User talk:Nick Cooper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (www.airguns-online.co.uk/walther_cp88_3.htm), 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)

Y

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)
Y

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)

Hi, I have revised the end of that section detailing what Mike Jackson said, according to the "Irish News" newspaper. The bit about his constant claims over 30 years is in that article. As a long-term editor, I would not deliberately insert anything lacking a factual basis (not that you were suggesting I was) but accept that if it's not online it can't easily be verified. Still, where does Wiki draw the line? For example, in the "Alex Higgins" article I have made a reference to a relevant page in Willie Thorne's autobiography. Not everything is online, after all, so are all printed refs to become [citation needed]? All the best, bigpad 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I wasn't suggesting you were, but I think there's a general aversion to citing registration-required - let alone subscription - websites, even though doing so with written/published sources is generally acceptable, presumably because there's more chance other editors may already have access to them. The placement of the BBC ref after the second statement is still a bit misleading, as it implies it backs it it up. I would suggest that either we put both refs after the Jackson quote, and then repeat the Irish News ref after the second part, or use the BBC ref for the quote and the Irish News ref for the second part. Nick Cooper 10:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, if it helps the search for authenticity, scans of those two articles are available from:
http://quis.qub.ac.uk/snooker/images/temp/IN290507A.jpg
http://quis.qub.ac.uk/snooker/images/temp/IN290507B.jpg

Can these be linked to without breaking some Wiki rule? bigpad 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:

Y

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

[edit] Peep Show

Hi Nick,

When did you get your copy of PS season 3? I bought mine on release day in Bristol Virgin Megastore & got the postcards. Do you want a scan?

Now I think about it, the other topics you're interested in seem somewhat less trivial than PS.

Mthastings25 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackheath railway station 070413.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:Blackheath railway station 070413.JPG and also as Image:Blackheath station 070413.JPG. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 07:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alright

I will respect that, but only on British-related articles. Lord Hawk 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Curtis

Regarding your edit here: I posted a comment to the talk page. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good job

Tank you for cathing my error. I got confused with this year and that year, and as a n00b i pledge to be mroe careful. Scotto263 07:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Herobonds.jpg

Hello, Nick Cooper. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Herobonds.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Nick Cooper. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mayfair 11 12.JPG

Hello, Nick Cooper. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Mayfair 11 12.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Nick Cooper. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Peppa Pig DVD1.JPG

Hello Nick Cooper, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Peppa Pig DVD1.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Nick Cooper. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RRTD.JPG

Hello Nick Cooper, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:RRTD.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Nick Cooper. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The Falklands Play book.jpg

Hello Nick Cooper, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:The Falklands Play book.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Nick Cooper. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tumbledown book.jpg

Hello Nick Cooper, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tumbledown book.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Nick Cooper. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Curtis

You reverted my edit here, so I posted to the talk page. You haven't replied so far, so I assume you didn't notice. Your input would be greatly appreciated. —AldeBaer 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother housemate citations

While I agree it may seem picky, every single fact on the housemates has to be verifiable, "seeing it on the show" just isn't acceptable, even if it is just a citation of the program it has to be there. John Hayes 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Y

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:  Netsnipe  ►  15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User:86.31.119.178

Nick, I agree with you it is vandalism. But you have jumped the gun a bit. You have gone to warning #3, and skipped the first two. I'll be changing it to the correct warning Paul Norfolk Dumpling 10:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Warning templates: "templates need not be used sequentially." Sometimes one can give apparent vandals the benefit of the doubt, but this case was quite clear-cut and unequivocal. In addition, none of the "lower" warning templates adequately describe what the IP user had done - there no point in admonishing someone for "tests" or that they may have done something accidentally, when they clearly didn't. Nick Cooper 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hoplophobia

I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Jc7919

Hi there - just to let you know I've removed your level 4im warning from the above user's talk page - it rather flew in the face of my earlier warning, which had already got him to level 4. Thanks! Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I think a few of us were fighting to slap warnings on the guy, so things got a bit confused! Nick Cooper 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cressida Dick

Whilst it is clear that you have more Wiki experience than me, and it is also true that I made the first edit without noticing I was not logged in, I do think you should have been less hasty to reverse my repeat edit when you could easily have contacted me out of respect. I appreciate you may not have noticed I was logged in the second time. The information is clearly stated to be rumour, and I clearly stated that it would be removed if shown to be unfounded. The information is of public interest, and obviously a rumour cannot be independently verified. I honestly think you should allow me to have one last go at leaving this, please. It would be nice if you let me have your views and your "permission". Many thanks. Nigel User: Aspdin. July 5 2007 0911 hrs GMT

Once of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is Verifiability, particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons. Material should only be added to the latter if it can be attributed to a reputable source. If the rumour is true, it's unlikely that it will be missed by the media, particularly in London, so when that happen it can be included. Nick Cooper 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DWAS

Thanks, Nick. I intend to continue with the article when I can. I stopped while I retrieved the DWAS's 20th Anniversary History from my parents', but since haven't found the time to continue the rewrite. Input from you on the VAT issue would be welcome, as I know that you did a lot of research on the issue, and I have some of your Star Begotten articles. Part of the reason I've stalled, apart from time issues, is that I'm aware of the impartiality issue, too; exactly what went on can still be disputed. --Matthew Kilburn 11:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intertitle

I'm from the UK (also from Yorkshire, like yourself -- apparently). I'm not sure where you got the idea "intertitle" isn't used here, perhaps it's because it is a formal word. Matthew 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, the title used on The Last Train is superimposed over the action of the episode, not part of a set title sequence, and by definition can't be an intertitle. It's also acknowledged that "intertitle" is a recent imposed academic term, rather than being terminology that comes from either the film or TV industries. Nick Cooper 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"It's also acknowledged that 'intertitle' is a recent imposed academic term", what's your source for that (the Wikipedia article is entirely unsourced). But, by it's definition, an intertitle is: "A printed narration or portion of dialogue flashed on the screen between the scenes of a silent film."[3], so naturally the superimposed text. Matthew 13:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
so, not an accurate description of the title of The Last Train superimposed over the action of the episode, either. There seems to be a push to impose this term on various film/TV pages on Wikipedia, where it blatently isn't appropriate, e.g. superimposed titles, the logo as part of a standard title sequence, etc. Nick Cooper 13:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem very appropriate per the definition I've provided. I don't not what you're talking about when you say "there seems to be a push to impose this term". I was just tidying up the infobox for a show I enjoy. By your reply it would seem you have a personal dislike for the term, rather than it being incorrect. Matthew 13:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I hadn't given it any thought in this context before today, and have myself used the term in what by all definitions seems to be its proper application, in discussing silent films. Looking around a few TV pages on Wikipedia, however, it seems that it is being applied as a synonym for a programme title on screen, however it is executed, which is clearly wrong when it is part of a standard title sequence (e.g. Doctor Who) or - as with The Last Train - superimposed over the action. I can think of a number of TV programmes where "intertitle" would be a proper description of how the title is displayed on screen, but even so it is being pointlessly specific to describe them as such. Nick Cooper 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Nick Cooper: 57% for major edits and 83% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Looking at my last 250 edits, 123 were additions to Talk pages, which I - and it seems most other others - don't see as being worth summarising when one is merely adding a comment. As to minor edits, it seems a bit stupid to summarise - as is often the case - ammending a single typo, don't you think? Nick Cooper 08:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
One man's stupid is another man's courtesy. Whether or not you choose to be courteous to others is up to you. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Nick Cooper 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Power of Nightmares

This section of the lead has been bugging me for a while. I don't think it really flows properly:

The Power of Nightmares is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. The series is subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear.

I would like to just write it "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear is..." but you appear to have reverted such an edit in the past. Do you have any suggestions? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic fact is that Curtis's programmes frequently have a secondary and essentially descriptive title, as I outlined previously on Talk:The Trap (television documentary series), although that was the only example where the BBC actually billed in the [Radio Times]] and otherwise publicised the "full version." If you check on the BBC Programme Catalogue], you see that The Power of Nightmares, The Living Dead, and all his other previous works appear under their basic titles, which are also how they appear on Wikipedia. Nick Cooper 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. How 'bout "The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is..."?
At any rate, that link you included let me add sources for the exact days the film was shown. Thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would tend towards "The Power of Nightmares, descriptively subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, but it's your call. Nick Cooper 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Descriptively" probably is POV. I think I'll leave it out. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would also come here to sort out the "further reading" section, and how (if at all) it should be put back into the article (which you appeared to support). I would like to get that sorted out now so if I nominate the page for FA soon it won't be an issue. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television licensing in the United Kingdom

I've re-applied the edits (from late last night) that you undid. These edits seem valuable and include:

  • a new section on enforcement letters (and how their aggressive nature ignores the possibility of no TV being on the premises),
  • a new lead-in sentence to the following paragraph,
  • grammatical corrections to the remainder of that paragraph,
  • a new internal link from the "Public opinion" section.

One improvement re sourcing could be a scanned version of an enforcement letter, which would complement the existing reference given. Until this is provided the new text is still valuable. It certainly is factually correct, as could be attested to by every person in the UK who does not own a TV!

131.111.7.2 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Edit to the Shelter Page

Nothing from the blog was posted to the main article, nor was any comment made about the reliability or otherwise of the blog as a source of information. It was just a link from one page to another. Most pages on celebrities on Wikipedia have links to their Myspace pages and websites - what's the difference?

Burningfight

See also Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, number 11. Nick Cooper 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisted link may lock up your talk page

Hi. You've got an innocently posted link to airguns-online.co.uk in the "Armed Robbery statistics" section above. The owner of this site recently started spamming this and other domains he owns to various articles. It got bad enough that it has been nominated for the Spam blacklist and will likely be blacklisted in a day or two. The blacklist's a software filter that prevents adding the link to any Wikipedia page. Edits to pages that already contain the link can't be saved until the link is deleted or "disabled" by stripping off the "http://". I'm a little squeamish about tampering with others' user pages, so I am leaving this message instead.

Reference: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Spammer in en wiki (Permanent link)
--A. B. (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's rather unfortunate. I've disabled the link. Nick Cooper 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

Are you going to work on this article? Should it be merged with Gun politics in the United Kingdom?

On another note, I noticed you removed "To compare, the family of one of the victims of the 7/7 bombings was paid £11,000 in compensation." from de Menezes' article. It certainly was irrelevant to the section it was in, but does this comparison belong in the article? Is this a comparison that was made elsewhere? Ursasapien (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am still working on the police article, which is going to be fairly wide-ranging, covering history, equipment (past and present), as well as the "political" aspect. Some of the latter will probably need a precis in Gun politics in the United Kingdom, but is probably too country-specific for the main Gun politics page.
On the subject of compensation to the de Menezes family, there has been some muted comparisons made, but essentially as part of a wider debate on such payments to the victims of crime or their relative, which are administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Payments by the latter are rigidly-defined and limited - IIRC, £11,000 (as quoted in the addition) is the basic payment for the loss of a relative, upon whom a sole eligible recipient was not financially-dependent. Say John Smith dies as a result of a criminal act, and he had no wife or children and only his father was still alive, the father would get £11,000. Where there is financial or parental dependency, payments are potentially much higher. The idea of CICA is to recompense people who have no recourse (or it would be pointless) to sue the perpetrators of the crime. Nick Cooper 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So does de Menezes not qualify because he was not a British citizen? His family certainly would seem to be in the position of having little or no recourse to sue the perpetrators. I suppose the issue of crime vs. wrongful death comes in to play, as well. Ursasapien (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's more the case that his death hasn't yet been determined to have resulted from a criminal act, and even if it were it would depend if an individual or individuals were found culpable, or the Met police as an organisation. Either way, CICA could make a payment, but the family would potentially get more if it were the Met itself as fault and they brought an action through the civil courts. CICA will pay out regardless of the nationality of the victim or their claiming relatives, although one bone of contention here is that it won't pay out for British citizens injured by criminals in other countries. This report covers how CICA worked in relation to the 7 July bombing victims. This is CICA's own guide to 7 July claims, which pretty much sets out the reasoning behind the scheme and how it applies. Nick Cooper 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Herobonds.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Herobonds.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello...

I noticed you've put in quite a few posts in the gun politics talk pages. I'm just wondering do you have an interest in firearms or just the politics behind them and their use? Goldfishsoldier 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit of both, although in firearms themselves it an offshoot of an interest in military history in general. I'd probably be target pistol shooting as a hobby if I still could (making do instead with what we are allowed), although I might with rifles when I have more time and can afford it. Politically I'm pretty much in the centre-ground - I don't believe in either outright bans or free-for-alls, but that's only within the context of my own country, socially and historically. I'm not much interested in fighting anyone else's battles (whichever side they are on) for them! Nick Cooper 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any advice

I see you gave this editor a final warning,[4], now they have added and removed this information? Any advice, --Domer48 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mayfair 11 12.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mayfair 11 12.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Other Man

I just found this article which you originally wrote. Have you seen the play? Someone on IMDB says that it was 'lost' but that the BFI now have all of the previously missing reels. Jooler 16:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:71.184.39.125, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. richi 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, I modified a warning given in error by me to an apparent vandal. Your revert re-instated the original, which was incorrect ... richi 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should calm down a bit. I was scrolling through User talk:71.184.39.125's edit history (alerted as a result of the IP user's excessive category-change activity) and mistakenly thought they had deleted the warning themself. Mea culpa. However, you immediately leaping on my edit and declaring it "vandalism" is probably just as - if not more - out of order, especially in conjuction with your patronising use of a standard "Welcome" above to someone who's been editing for well over a year. Nick Cooper 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Nick, the standard template Template:uw-tpv1 is intended for use when an editor sees a "bad practice" userpage edit but assumes good faith. It's not an accusation of vandalism. However, it is part of a set of standardised warnings, themselves part of a WP policy that is documented in WP:Vandalism. I agree these warnings may appear patronising, which is why I added explanatory text. I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings or Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism might be good places to start if you want to give feedback on the warning text or policy respectively ... richi 20:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -ise and -ize in JG Ballard

In JG Ballard, you changed all instances of "recognize", "realize", etc. to the -ise spelling, with the rationale "British subject = British English = no foreign dialect spellings!" This argument does not hold up, as the -ize form is equally correct, though less common, in British English. It is, for example, the spelling used in the OED (see Oxford spelling). I won't revert the change, as a courtesy, but please refrain from such spurious edits in the future. In the choice between multiple acceptable variants, the standard practice is to follow the first non-stub edit, not impose your own preference. Snarkibartfast —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Recognize" and "realize" are minority spellings in UK usage. Try Googling either specifically on .uk domains and you will see that they are outnumber by "ise" by almost 2-to-1, and where "ize" appears, it is invariably quoting or mirroring non-UK usage. Googling on bb.co.uk and .gov.uk domains even more oiverwhelmingly favours "ise":
gov.uk domains:
"Realise" = 240,000
"Realize" = 6,520 - outnumbered 37-to-1
"Recogise" = 892,000
"Recogize" = 22,600 - outnumbered 39-to-1
bbc.co.uk domains:
"Realise" = 152,000
"Realize" = 10,400 - outnumbered 15-to-1
"Recognise" = 99,300
"Recognize" = 5,660 - outnumbered 18-to-1
By any strecth of imagination, that clearly makes them minority spellings. Nick Cooper 18:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a matter for research. The status of the various spellings and the consequences for appropriate use are well documented on Wikipedia. -ize is less common (by a ratio of about 3:2), but still standard ("correct"). Its use in the Oxford English Dictionary is proof enough of that. It is not a "foreign dialect spelling" or Americanism. Imposing your preferred form is therefore inappropriate. Snarkibartfast 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Good luck with getting a life sometime. Nick Cooper 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Woman in Black

Hi, I noticed this edit with the summary "Relocated broadcast/video details - putting them in the intro makes them look more important than the programme itself. Various other tweak - TV programme not film."

I'm not sure about this particular instance, but it is possible for the circumstances of a television programme's broadcast or production to be more important than the programme itself. For instance, Roland Rat is usually credited with reviving the fortunes of early morning broadcaster, TV-am. And Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme), a 1954 production (coincidentally also scripted, like The Woman in Black, by Nigel Kneale) is famous for the circumstances of its broadcast, which prompted public complaints, questions in the House of Commons and a personal intervention by the queen and Prince Philip (which alone probably saved the live drama from the cancellation of its second scheduled live broadcast). Even the BBC news itself has on occasion made news, for instance when lesbian protesters against anti-gay legislation invaded the studio and struggled with newsreaders and production crew on camera during a live broadcast. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that, but with The Woman in Black, the issue is essentially that it's hard for people who want to see it again to locate copies, which really has nothing to do with the circumstances of production or transmission of the type that applied to Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I'm more than aware of. The Woman in Black has been transmitted twice, received limited domestic release, and is now very difficult to find, but that's something that can be applied to countless other TV programmes. After all, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been transmitted in the UK three times during the "video era," but has never been released commercially, and so is at least as rare. Nick Cooper 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Edward 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Edward 2.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 08:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balham station merge

While it's quite common for mergers to be discussed first, that doesn't mean they have to be, or that a merge needs to be reverted pending one. The question you raise, of whether separate but adjoining stations can or should be covered in a single article, is a settled one. So unless you have any other objections, I'm politely requesting you refrain from any further reverting. --Mr Thant (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Settled" where, exactly? Where is the agreed criteria? Or does it just come down to what a few people decide on a Saturday night when few other people are around? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Settled in the sense that with only a few exceptions, all rail/tube stations with reasonably direct interchange are covered in a single article. So if you object to that on spec you have a lot more than Balham to worry about. Either propose all such articles should be split, come up with a reason why Balham is different, or leave the article alone. --Mr Thant (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I ask again, where exactly is this documented? Where are the criteria laid out? Since when was the proper procedure to merge articles and say people should object, rather than the clearly-established procedure for proposing and voting on merges? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Like most Wikipedia conventions, it's documented in the many, many articles that follow it. Similarly, there's no formal merger process. Since I considered the merge completely uncontroversial, I felt no need for discussion. It's clear I need to start one. --77.99.149.3 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the above comment is from me. --Mr Thant (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ad hominem attacks

I'd like to point to you that your comment here crosses the line between objecting to my reasoning and making a personal attack against me. You may or may not follow my argument but that doesn't give you any right to behave this way. --Mr Thant (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You circumvented the standard merge proposal procedure, and - despite repeated requests - you have been unable to cite the supposed "agreed" crietria for merges of the type claimed. That's a fact. Deal with it. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear about this. Your phrase "pathetically arguing" is totally unnecessary personal abuse, and against all kinds of Wikipedia etiquette. I don't care about the argument, but I do care when you insult me like that.
Please also reread the merge policy:

Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.

You really seriously owe me an apology.
--Mr Thant (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge policy

Please read my comments here about the merge policy and take time to review them. --RFBailey (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please try to avoid sarcasm such as this. It's not helpful, even if you think it's warranted. --RFBailey (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks on the London Underground

Can I get some input here please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A whinging vandal writes

- I seem to have been given a warning by the great Nick Cooper who from what i can see knows everything about the drug- Ecstasy-, i do feel the 'warning' placed on my I.P address to be over the top, the average price of an ecstasy pill in London is certainly not £3, but more in the £1.50-£2.00 region. Please, go and enjoy an other cigar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.192.165 (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's your justification for ignoring TWO MASSIVE WARNINGS not to change the text you did, is it? The text in question is a direct quote from a clearly identified published source, not hearsay or rumour or subjective opinion. You altering the text constitutes misrepresenting the source material. You ignoring the clear and unequivocal warnings constitutes vandalism. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JCdM

Factually accurate...how is "killed" not factually accurate. Bullets were fired at him which caused his death, therefore he was killed and also shot dead, although shot dead represents a level of innocence, which was clearly not present when he was effectivly shot in cold blood for no crime other than looking like a Muslim. I think killed is a fair compromise, don't you? 86.129.249.150 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The original text of "shot dead" makes it succinctly clear how he died. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're too kind

One thing he may have a slight point on though, I was tempted to remove it straight away as it's dubious. The "playing cards" and explosives - that's to do with a Griess test not a paraffin test. From what I know only the latter was done on the BS victims not the forner, was this brought up at Saville at all do you know? I'm thinking this might have been slipped in under the radar, when it's never been mentioned in relation to Bloody Sunday that I'm aware. One Night In Hackney303 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 65 of Widgery refers to, "The clothing of 11 of the deceased when examined for explosive residues showed no trace of gelignite," while Paragraph 66 states, "The only other relevant forensic test applied to the deceased was the so-called paraffin test." I think we can reasonably infer that the first does refer to Greiss tests, but as I pointed out previously, they were all negative, so claims about false positives are redundant. I guess the playing cards think drifted in at some later point, but it does need removing. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll crack on with that now then. It's very frustrating when you ask exactly where a claim has come from and you get this, like it's really easy to track down a statement of unknown wording from an unknown person in the second inquiry. One Night In Hackney303 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Anyway, I'm currently hacking together what I hope with be an undisputed narrative of events, which should make the page a lot more clear. Incidentally, the bodies being manhandled by the soldiers is certainly covered in the Secret history documentary, so you can cite to that in the interim. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it actually mentioned as a reason for the GSR though? You see, I'm wary of mentioning it where I just removed it (which was the Saville section) unless it legitimately belongs in that section. That's probably the way the "playing card" red herring got added.
The narrative would be good, certainly for the initial part of what happened. There's too many confused people, and currently the article doesn't make it clear. For example the Daly/revolver part neglects to mention this was after the shooting had started. Otherwise you end up with the current situation of "there are witnesses who saw people with guns" who neglect to mention exactly when these people were seen. One Night In Hackney303 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that there were two different types of tests, Greiss to detect - ultimately - nitro glycerine, and paraffin to detect lead; the latter is named, but the former is a bit of a 1+1=2.
I think we've really reached the stage where we've gone too long without a proper narrative. Widgery seems a good basis once you filter out all his interpreational and observational asides, and put into the correct timeline certain events he deals with elsewhere, such as the "warning shots" fired by the army shortly before the bulk of the shooting started. The same goes for Fr Daly's gunman, and both incidents are dealt with in Secret History, so can be cited. We do, however, desperately need a good map showing the various locations and routes, otherwise I think it's very hard for anyone to follow what happened, even at the most basic level. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What I was referring to was this part:

The evidence so far has undermined to some extent the credibility of the original Widgery Tribunal report. Allegations were made that some bodies were placed next to guns and explosives, and other substances (including playing cards) have been found to cause false positives in tests for explosives.

As even if Secret History brought up the transfer of GSR, unless that was actually brought up at the Saville Inquiry as well it doesn't go back where I removed it from. One Night In Hackney303 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on a background section now, including details of the march bans, rising levels of violence in Derry, no-go areas, the Ford-Tuzo memoradum etc etc. Should be finished later on, I'll let you see the draft first in case I've missed anything. One Night In Hackney303 12:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
About halfway through the narrative in long-hand - should be able to finish/transcribe it tonight or tomorrow, although I need to cross-reference a couple of thing. As an aside, it's notable that Widgery's report is by no means easy to follow, and I think in at least one place he has covered certain signifcant incidents out of sequence compared to other accounts, which has a bearing on how the timeline is perceived. The lack of an index is glaring! Nick Cooper (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed re GSR/Saville. Incidentally, I have both the Secret History and Inside Story documentaries, if you want them. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass as I've seen them before. I think this is what we were looking for anyway. One Night In Hackney303 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

I have protected this article for 3 days and I invite you to express your opinions at Talk:Peter Power (crisis management specialist). CIreland (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

I meant that Sergeant was the only esception in police ranks that are the same as the British Armed Forces rank, but I realise that I did not make this clear. I know you deleted it and I respect that as you obviously have your reasons for it but all of what I put is in a book I'm reading, if you do reply please could you on my User talk:Police,Mad,Jack Thanks Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also I am heavily interested in this subject would it be worth putting in a section about old police firearms that are now obsolete? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just got the first (1986) edition of the Armed Police book and am waiting for the new version to arrive, so I'll see about working the material in, but appropriately referenced. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I saw your Life on Mars Userbox and was wondering if you would be interested in joining, Wikipedia:WikiProject Life on Mars Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balham station edit war

Will you please stop edit-warring with User:Mr Thant (who has also received this message) on Balham station and related pages. Please discuss it on the talk page instead. Otherwise I'll have to report both of you to WP:AN/I. --RFBailey (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

Hi. I appreciate your concerns but, having protected the page, it would be inappropriate for me to express opinions on the content of the article except on uncontroversial issues. I would suggest trying to work things out on the talk page and if that does not bear fruit, ask for a third opinion or use an article request for comment. CIreland (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll frame an RFC tonight. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: As the original author of of this somewhat contentious article - and accepting this confers not rights at all - I'm happy with the draft 2 mentioned above. I would only ask that the following should be considered for insertion in it (as has already been identified by CIreland):
• Prior to joining the Police he spent three years in the Parachute Regiment Territorial Army. • Whilst attached to the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch he designed a series of counter terrorist Improvised Explosive Device mnemonics.

Let's hope that is it. Please....I have added another comment or two on the CIreland talk page, including part of a message J7 actually put on Power's talk page that makes it very obvious indeed they are out to get him--Patrick56 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, please can you supply the details of the article you mention on the Peter Power Talk page which clarifies that the issue was to do with expenses claims of around £100? In particular, which newspaper was this published in, and on what date? Thanks. Cmain (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the Western Gazette, S&W Dorset Edition, 4 November 1993. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Which year? Cmain (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Amended above (damn my typing!). Nick Cooper (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This has happened twice now

Hi - I recieved 2 messages from you saying that 86.145.218.92 has vandalised 2 pages (thomas the tank engine and peppa pig). I haven't even looked at these pages. It is someone else with the same IP. My IP seems to change every couple of days so I'm sure this will happen to hundreds of users every day. Is there any way to stop this? Thanks. 86.145.218.92 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm innocent! I never vanadalized Whopper! Innocent, I say! You'll never prove anything! ...unless you go to Baconator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.154.99 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine image copyright

Hi Nick,

I'm leaving this message regarding the image at [5] , which I uploaded and added yesterday under the premise of an ambiguous understanding of its copyright/fair use status.

I have written my rationale for having it included on the page, which I think is in diar need of some visual aids. But since this is my first image upload and first time dealing with copyright issues on Wikipedia, I am asking for your help in determining if there is a way to have this remain on the page or if you think there is a suitable alternative in this situation.

Thanks, Kst447 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mulberry Harbour

I notice you have re-inserted the statement that Wates Group was involved in the construction of the harbours. I would be very interested in what your source is because it implies Guy Hartcup (who has written a number of books on war studies) is incorrect. Even if you believe he is incorrect please can I suggest you insert your source Dormskirk (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you messed up the page formatting. If you dispute the Wates Group detail, then flag it properly with "{{fact}}". Nick Cooper (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. My apologies re the page formatting...I see what you mean. But have you any difficulties with me reverting the Wates Group detail as it is clearly not supported by the book...I have a copy? Dormskirk (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the detail was added by Doxey65 on 10 April, the same day they made various edits relating to - and only to - Wates Group. The latter's own website claims:
"During the Second World War, the company built aerodromes, army camps, factories and most notably, developed a speciality in constructing pre-cast and in situ reinforced concrete barges and floating docks. The company supplied major parts of the Mulberry Harbours that were towed across the channel after D-Day."
Hard to say whether this is marketing hyperbole or something that has been overlooked by other sources (the only book I have that covers Mulberry in any detail is The Secret War, but isn't in-depth enough). Nick Cooper (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for taking so much trouble to research this. On balance I think we have to assume that there is some basis for the statement on the Wates Group website. I have therefore not reverted the inclusion of Wates Group but instead re-arranged the companies so they are in alphabetical order Dormskirk (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EOKA

Hi Nick,

On this article you have removed the reference stating "Reference does not support preceding statements r.e. WWI and WWII." here. Please read the last sentense of the 4th paragraph of the "The Historical Background" section here as the first statement is supported by the reference. I will find the reference required for the later statement also. Regards, Meander₪ 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


My apologies - it does indeed support the WW1 reference. I think my error was I searched for a few key-words, none of which were in the relevant sentence. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize man, no worries Meander₪ 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aldwych tube map

Hi Nick,

I changed the map back to the other version, if only because Aldwych station closed only 14 years ago and would have appeared on a Tube Map very, very similar to that used today.

What I suggest is that "might have appeared" be reserved for:

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair point. It is true, though, that most disused stations pages seem to favour the "if it was still open" text, e.g. Down Street, Brompton Road, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EOKA again

Hi, I am proposing to split the article on EOKA into two separate articles. I noticed you have contributed to the article so if you are still interested, please have a look at the talk page and add any of your thoughts. Georgeg (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hour of the Pig

You beat me to it!
Still, it’s a bit too bold for me, so I’ve posted the move on the talk page as a post de facto ex post facto proposal. And I’ve notified the original editor, which seems only fair.
Moonraker12 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Oops! bit of a mistake there! Fixed. Moonraker12 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC))
The original author has posted; he's OK with it, no no worries. Moonraker12 (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)