User talk:SGGH/Archive 2013/September

Somerset cricket task force
I know you've got plenty to keep yourself occupied with, but I thought I'd let you know that I've set up a "task force" for articles relating to Somerset County Cricket Club. It's mostly somewhere to take stock of what there is, and what needs improving. Given your work on Somerset articles in the past, I thought it might interest you.  Harrias  talk 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, thanks mate! Met Arul Suppiah for the first time the other day. --S.G.(GH) ping! 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mick Fleetwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bel Air (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pontifical College St.Pius X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your input please
Hi there, I see you're the lead coordinator of the Law Enforcement Wiki Project. I'm planning an edit to an article and would appreciate your advice before I get started.

I've made several edits over the past few weeks to the wiki article about the United States Border Patrol. This is an important and popular article, but it definitely needed some cleanup.

I now want to edit the "criticisms" section of that article. In particular, I want to shorten and bullet the lists of examples of alleged abuse/deaths, and add recently released recommendations by the US Office of the Inspector General. (I also plan to add a separate section about the tremendous lifesaving efforts made by the Border Patrol).

What I'd like your opinion on is this: the topic of "abuse of power" by the Border Patrol is covered in detail in 2 different wiki articles. It's in the Border Patrol article, but also in the Migrant deaths along the Mexico–United States border article. The details in both articles are similar, but also quite different.

What's the best way to present the information?
 * 1) Edit the Border Patrol page, and let readers know this topic is covered in another article?
 * 2) Delete the info from the Border Patrol page, and add a link to (and update) the Migrant Death page?
 * 3) Create a 3rd article?
 * 4) Add the same info to both articles?
 * 5) Update one article and just leave the other?

I think it's important to have information presented consistently, and also to not send readers all over the place to get similar information.

Thanks for your input before I get started. Richard Apple (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I agree that criticism of law enforcement topics are hot topics which are difficult to handle on Wikipedia. It's easy for the article to get highjacked by people who "hate the police" and make more of criticism than needs be, and then subsequently all those pro-police take over from there, and so on.
 * In response to each of your ideas above. I would avoid removing information from existing articles. You can use a heading in the main article with a summary, and use the to link to a new article. Personally, if you have enough information, I would create a new article - perhaps Criticism of the United States Border Patrol - and put your information there, and then brief summaries can be in the migrant death article and the main Border Patrol article with see-also links to your new article.
 * I would, however, avoid using bullet points. They risk the article just becoming a chronological procession of every single event. Rather incorporate events into a prose narrative within the main body of the article. It also makes sure that the article does not read like a memorial to all those who have died, or like it is listing just to make a point. Such information and statistics already exist out there on the internet and don't need collating together.
 * One thing to remember at all times is that you need to remain neutral - the majority of sources on law enforcement incidents have an agenda, particularly the media. Very few people write on a custody death, for example, without a reason, either pro or anti-police/law enforcement, beyond bare reporting anyway. And Wikipedia is not here to make judgements.
 * Those are just some ideas for now. --S.G.(GH) ping! 17:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your input. They're a huge force and do a hard job, and the topic of "criticism" is so delicate.  If I do an edit or page addition on that sectiono I may run it past you first if you're ok.  Cheers.  Richard Apple (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Charles W. Pickering (United States Navy officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Union


 * Government Highline Canal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Grand Junction

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dover Calais ferry listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dover Calais ferry. Since you had some involvement with the Dover Calais ferry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)