User talk:617USA

Comment
Anyone can revert vandalism. And if it truely is vandalism, you can do it again and again if the vandal returns. You do need to be careful that it truely is vandalism. Simple edit disagreements do not count like this. For edit disagreements, there is a rule WP:3RR that limits edit reverts, but does not apply to true vandalism.

As for the wikifying, check out the links in the notice, which I have replaced again. (Someone else removed it.) Wikifying is basically about formatting, not content, of articles. Basically, if you look at most articles around the project, you will see a number of similar things. Especially the links to other articles. But there are other things that apply. The links in the Wikify notice should give you an idea of the style elelments that are needed. - TexasAndroid 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Police
Is one not allowed to edit in one's field of knowledge? I think this is probably an obscure Wikipedia policy that only you know about. But to give a sensible answer to a questionable question, if the facts are verifiable then the facts are verifiable and the information should be included. Also, I don't think you'll find that just because someone is a cop they agree with everything that every other cop does, particularly not senior officers. -- Necrothesp 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual place to answer queries is on the talk page of the originator. Hence my answer to you here. Also, the usual place to leave queries is at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top as you did with mine, which is why I moved it. You appear to be a newcomer to Wikipedia, so I really do suggest you wait a while before telling others what they should be doing stylistically.


 * It's a questionable question because you have automatically assumed that I am biased in favour of the police. You do this despite not knowing me from Adam. If I am a decent police officer then I will have no bias. The fact you assume bias says more about your attitudes to the police than mine. And I am not, incidentally, "on the police payroll". I am an unpaid volunteer. Neither do I have anything to do with the Metropolitan Police. To claim that people in a particular job should not edit articles on that job is a silly statement. Presumably this also means that anyone who is, for instance, a fan of a particular band should not edit articles about that band for fear of bias? That members of the US Army should not edit articles on the US Army? That American people should not edit anything about American foreign policy? Or is it just edits by the police that you object to?


 * My article on Littlechild was based entirely on articles about him in The Times of the era, which naturally did not mention any anti-Irish bias. If you wish to add further information then feel free to add it as long as you can provide a reliable source. Take care that you stick to a neutral point of view, since the statement you have made seems far more POV than anything I have written. -- Necrothesp 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are talking like you are in authority. The project is open source for all to edit. For you to suggest that I wait awhile to comment on style matters flies in the face of the demoncratic and neutral perspective of the project. Nor did I invade your contributions with edits -- which I see you worked very hard at producing -- without consulting you first. I think that demonstrates great restraint and respect for style. Most people just hack away at their keyboards without regard to the author and that is rude.

The police are in a very different position from other professions and is highly specialised with the notions of civil rights always coming up. That is the nature of your profession and you should not have mentioned it in your Wikipedia bio if you did not want it bought up. Anyhting you publish is fair game for scrutiny on Wikipedia. Broader categories like the one's you mentioned don't apply.

The fact you are a volunteer cop is even more incriminating and suggestive of bias because you use your free time to serve. That suggests stronger bias than,say, a cop who became a cop because he merely needed a job and could find no other. There are many cops, firefighters and councel workers in the UK in that position. You give your free time to the police and the homeguard suggesting strong bias in favor of the British authorities.

I have read seven of your articles on high ranking British policeman -- both living and dead and cannot find a negative comment about them. I will edit the Littlejohn one though because he was a bigot and anti-Catholic and I will provide sources to back me up. 617USA


 * I merely said that complaining that I answered you in the wrong place was not very bright, considering I didn't answer you in the wrong place according to normal WP procedure - you were the one who brought it up somewhat rudely on my talk page in the first place, so it's a bit rich to accuse me of talking like I am in authority.
 * I'm not bothering to answer your rambling about bias and your accusations about being "incriminated" by being a "volunteer cop", since you obviously have some sort of axe to grind and I'm not interested in arguing with you. None of my articles are biased in any way. You can add what you like as long as you provide references. Are you suggesting that all articles about police officers should have negative comments as a matter of course? Careful about that NPOV. Most of my biographical articles have been written using information from The Times, which is hardly going to make claims like "he was a bigot", especially not in the 19th/early 20th centuries. I am interested in adding facts to Wikipedia, not opinions. I'm also interested you say that you've read seven of my articles about "high ranking British policeman -- both living and dead", since I have only written a single stub about a living police officer - presumably I didn't add that obligatory negative comment to your satisfaction. -- Necrothesp 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane Bugbee vandalism
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Shane Bugbee. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

NPOV
Please take care to stick to a neutral point of view and keep your presonal opinions out of the wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your own personal opinions. Also if you are going to add accusations to articles please back them up with Sources. Please also check out WP:Welcome and WP:NPOV. Ben W Bell  talk  21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Opinion
I have responded to your query on my talk page. Ben W Bell  talk  07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have responded again on my talk page. Ben W Bell  talk  14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, on my page. Ben W Bell  talk  20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what. Ben W Bell  talk  20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet again responded on my page. Ben W Bell  talk  21:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern Irish Protestant
Can I ask you when I identified myself to you as a Northern Irish Protestant? I don't recall ever giving saying that to you, is this some kind of presumption you have come up with and are now throwing around various talk and requests for intervention pages? I may be, I may be a Northern Irish Catholic, I may be something else it has no bearing on any editing of this encyclopaedia whatsoever. Quite frankly it doesn't matter what religion I am, if I do indeed follow a religion, this is a NPOV site and my personal beliefs/opinions have no place in these articles. Ben W Bell  talk  19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You are in violation of the Three Revert Rule. Normally this will get you blocked, but I am informing you of this now. If you revert the article John Littlechild again in the next 24 hours you WILL be temporarily blocked. Ben W Bell  talk  20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Wikipedia has a strict policy of No Personal Attacks. You have made personal attacks and threats against several users during your short time on Wikipedia and it will not be tolerated. Wikipedia is a mutual co-operate encyclopaedia that tries to foster a friendly atmosphere, but people who come here with personal axes to grind and and personal prejudices who are not willing to form part of that community are probably better off on another website. We'd like you to stay and remain an active and productive member of the community and hope that you still can. You must realise that Wikipedia is a neutral place that works hard to foster a neutral point of view. Posting alterations to an article that are blatant slanted to one point of view and obviously based on personal greviences is not acceptable. If you continue on this line of behaviour then unfortunately you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ben W Bell  talk  21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint against you with Wikipedia and am currently recruiting some Administrators to look into this matter. The last edit I made only stated the founding of the Irish Special Branch was repressive to the Irish and you and/or your sockpuppet Necrothesp the Brit cop removed it. That is not neutral and I will work to expose this bigotry which detracts for the encyclopedic value of the project.

Please do not contact me again until this matter is resolved. I will not edit the article until neutral third parities have a look at it and you have no say in that. 617USA
 * Find out what a sockpuppet is before you accuse people of being one. -- Necrothesp 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the last edit you made was "This group was formed to further oppress the Irish." Blatant POV and with no evidence to support such a wild accusation, and that line is a far cry from your claim above of "The last edit I made only stated the founding of the Irish Special Branch was repressive to the Irish." Read WP:NPOV.  Ben W Bell   talk  21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you and Necrothesp are one in the same


 * Oh incidentally, if you really want Administrator intervention then you should pick some Administrators that are actually currently active. You're best bet for finding out which Administrators are actually on at the moment is to look on the page Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you look on the history of that page and see which people are removing entries, then they are administrators who are on and active at this moment. I just mention it as the admins you've contated so far aren't actually on at the moment and haven't been active for a few days on one case. Just trying to be helpful. Ben W Bell   talk  21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and we're not the same, don't be silly. Ben W Bell  talk  21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you nicely not to contact me again until the edit problem is resolved. Please do not post here again -- you are intimidating me now and I do not like it. 617USA

One in the same (sic)? Oh that's a good one. Now you really are having a laugh! Also note that you have no control over who posts where. You have posted on our talk pages and we are entitled to post on yours. If you wish to post POV rants and then object to discussing them then I suggest you find another website to contribute to. There are plenty out there that would love to hear your views, I'm sure. But an encyclopaedia is not the place for them. -- Necrothesp 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Necrothesp and Ben, Please do not post here until the edit dispute is resolved. I know that you can but I am asking you not to and I am asking you in a polite manner. I feel a bit intimidated by the fact that you are a policeman and I would just like to get some third party adminstrators who I am in the process of choosing randomly. I will not revise the John Littlechild entry until after 3rd parties have looked at it so you have no reason to post here -everythng is as it was. You can post here if you like but I will not respond - you are being very intimidating. Please respect my wishes. 617USA

Dear Advocacy Team, As you can see from the above listing I asked Necrothesp and Ben W. Bell three times to stop posting here because I felt intimidated by the fact that Necrothesp is a UK Cop (I travel in the UK for business.) The British police have special powers under the Provention of Terrorism Act to trace ISP addresses and find out the real identity of the user. This becomes even more scary to me considering this is a Northern Irish entry we are debating. I feel very intimidated. I don't care if Necrothesp posts here with some rant either insulting me or "suggesting" I leave Wikipedia or ridiculing my fears - I still feel intimidated at any posts he makes here. He is a cop. 617USA 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to correct some blatant absurdities and falsehoods: -- Necrothesp 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would I want to trace the real identity of 617USA? I really don't think a rant on Wikipedia would fall under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I think he has a few delusions of grandeur.
 * I think a glance at my userpage will soon confirm that I'm not exactly a member of Special Branch, and therefore hardly able to trace him even if I wished to or was entitled to under British law.
 * Contrary to 617USA's statement above, this has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. There was no Northern Ireland when John Littlechild was active and in any case he was a member of the London Metropolitan Police, not the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Special Irish Branch, of which he was the first commander, was set up to suppress Irish terrorism in Great Britain, not Ireland. My original article on Littlechild was a simple biography, to which 617USA added massively POV material about British "homophobia" and "oppression" of the Irish, which was neither relevant nor sourced. He then claimed that I was obviously biased, since I had not added any negative statements to any of my biographies of senior police officers (which is in fact incorrect), implying it was obligatory to be negative about British police officers. This, I think, sums up 617USA's views in a nutshell.
 * I have neither insulted 617USA or ranted at him, as anyone can see. The ranting has only been on the other side.
 * In fact, I find 617USA's claims that my status as a part-time police officer makes me automatically biased and ineligible to edit any articles about the British law enforcement system insulting in the extreme. His allegation that I might use legal powers against him is laughable as well as insulting. This amounts to an unwarranted personal attack on my character and integrity from somebody who has never met me and has formed an opinion based on a few paragraphs on my userpage and the fact that I have removed unsustantiated POV ranting from a single article.
 * I find it extremely interesting that the tone and style of these rants is not a million miles from similar rants on Talk:University of Kent, for which the editor in question was blocked for one month after making legal threats against Ben and myself.

A third party comment
Hello 617USA. I am Orane/User:Journalist, an advocate, mediator and administrator, who will attempt to shed a third party opinion as you requested.

I have read all the comments of all three parties involved (on this talk page, as well as theirs), and I will try my hardest to remain neutral and straightforward, whether or not the points I make are in your favour.

From what I have gathered, the edits that you made to John Littlechild are in fact, biased, and goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And since this NPoV policy is connected to Verifiability and No original research, your edits also conflicted with these policies. Simply put, 617USA, you needed to source the imformation that you placed into the article. Otherwise, it will be considered a bias (in the Wikipedia sense), and may be removed by any editor here. It may be strange to a newcomer, but Wikipedia is not at all concerned with "truth" &mdash; we are concerned with what it "verifiable". In other words, while the information that you added may have been true, it is unsourced, and deserves no place in Wikipedia. You are welcome to include the information into the article, given that you can cite your sources.

On a different note, Wikipedia has certain behavioural policies that must be adhered to if the project is to be successful. When you and another editor are in a dispute, it is against policies to label him/her "x" or "y" &mdash;it is considered a personal attack, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Quite simply, it was disrespectful of you to label a "bias anti-Catholic bigot", or to assume that he is a sock puppet of. Though it may be frustrating, it is always best to remain calm, and refrain from name-calling.

As far as I can see, both editors have been very calm and civil in their dealings with you. With this being said, I will also have a word with each of them, as I find it somewhat menacing of them to continue posting here even though you asked them not to. Also, please do not be afraid of editing Wikipedia. No on owns the articles written here (yes, even if he or she single-handedly wrote them). (See Ownership of articles.) Once you have found a source for the imformation in question, be bold and include it (or go on the talk page and propose that it be included in the article). As for : he can't harm you. He has no reason to. Neither he, nor I own Wikipedia. What he said was "There are plenty out there that would love to hear your views, I'm sure. But an encyclopaedia is not the place for them." He did not mean, leave Wikipedia or else. That’s nonsense, OK?

The full quote was ''If you wish to post POV rants and then object to discussing them then I suggest you find another website to contribute to. There are plenty out there that would love to hear your views, I'm sure. But an encyclopaedia is not the place for them.'' That's telling me to leave Wikipedia and I take it as a police threat. What you call menacing I call threatening because this man is cop. I also find it highly insulting that he would remove the statement claiming the Special Branch was formed to harass the Irish. That is not a POV - its a point of fact like 1 + 1 = 2. It does not matter what hard sources I give for this because the British bully copper would just say they were invalid sources because they do not fit the purview of the imperialist masters this cop works for. Just look how quick he comes back here even after I did not re-edit the article in question. He keeps ranting here making wild and statements because I tried to change 3 sentences of one of his articles and even approach him in a friendly manner before I did it. I see he has had trouble with others in this area and I am not surprised. They have already threatened to get me barred I will never directly repsond to his (their) rants and I ask Necrothesp and Ben not to post here until this matter is resolved.

You were no help.

617USA

You can reply on my talk page. Oran e ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

re:Advocacy request
Hi, ''I am reaching out to you with an odd situation even for Wikipedia. I attempted to edit the article on John Littlechild 1who led the first Special Irish Branch for the UK police and who also investigated the Jack the Ripper and Oscar Wilde cases. I saw that the article only touched on the career points of the subject. I noted that the formation of the Special Branch was opressive to the Irish and that Littlechild has a homophobe for his prosecution of Wilde.''

''These edits were promptly removed several times by editor Ben W. Bell 2 - a pro British Irishman. The editor Necrothesp 3 -- who authored the article -- also removed various entries. I even reduced the entry to say that the formation of the Special Branch was oppressive to the Irish and nothing more. This too was removed under the excuse that I was offering a POV and not a neutral objective fact.''

''I was going to get administrators to act as third parties but became intimidated by one simple fact -- on Necrothesp's user page its states that he is a British cop and a member of the U.K. Territorial army. I could go on forever talking about why the British police should not be allowed to edit articles on Northern Ireland but that would be useless. I travel in the UK a great deal and the police have special powers to trace users of any BBS system. ''

''Necrothesp and Ben W. Bell also kept posting on my talk page after I said I felt intimidated. I asked them nicely to leave unitl after the editing conflict wass resolved but they still kept posting. I feel very intimidated. I would like to revise the article with more solid sources but fear being ganged up on again by Necorthesp the cop and his friend Ben W. Bell. In the last entry he made on my talk page Necorthest suggested I leave Wikipedia altogether which is very intimidating coming from someone who is a policeman 4. ''

''I would still like to edit the article but would like you or some other advocate to watch what is being said and done. Please help!''

''I look forward to hearing from you. ''

617USA 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 617USA, I am unfortunately busy on other cases, so I am not able to help you outmyself. However, I would encourage you to post this on the main Requests for Assistance page and allow me to see if I can find you a suitable Advocate. Right now, most of our Advocates are currently busy on their various cases, so the wait for one appears to be about a week or so, and for that I apologize :-( אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  20:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I guess the big British Bullys won. I feel too intimidated and insulted by Necrothesp and Ben -- they win. The cop drove me away from editing articles on British cops so I guess the British cops control what is said about them on Wikipedia.

I won't post, edit or even log onto any Wikipedia project they are invovled in and I hope they don't post here again and intimidate me more. There is no reason for them to. They win.

617USA

Radio Free Satan
The article Radio Free Satan, which you created, is being debated at Articles for deletion (here). Please do join in the debate ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brad Steiger
I have nominated Brad Steiger, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Brad Steiger. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created, Brad_Steiger maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Brad_Steiger.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important. There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:
 * 1) You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2) You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
 * 3) When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept. Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
 * 4) You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)