User talk:TopCat666

re: thanks

The text I recently inserted has been available on the talk page for at least three weeks, in which time you made no constructive edits to it at all. I have not complained about you to anyone; and I would appreciate it if you withdrew the accusation. I still think you are acting largely in good faith, and that, to an extent, the wool has been pulled over the constables' collective eyes with regards their legal position. ninety:one 14:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks! mine have been there months you do not answer them. Any way thanks for the backhanded compliment about acting in good faith and you? After 27 years existence I am sure that Wandsworth Council's Police Service, with all the qualified and unqualified opinions. Shall continue Stop & Search, carrying batons, arresting where warranted, regardless of editing on the article. You seem desparate to have your edits vindicated. I do not believe there is any one who cannot see an agenda. So you need not keep highlighting it with Templates refering the article to other bodies. You may may not like the answer you receive. TopCat666 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please try to remain civil when dealing with other editors, on pages such as Talk:Wandsworth Parks Police. Civility is one of the core principles of the Wikipedia project (outlined at WP:CIVIL), and calling people names is extremely disruptive - it makes it much harder for differing editors to reach a useful consensus, and deters other editors from joining the discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If ninety:one is being uncivil to you, then you're both at fault. No, you shouldn't have to put up with "nonsense", but you should dismiss it for what it is, or ignore it, rather than dealing out personal insults.

As for "knowing the truth", we still need verifiable sources for these things. Generally speaking, people are advised (in WP:COI) to avoid editing articles about subjects they're closely, personally involved with - one of the problems is that people end up writing about things which are "obviously true", but which are unsupported by a source. If Wikipedia accepted "obviously true" statements from people, we'd run the risk of abuse and (more realistically) simple, unintended inaccuracies which couldn't be double-checked. --McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a magazine source

Yes, citing magazine articles is fine, so long as they could reasonably be regarded as reliable sources. This guideline explains how to format them - just put <ref> and </ref> tags around that at the relevant point in the article, and it'll appear as a footnote in the "references" section.

Let me know if you have any trouble or questions. --McGeddon (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response on my talk page

I don't see anything in the article that refers to you, so I don't understand what you mean by 'which is a threat'.

Recent edits to Wandsworth Parks Police

I'm not going to entertain any of the nonsense we encountered three years ago: you cannot try and reference claims by using other Wikipedia articles, or by using resources that do not specifically support the claim in question. If you can find references that explicitly state the the parks constables are not employees of the council, but are crown servants, then feel free to bring them forwards. Until such time as you do, please do not insert such claims into the article. Thank you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was incredibly tolerant of your behaviour three years ago; I am now more experienced and am categorically not about to start playing "games" with you (as your comment on my talk pages suggests you desire). Your previous conduct (and it appears it has not improved in three years) constitues textbook tendentious editing. In particular, your habits of undoing others' edits without discussion (or without proper explanation), your disinclination to engage in talk page discussion, added to your clear conflict of interest (and refusal to take notice of WP:AVOIDCOI), means that you are on very thin ice indeed. I suggest you immediately stop editing the article, and instead make suggestions via the talk page. If you continue editing the article in the manner in which you have done until now, it is highly likely you will end up promptly blocked. Please, engage on the talk page and discuss the issues rather than continuing the disruption. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming here to look for me Ninety-one. I do not think you are in a position to threaten me with being blocked. Your arrogance clouds your judgement and I will not be bullied by you.I am allowed to use cited references so do not keep removing them. I will continue to 'put back my edits' so do not keep undoing or removing them. If you have anything genuine to add that is not POV by your failure to get attested as a constable I will be pleased to read it. On a positive note keep up the good work on some of the other articles you contribute to. TopCat666 (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TopCat, this is just a friendly note to ask you to maintain a civil atmosphere here - eg immediate accusations of arrogance and bullying above are not really the way forward. Some of your references on the article in question are extremely tangential and do not mention Wandsworth Parks Police in any way - there's really nothing to be gained by over-referencing the article in this way. Try and stay cool and edit collegially - even when (especially when) - you have a vested interest in the topic. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my note about over-referencing above - I support this removal of a source you inserted. What was the point of it? It looks as though you inserted it to make the crude point that abolition of the Parks Police will leave the kiddies of Wandsworth vulnerable to the paedophiles of the Met. If this was your intention then it's a really unhelpful illustration of the dangers in pushing a particular point of view. If this wasn't your intention then I'm even more baffled, frankly!

"Outing" other editors

Mentioning what you believe other editors' affiliations to be is against the rules on Wikipedia, whether it's accurate or not. Please see WP:OUTING for details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Just to let you know that I'm trying to initiate a discussion here on whether to include the section about plans for disbanding the force. I'd appreciate your comments. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]