Talk:Surrey Police

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surrey Police is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.


Surrey Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Surrey in South East England.
If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Surrey-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Surrey WikiProject tasks:


The list of stations is wrong.

In Elmbridge, there are two more stations: Walton-On-Thames and Molesey. Spelthorne also has one in Ashford and one in Sunbury.



I have temporarily created a Criticisms section in the Surrey Police article to redirect posters here.

It is obvious that some posters are less than satisfied with this police force's performance, but for the criticisms so far made (and for any others that there are) to survive in this article I think that they are going to have to be sourced.

If the links to sources are pasted in here, I am happy to do the editing. :-) Ojcookies 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Um, when I suggested that criticisms would have to be sourced, I was thinking of the following I'm afraid: Wikipedia: Reliable sources. Ojcookies 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Readers of the article should not be directed here. I have removed the unsourced POV vandalism of the article. -- Necrothesp 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For an article that is probably not looked at by that many people, including the line Please see talk page on a temporary basis was in fact the most sensible thing to do to try and achieve a good outcome.
As the unverified criticisms were added to the article by an anonymous user, I figured that they probably wouldn't see any messages on their talk page. Also, having made few edits (so perhaps being new to Wikipedia), and as I only created this talk page recently, I thought it was more likely that they would see my above comments if I included a brief pointer towards this page.
And it seems unlikely that someone would go to all the trouble of creating two or more websites just for the fun of it... Ojcookies 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The talk page is not part of the article. It is a forum for editorial discussion of the article (not the subject of the article). Mentioning it in the article is therefore effectively a self-reference and should be avoided. The two webpages referenced appear to be a sour grapes personal attack on a few officers in Surrey Police which is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. All police forces and similar organisations are going to attract this sort of criticism from time to time - it's the nature of the organisation. -- Necrothesp 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I know that the talk page is not part of the article. However, you're missing my point. Just like you, I didn't think that unverified criticisms were acceptable, but the point was how to get that message through to the anonymous user. I figured that they probably wouldn't see any messages on their talk page. And I only created this talk page recently and I wanted them to see it straight away, rather than them keep editing the article to include the non-reputable webpages. I doubt that many people look at this article, but even if they do, as I said at the top, the comment redirecting this user here was only ever going to be temporary.
Also, I am perfectly aware that the two webpages referenced are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia - that's why I started this talk page in the first place! But someone is rather unlikely to create two webpages just out of sour grapes - I would have created numerous webpages over the years if that was the case - so I tried to encourage them to link any reputable sources that they might have. Also, I do wonder what your claim that this user is talking "nonsense" is actually based on. Ojcookies 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry? When did I use the term "nonsense"? I said it was a POV personal attack, which it blatantly is considering it names individual officers. And my point is that referencing talk pages from articles is not Wikipedia policy, which is why I removed it. Simple as that. I know why you added the note - I'm just trying to explain why I removed it. -- Necrothesp 19:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't remove it! An anonymous user with the IP 86.0.51.96 did! So you are either confused, or you didn't sign in. But if it was you who removed it (and it would obviously then have been clearer to me who was doing what if you had been signed in) then why did you say previously "This is a talk page. Readers of the article should not be directed here. I have removed the unsourced POV vandalism of the article." You mentioned that you had removed the vandalism, and you said that people shouldn't be redirected here, but made no mention of having removed the Criticisms section (unless you consider that to be vandalism - I don't).

Anyway, as I keep saying, I only intended this criticisms section to be temporary anyway, so even if it was you who removed it, it makes no odds. But I really don't see why you have repeated your point that referencing talk pages from articles is not Wikipedia policy - did you not see where I wrote: "Firstly, I know that the talk page is not part of the article." I have already taken on board your point, and there is really no need to keep going on about it. But, what I was trying to get across to you before when I said "you're missing my point", and why I am defensive about this, is that adding a brief and temporary item to the article was the best way to get the message through to the anonymous user in a timely way. As you yourself have said, self-references should be avoided. But common sense should be used, and so it doesn't need to become a must. The key question I have for you is: I accept your point, do you accept mine?

As for the term "nonsense", I am surprised that you deny saying it, as it is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.156.163.230 You also said that it was "sour grapes", which is rather dismissive do you not think? Ojcookies 00:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you recheck the edit history of the page, where you will see that I did indeed remove the link after it had been readded. I also removed the criticisms section as there is no point having a section header with nothing in it! As for my note on the user talk page, that was a standard template tag used to signify that Wikipedia has been vandalised. Since I did not actually write it, I did not remember "saying" it! No, I do not think it is dismissive to describe a blatant personal attack plastered over the web as "sour grapes" - such things deserve to be dismissed. Frankly, I fail to see why you are getting so worked up over such a minor issue. I removed something which contravened Wikipedia policy on self-referencing and which was an unnecessary addition to an encyclopaedia article - the link should never have been added in the first place and it was sufficient to say that in the edit history with a pointer to the talk page if necessary. I would remove any such reference in an article, as would the majority of other editors. -- Necrothesp 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I am getting so "worked up" over this is because I am trying to get through to you that what I did was the right thing in the circumstances, and you are just dismissing my valid reasons. Why do you not accept that adding a very minor and temporary self-reference was the right thing to do?
As for the standard template tag you added, perhaps you shouldn't have added it? Think about it for a moment - someone has gone to all the trouble of creating two or more webpages, and then, whether it is standard or not, you have described it as nonsense. Can you really not see why that is going to annoy someone? Let me put this another way: instead of gently trying to persuade this person not to keep vandalising the article, you have come crashing in describing something which you know nothing about as "nonsense". Can you really not see that you are now going to have that person vandalise the page endlessly?
And as for describing a blatant personal attack "plastered" over the web as "sour grapes", you have been very dismissive of something which is obviously very important to that person. Of course, it may all be made up, but it seems rather unlikely, and so again you will probably have really annoyed the person, with the end result that they will probably now vandalise the page endlessly!
Sheesh! I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have a clue about human behaviour! Ojcookies 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, let's get this clear. I have no patience with people who vandalise Wikipedia. End of story. If he continues the vandalism then I, as an administrator, will continue to block him, as I have just done. I'm sorry if you think vandals should be treated with kid gloves, but I'm afraid I don't. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for anyone who wants to make a complaint about a person or organisation who has an article here. Have you read his websites, which are extremely insulting about a number of people? These are not appropriate links for Wikipedia and I (and, I can guarantee, many others) will continue to revert them without any regard for the "sensibilities" of the poster. A vandal is a vandal, whatever their wider motives, and they only serve to hinder the development and credibility of this encyclopaedia, which many of us work very hard to sustain. -- Necrothesp 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed opinions from complaints section. If you do not like Surrey Police, this isnt the place to bash them. This is an Encyclopedia, not a soap box. If it has been reported that there is a problem with the way Surrey Police deals with complaints, cite sources. Otherwise keep your opinions, right or wrong, off this page. Renski 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

found and cited a source for whats left of the complaints section, next set of statistics for 2005/2006 was due out in the autumn, but isnt with the rest of the statistics. I've emailed the IPCC to see whats happening with them, will update if I get a responce. I have also moved the complaints section further down, I doubt it will be something that most readers will be intrested in. Renski 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
New statistics have been released for 2005/06. Updated the complaints section and linked to new IPCC report. Renski 14:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)