User talk:80.177.190.147

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to RM-81 Agena, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: RM-81 Agena was changed by 80.177.190.147 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-03-06T11:09:04+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ciara Janson. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ciara Janson was changed by 80.177.190.147 (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2008-03-06T13:05:00+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to June 10
Dear 80.177.190.147, Some of your [ edits] on the page June 10 have been undone by PseudoBot, a robot built to keep the date pages tidy. The problems are:
 * No Wikipedia page has been linked to.

If a Wikipedia page for the person already exists, add a link to it (by putting it in doubled square brackets Like this ) and try again. If it doesn't yet exist, read this page carefully before creating it. In particular, you shouldn't create a page about yourself or anyone you know personally. If this bot has got it wrong (as can unfortunately happen), please accept its author's apologies, and (if you would like) leave a message on this talk page with the details, so it can be improved. Please see this page for help. PseudoBot (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Epsom College has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  abf  /talk to me/  12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Rupert Moreton has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Epbr123 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a free user account of your own. All the IPs belong to one place, please use one of them instead of all. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the only warning you will receive. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did with this edit to Heart, you will be blocked from editing. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Before taking Police, Mad, Jacks edits or comments at face value please read the notes below
Hello Iredescent, you may remember when I had problems with User:81.134.13.35. Recently, this has started again with the user stalking my edits, however, some other IPs have also been doing the same as the original user (these being User talk:83.104.109.117 and User talk:80.177.190.147) On uniforms and equipment of the British police, they accused me of deleting a fact tag. And now they keep reverting me deleting trolling on my usertalk. Is there any chance you could please protect my talkpage? And possibly delete the things that the original user has said about me on the users talkpage, due to the talkpage not being a place to air comments about other users, or a forum. Thanks in advance. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to establish if all the IPs belong to one person? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They all belong to Epsom College, but what have I done to upset people going to Epsom College? I dont even know anyone who lives in Epsom, Surrey, or go to the college. I really dont understand. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So does User talk:83.105.121.220, the only one that does not is the original IP, but I'm sure its all the same person. Can you throw any light on this? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding talk page protection: Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.
 * As far as the desire to determine if they're the same person: WP:RFCU.
 * Now, having looked through your edits, just some things to point out.
 * You templated a regular and then, once the editor removed the inappropriate warning, you reverted them with a nasty edit summary and proceeded to argue with them over it, finally removing the thread stating "Removing section, my talkpage, it will be subjected to my rules."
 * A few days later, one of the above IPs posted to your talk page. You reverted, they restored, and you told them that it's your talk page and you'll delete what you like. While inappropriate (and unfortunately spelled considering it supposedly comes from a college student), it was an accurate example of hypocrisy.
 * You revert edits to their own talk page, calling a personal attack (see argument above regarding your view of what personal attacks are), and then reverted twice more on their talk page.
 * And today, you made a bad report to AIV regarding the IP. I think you've had enough reports rejected by this point that you should know the policy. Apparently not, so before reporting or requesting any other users be blocked, check out the blocking policy, and maybe hit up the protection policy as well.
 * And note that this doesn't even go into the the content disputes on Police Station and Uniforms and equipment of the British police, the latter in which you deleted a fact tag and later, in response to the user you argued with in the diffs above noting it in an edit summary, you wrote "I certainly did not delete that fact tag, the last time I edited it was not present. Please assume good faith, and not accuse other edits of things that are not proven." A pathetic show of bad faith and another example of an inappropriate warning issued at another user. Your edits are careless and your communication with others leaves much to be desired. And your selective style for determining what is or isn't original research in Police Station smells like ownership.


 * The above IPs should be warned appropriately for their continued vandalism to the article space. The minor disruption to your talk page is not sufficient for protection, and the edits made in reference to you on yours and their talk pages does not warrant any action, in my opinion. You need to seriously look inward in these situations and consider what others are saying and why they are saying it. Something so simple as you making a mistake without realizing it, then refusing to accept that perhaps someone isn't lying when they point it out. The same user who you claim hates it when he gets something wrong is the user who pointed out when you got it wrong, yet it is again bad faith on their part. The hypocrisy is staggering.


 * In recap, get your reading glasses and check out WP:DTTR, WP:BLOCK, WP:PROTECT, WP:OWN and WP:NPA. لenna  vecia  16:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you reviewing my edits? I only deleted the fact tag because I placed a reference instead. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw your request here, and I went to help you with it, as Iri usually isn't on for a few more hours. In looking over the situation, your edits popped out as being problematic, so I did some further digging. As far as the fact tag, why you removed it is irrelevant. That fact is that you removed it, denied it, stated it wasn't proven, which doesn't even begin to make any sense, then called ABF on the other editor in a spectacular show of hypocrisy rivaling the finale in a 4th of July fireworks show. And you're showing now that you are not capable of self-reflection, instead choosing to focus on other's actions, which is a big part of the problems above. لenna  vecia  17:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, PMJ, listen to what Jennavecia's telling you. As you may recall, my first dealing with you was over your harassment of an editor who didn't agree with you, and I know you've been warned about it by others; you also have a tendency to put material into law enforcement articles that's just plain wrong. Don't assume that every IP is a vandal, or that just because you haven't heard of something means it's untrue; policing and intelligence is a secretive field, and remember that by the "weird shift pattern" nature of the jobs, Wikipedia has a disproportionate number of military, intelligence and law-enforcement personnel amongst its editors, and occasional editors tend to work on what they know; some of those IPs are genuine experts on the matter – CENTCOM, London's Met Police's Information Room and the Air Force Space Command  are three that spring to mind. I myself have reverted enough incorrect additions from you from assorted articles where you've clearly added material in good faith, but where it's obvious to anyone with specialist knowledge that you're wrong, to know that this is a problem with you.


 * This is not to say you should give up contributing to Wikipedia, but you do need to give up your habit of treating "I Was A Police Chief/Spy/Special Forces Operative/etc" autobiographies and true-crime books as reliable sources, as they're generally not (as I told you at the time, "What is written is based on a book published by an ex Met, Chief Super. So it cant be wrong" made me cringe, as well as convince me you've never dealt with a real police chief, Base Commander etc); what constitutes a reliable source to us in this context is news coverage in major, respectable newspapers; official press releases; proceedings of government committees and so forth. While it's a deeply dull read, contains a number of stylistic errors (it was my first long article) and has a lot of missing material where particular information is still classified or unverifiable, I'd point you towards my Central Communications Command article as a fairly good example of how to write a sourced article about a body that doesn't want information about its practices and activities in the public domain. –  iride scent 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 

As per WP:USER, editors -both registered and anonymous IPs- are permitted to remove messages at will from their own talk page; except under specific situations outlined at WP:BLANKING, people who revert others' edits to talk pages may be blocked for harassment.

What do you think is going to happen to me just because you post that? Think it will make me feel bad? Think again. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 17:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It might do if you had any sort of ability for introspection - try listening to advice - it is obviously not sinking in at the moment that you are upsetting a lot of people with your arrogant, bullying attitude, coupled with an very limited knowledge about the factual articles that you post on (your recent edit to the Battle of Mirbat typified this).62.49.54.43 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say "all men"? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"All available men were away fighting in the Great War". This is clearly incorrect. 6.2 million British men participated in WW1 at some point; the 1911 census shows a male population for the UK of ≈23 million, and that's ignoring the rest of the Empire (which at this point included a quarter of the world's population, lest we forget). There is no possibility that "all available men" were in the military. As Jenna and I have told you, please stop assuming that every IP is a vandal. – iridescent 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) It says all "all availabe men were away fighting" not "all men", so I clearly did not think that. Anyone who was fit, healthy and in the age range allowed to fight could, along with conscripts. Where have I shown that I think all IPs are vandals? I did not even state that I thought the user on the MPS page was a vandal, or vandalised the page. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Could fight"≠"did fight". Aside from a very few situations such as the Volkssturm or the Viet Minh, there has never been a situation remotely approaching full-conscription in any modern war. In any event, not only was "all available men" is a clear distortion of the facts, but you're misunderstanding the difference between expediency and causality. Yes, women in wartime are sometimes recruited into traditionally male professions, but (especially in immigration-driven economies such as the UK and US) this was not predetermined; to fill recruitment shortfalls the government could just have easily have encouraged immigration and recruitment from Ireland, India, the Caribbean etc instead of recruiting women (as of course happened after WW2 in Western Europe). Please listen to what myself, Jennavecia and Balloonman so far (to my knowledge) have told you. You need to stop editwarring with IPs; stop WP:OWNing articles, especially on subjects where you're not an expert; check any edit you revert to make sure you're not removing valid content; and most importantly, re-read and make sure you understand our policies on reliable sourcing, verifiability, and original research. Nobody wants to stop you editing Wikipedia, but you are starting to be a disruptive presence on some sensitive and high-profile articles, as well as your long-term pattern (for which you've been repeatedly warned) of harassing valid new contributors who, on seeing their valid additions reverted, may understandably decide not to come back. – iridescent 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC) I am not, and have never claimed to be an expert. I'm 15, I dont have the years behind me to be an expert. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what Jenna and I are trying to say - despite our sometimes-deserved reputation for inaccuracy, much of Wikipedia's content is written by people who are experts on the subject in question. That's certainly not to say you shouldn't work on things you're not an expert in, but if you do you need to be willing to admit that the other editor may sometimes be right while you're wrong. (As I said to you further up this page, on policing, intelligence and military articles you need to be particularly careful with this, as a lot of experts in these fields choose not to create accounts.) – iridescent 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, true. I class myself as knowing more than the average of my age about the police, I did not mean to come across as someone who thinks I'm right all the time, and understand that I can be wrong. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to February 13
Dear 80.177.190.147, Some of your [ edits] on the page February 13 have been undone by PseudoBot, a robot built to keep the date pages tidy. The problems are:
 * No Wikipedia page has been linked to.

If a Wikipedia page for the person already exists, add a link to it (by putting it in doubled square brackets Like this ) and try again. If it doesn't yet exist, read this page carefully before creating it. In particular, you shouldn't create a page about yourself or anyone you know personally. If this bot has got it wrong (as can unfortunately happen), please accept its author's apologies, and (if you would like) leave a message on this talk page with the details, so it can be improved. Please see this page for help. PseudoBot (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Tourism in the United States has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Stickee (talk)  10:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Lee's Summit North High School has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Petrb (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)