is now on the wikipedia record for all to see and form their own judgment. 79.79.8.63 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Ninetyone. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Template:Border guards
I noticed you reversed my edit - just to explain my rationale:
According to the border guard article, the main duties of a BG include (I included the lead agency in parentheses):
- The control and guarding of a nation's border (HK Police)
- Control of border crossing persons, vehicles, and travel documents (HK Immigration)
- Preventing illegal border crossing of persons, vehicles, cargoes and other goods (HK Police and HK Customs)
- Control of transportation of prohibited and limited items over the national border (HK Customs)
- Supervision and control of the observation of foreigner residence regulations, visa regime (HK Police + HK Immigration)
- Preventing the movement of goods and other articles over national borders, bypassing the customs control (HK Customs)
- Investigation of cases related to offenses against the national border (Depends - all 3 are involved)
As you can see it's rather fragmented... In addition, if a border guard's main job is to enforce immigration law (as with US/UK), then HK Immigration Department is the lead agency on that front.--Cahk (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not contesting - just want to make it clear.--Cahk (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
Have a good one! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: Cleanup tag
Hello Ninetyone. I would be grateful if you could not remove the cleanup tag, because I believe the articles in question need cleanup. I tried, but a user was not happy with my cleanup, not that I understood what was not to be happy about, because its a non-trivial cleanup, but still, I believe they require it, so please stop reverting. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
When did I refer to the redlinks? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see my talk for replies, if you have not yet. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see mine and the articles in question talkpages, if you have not yet. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for implementing my changes, it is appreciated. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Vosalogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Vosalogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
UK LEA categorisation
Hi Ninetyone,
Can I impose on you to have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories)#United Kingdom please. I would like to get the standard for United Kingdom law enforcement agency categorisation documented, so that I can make sure that the autocat works properly, and of course for the benefit of other editors generally. Can you augment, adjust, discuss if required.
By the way, I will be getting back to autocat to finish off the United States autocat soon too.
Cheers.
Peet Ern (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
RE: Message on my discussion page
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? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · 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. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:07, 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. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On the notability of non-existent non-entities
I seem to be on the wrong side of several of these non-notable non-entity articles of late. You're absolutely right of course, it should probably be merged. If it's not deleted I think you could probably do that as long as you're quiet about it. In fact you could probably withdraw the AfD and merge it, and I don't think anyone would complain. But I like the article and the subject (which is an awful way to approach policy issues I know!). So I can't bear to nix it. Sorry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ninetyone, I was looking at some of these units, mostly: Air Support Unit, Dog Support Unit, Film Unit, Marine Policing Unit and the Mounted Branch. And what I was think is, that all the other CO units have a designation, but the above units appear not to, because surely if they did it would say it on the Met Website, but it does not, so how do you think we should play it? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
But despite possibly not having a designation, they are without a doubt classed as being within CO, according to the website. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:11, 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, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Then again, I have found this:
Operational Support OCU - (CO18), comprising
- Mounted Branch
- Air Support Unit
- Dog Support Unit
- Marine Policing Unit
Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice one, good idea. When you say FOI, you mean Freedom of Information? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The new info box for police forces
Hello ninetyone (fellow editor of the sticky Wandsworth Parks Police saga - we got there in the end!)
Anyway I've noticed you are updating the police force pages with a new info box. I like this but a couple of points I think may be incorrect (see my edits of the Met page). For example the map captions should not read "Map of XXX force jursidiction" as this misleading and incorrect - see my alternative wording on the Met page. Also I do not believe police forces should be classed as Government Agency under legal personality.
Any thoughts? Dibble999 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You recently marked this for deletion under the "C1" category - however, the category has not been empty for the requisite 4 days. If it was listed for renaming, replacement, or something similar, it didn't show on the 'what links here' page. Please wait the required 4 days, and then re-list it for deletion. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the CfD is the only venue for these right now :( I 'feel your pain' in these! You can often try at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, as it's a 48 hour wait, as long as it fits those criteria. Skier Dude (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Bob Spink
Heya. This link shows that Bob Spink is no longer designated as an UKIP MP, on his own instruction, so it would be better to change the template to "independent". I have changed his designation on other articles without it being reverted, but maybe I should have made this link available. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey - thanks for the message. It is not the clearest message but iirc the parliament.uk website now designates him as 'independent'. It is impossible to be both "independent" and a member of a party so that is not an option. I would lean towards keeping it "independent" in the template with his article just setting things out clear? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
RE: Specialist Operations organisation
Hello Ninetyone, I noticed you changed the Specialist Operations page to a new order. I take it this is the information you got by FOIing the Met? Anyway, I was just wondering if you could run it past me? I have seen on the Website it has CTC, Specialist and Royalty Protection Command, and Protective Security Command. How comes RDPD is now redundant? Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean Specialist and Royalty Protection Command to be merged with the Diplomatic Protection Group (Which Protection Command redirects to), or do you request that Specialist and Royalty Protection Command be re-named to Protection Command? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
 |
Merry Christmas, Ninetyone/Archive 5!  Wishing you a very Merry Christmas! Best regards from myself! -- Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)strong> (Merry Christmas!) |
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Humm.. all the ones I added are in active service (but I do recognize the template does have 2 that no longer exist) so if ya wanna move them - I've no objection.--Cahk (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Swedish government agencies
Hi, and thanks for being concerned with following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) by moving lots of Swedish government agencies. I am concerned, however, that many of the article you are moving should not be. The reason is that many of the agencies in questions have official English names, and that these often start with "Swedish..." In this case section three of the naming convention says that they should remain named "Swedish...", and not "... (Sweden)". Could you at least check the web sites to see if the agencies actually have such an official naming before moving the articles. I know at least that the Swedish Rail Administration is such a case. Thanks, and happy editing. Arsenikk (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Police Municipale
I have corrected and edited the English into Wikipedia style, and removed repetitions and incomprehensible translations. But the article remains open for much improvement.Kudpung (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: NYC LEA cats
Thanks for the heads up. Great idea for starting a category just for NYC LE agencies. MOOOOOPS (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thats another good idea. I agree 100%. MOOOOOPS (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Roosevelt Island Public Safety Article
Sir, I am an officer of Roosevelt Island Department Of Public Safety. I would like to point out that I brought this article to the chiefs attention. We have officers here for close to 30 years now and they stated there has never been any bearing of arms. No officers have ever had guns, nor do they today. The department was a security dept, NEVER a police department. It was called Roosevelt Island Security (RIS) in the early 80s changed to PSD.
Roosevelt Island Public Safety Article
Sir, I am an officer of Roosevelt Island Department Of Public Safety. I would like to point out that I brought this article to the chiefs attention. We have officers here for close to 30 years now and they stated there has never been any bearing of arms. No officers have ever had guns, nor do they today. The department was a security dept, NEVER a police department. It was called Roosevelt Island Security (RIS) in the early 80s changed to PSD.
72.80.175.117 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Royal Latin School
....depends on your definition of "affiliation". Historically, it was always explained that the school was non-denominational, but that it would lead spiritual sessions in a "broadly christian nature". Thedarxide (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I think religion is a box ticking exercise for the DFES or whatever they are now, but they're certainly not a "christian" school in the same sense as a school would be considered "catholic". Beyond that, I couldn't comment :) Thedarxide (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Responds? Thedarxide (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah... That's not legal, surely? :) Thedarxide (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Responds? Thedarxide (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't notice someone changed the name of the DOC page and I will start to merge them. SGT141 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
United Kingdom intelligence community
You may be interested in this discussion on deleting (by redirecting) the United Kingdom intelligence community page. Earthlyreason (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)