User talk:Nick Cooper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Hello Nick Cooper! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Contents

[edit] Giles Cooper

You have written on the Giles Cooper page that this has been copied from an article of yours but I had difficulty finding any copyright statements relating to the article on the linked to website. If the article is violating copyright it needs deleting. Could you let me know what the situation is. JMiall 23:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original biography, so it's my copyright. Someone lifted the whole thing almost verbatim without permission or acknowledgement, so obviously it's a copyright violation. The fact that there isn't a specific copyright statement on my site relating to that particular page is neither here nor there. Nick Cooper 13:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armed Robbery statistics

Hi Nick,

Just wondering what your source is for the numbers you posted on sawed-off shotgun? [1] says that there were 2,659 firearm robberies in England and Wales in 2004/05. I'm not doubting that what you say is correct, I just think it needs sourcing.

Oh, and could you put in a sentence about why handguns are now more prevalent (eastern european imports, airsoft, etc), and make it clearer that this only applies to the UK, and not NZ and Australia?

Cheers, FiggyBee 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The figures are from the Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005 [2] (Table 3.04, page 84), which dates from January 2006, as opposed to July 2005 for the report you cite. Most of the figures quoted in the earlier report are similar to the later one, e.g.:
"10,979 firearm offences" Vs "10,964 All weapons excluding air weapons"
"Firearms were used in 73 (8.5%) homicides" Vs "77"
"Handguns, including imitation handguns, were used in 4,326 offences" Vs "4,347"
"Shotguns were used in 590 offences" Vs "Long-barrelled shotgun 305" + "Sawn-off shotgun 293" = 598
These seem to be the expected slight fluctuations in figures that you'd expect, given more time for, a) crimes to be recorded and included, or b) other findings that disprove an incident as being a crime. The earlier figure of 2,659 firearms robberies, however, doesn't tally with the later weapon-type breakdown of 3,658, and I suspect that the earlier one is a misprint and should have been 3,659.
As to the increase in the use of handguns (see Table 3.03 in January 2006 report), my own personal view is that yes, there is a greater availability, partly from Eastern European sources, but this is very much in conjunction with the removal of border controls within Western Europe, making it easier to get guns into the UK in the first place. On the other hand, there has been - as can be seen from Table 3.03 - a massive increase in the use of imitation and air weapons, but they only get recorded as such if they are recovered and identified as such by the police. If they aren't and if they're pistols, they're counted as "handguns" as if they're "real," thus inflating that category. Most bystanders, for example, would not be able to tell the difference between a Walther P88 and the CO2-powered air pistol version, but the police - unless they recovered it - would assume the former and record it as a "handgun."
Looking at the year-on-year types of crime (Table 3.01), the only ones that have significantly increased (robbery has actually fallen overall) in numbers that match the increase in the use of imitations and air weapons are "Violence against the person - other" and "Criminal damage." The latter predominently (as can be seen elsewhere) involves air weapons. The bottom line seems to be that what we've seen is a vast increase in people being threated outside of a robbery context with "firarms," but that 70% of these actually involve either definite imitations or air weapons, but this is probably an underestimate. I'm not sure, however, that this rather complex situation needs outlining on the S-O Shotgun page, as it should really be somewhere that deals specifically with firearms crime in either the UK or just England & Wales.
Nick Cooper 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And yeah, you're right, I guess we don't need to go into too much detail on that page. FiggyBee 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Nick, you have copied sizeable chunks of copyrighted text into the Operation Flavius article. Can you reference the material properly and add commentary in your own words please. Wiki rules on copyright violation are quite strict Weggie 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nick Cooper 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Flavius

Whoever paid Dr Scott got good value for money.

It would be quite easy to have set off a bomb at the location from most places in Gibraltar with a handheld radio. His evidence is frankly a joke. You seem to have removed the reference to a technical discussion in 'Wireless World' which showed him to be wrong mathematically.

--Gibnews 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's still there in the "Inquest" section, where it was before. I simply moved the whole section to after Death on the Rock, which is chronologically correct. Scott's evidence is based on the type of radio device used by the IRA and other details, such as the aerial on the car being both the wrong length and not positioned correctly. Nick Cooper 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Harndon's Bandit Country gives details of the 'electronic war' in South Armagh. The IRA and the British Army competed with radio frequencies and electronic counter-measures as the IRA used this technology extensively. Also, if someone wants to put a couple of lines about each of the three provos I think this would add to the article in terms of balance Weggie 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think all the various radio evidence needs to be in one place, as at the moment there are competing "claims" in Death on the Rock, the inquest, and the European Court. In fact, it takes up most of the inquest section, which needs more detail in itself. Nick Cooper 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (copied to OpF:Talk)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Knights of god video.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Knights of god video.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 194.176.105.40 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Autoblock should have expired. --pgk 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 194.176.105.39 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Sunday

Hi, Nick. I see you're a frequent contributor (or maybe I should say policeman) over at the BS article. I just tweaked the ending, as I thought it was a bit needlessly emotional. I think it should eventually obtain FA status, as it's a very important event that needs documenting, but I know the members that regularly screen applications wouldn't like the previous sort of language that I changed. Of course if you can find something a bit better I would welcome your suggestions.

By the way, do you have any further plans to improve the article? (Please reply on my talk page.) John Smith's 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 194.176.105.40 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quatermass

Hello Nick — good to see you around on Wikipedia. (I'm Paul Hayes, you may have seen me post on the Mausoleum Club forum). I've recently been doing quite a bit of work expanding and improving Wikipedia's Quatermass articles — haven't done the fourth serial yet, but I have had a go at The Quatermass Experiment, Quatermass II, Quatermass and the Pit, Nigel Kneale and most recently Rudolph Cartier. As you're one of the main experts in this area, I wondered if you had any thoughts on where the articles might need improving? Cheers. Angmering 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I've managed to keep off the Quatermass-related pages until now, and it was only when the subject of The Quatermass Conclusion came up on the MC that I thought about checking what there was about it here. I'll have a general look over the rest, to see if anything that needs adding springs to mind. Nick Cooper 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Nick — I look forward to your thoughts, particularly as I'm hoping to nominate Nigel Kneale as a Featured Article in the near future. Angmering 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methylenedioxymethamphetamine

I personally think that Rolls should definitely be added to the list. I think this is one of the most common nicknames, and it's only applied to X as far as I've heard. You said you wanted to keep nicknames to derivates of Ecstacy, which doesn't make much sense to me sense Ecstacy itself is just a nickname for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and we aren't keeping nicknames to derivates of that, I've put it on the talk page and we can see what the discussion leads to. War wizard90 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ecstasy" is pretty much universal - certainly far better known that the chemical name - and it's natural to mention the direct derivatives of it in the introduction. The problem - as has manifested itself on this page in the past - is that once people start adding nicknames - either for the substance or the act of taking it - it quickly gets out of hand, with all sort of geographically-localised versions appearing, and virtually no way to verify them. Despite what it says for under "recreational use," for example, "rolling" is not really particularly common in the UK at all, and neither is the singular form (nor is "thizzing," for that matter). Nick Cooper 08:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a section in the article for nicknames, but the nicknames must meet WP:N requirments, such as being used in independant sources, etc. That way the more common nicknames would be placed in the article whereas the smaller more regional names would not be included. I think a section on names is particularly important for MDMA, because of each pill getting its own nickname, which could be discussed in the same section. Obviously we couldn't have a list of the name of every pill, but examples of how they are named would be useful to people who are unfamiliar with MDMA. War wizard90 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This has already been done somewhat now that I go over the article again, but in a poor manner. War wizard90 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 Manchester bombing

Hi Nick,

Thanks for adding the reference which outlines the number of those injured. It previously stated "heavy" which isnt a helpful description so thanks for adding the number. The only other issue is the description of the damage as "massive" - its a bit tabloid and unencyclopedic.--Vintagekits 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there's always going to be a conflict between being concise and an accurate description. I don't think that "massive" per se is that much of a problem, but I would certainly regard something more extreme like "devastating," catastrophic" or "colossal" as straying into tabloid territory, while by the same token something like "widespread" or "extensive" is too mild in relation to the damage of the value stated, not to mention the casualty figure. "Massive" seems to sit somewhere appropriately in the middle and will avoid people flipping between mild/strong descriptions. The other option would be simply to state the outcome and leave out any value judgement, e.g. "... caused damage valued by insurers at £411 million to buildings in the commercial centre of the city, and injured approximately 200 people." Nick Cooper 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right, and its not a massive issue with me (no pun intended) but probably your suggestion at the end would be better, that way we are leaving it up to the reader to up their on mind.--Vintagekits 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of deceased and injured in the Dunblane massacre.

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL --Nyp 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read it more carefully. Nick Cooper 11:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No. 152 Squadron RAF

You have deleted my addition to this page, as a new comer to the Wiki I have no idea who you are. The items you deleted clearly reference serving officers, documents and paragraph with documents. Kindly restore the content, or place the matter in arbitration.

Dogberry

You added original research - see reply on Talk:No. 152 Squadron RAF. Nick Cooper 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Edward 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Edward 2.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Talib 72

I don't quite see how speaking the God honest truth can be called vandalism. Maybe I could have dropped the f bomb less, but everything I said was truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talib 72 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2007.

Yeah, whatever. Racist comments like the ones you made (and, it seems, continue to make) have no place on Wikipedia. Nick Cooper 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -ize and -ise in H.G.Wells

I changed your edit there only for consistency through the article. Personally I share your preference for "ise" but (1) strictly it's not the correct form and (2) there's a hope for fewer, inconsistent edits in the future from IP editors with culturally limited spell checkers. All the best. --Old Moonraker 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: I meant to include that if you wanted to apply the "-ise" ending throughout, to emphasise (there we go again) the cultural difference, I would be right behind you! --Old Moonraker 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've would normally have done so, but was in a bit of a hurry and only reverted the most recent change. I've left those that appear in links/quotes, although I may need to check up on some of them. Nick Cooper 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
To the UK reader your latest version is a much more relaxed read. Let's see how long it sticks! --Old Moonraker 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/User_talk%7ENick_Cooper_62dc.html"