Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 3

message: ====Info Box====

::See Below for addition and discussion.
====Gallery====
0. badges
1. ranks
2. insignia
3. medals
====Main Body====
0. Intro
:a. Brief intro
::1. location
::2. founding date
:b. mission statement
1. History
:a. past chiefs, superintendents etc.
:b. this is where special stories of interest would be placed unless it is present day
: event as in currently happening-after it concludes it should be moved to history
:c. line of duty deaths, wall of honor
2. PresentDay
:a. current info
:b. current strategies
:c. critism
3. Structure and Organization
:a. ranks (reporting structure)
:b. units (unit organization)
::1. normal
:::a. duties
:::b. jurisdiction (expounding on info)
::2. special
::3. divisions
::4. bureaus
::5. auxillary
:c. recruitment
::1. qualifications
::2. selection process
4. Equipment
:a. uniforms
::1. awards and medals
::2. badges and patches
:b. facilities
::1. initial training
::2. enhanced training
::3. daily ops facilities
6. Further Information
:a. trivia
:b. publications
: c. facts, figures, statistics
:d. fictional references
7. References (for info in the pg itself)
8. External links
Sorry, didn't read the entry above about an info box that was already made until after I created this template: Template:Infobox LE Organization.  It is done in the same spirit.  I took the liberty of filling in some of the information as an example of what it can look like.  I am going to add it below to the template that was proposed and is being discussed.  I look forward to comments.
Oh and if someone knows how to successfully place that box as an example on this page...I tried but my skills are still limited.  Thanks.
cprockhill 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization Page Template

message: 0. Intro
:a. Brief intro
::1. location
::2. founding date
:b. mission statement
1. History
:a. past chiefs, superintendents etc.
:b. this is where special stories of interest would be placed unless it is present day
: event as in currently happening-after it concludes it should be moved to history
:c. line of duty deaths, wall of honor
2. PresentDay
:a. current info
:b. current strategies
:c. critism
3. Structure and Organization
:a. ranks (reporting structure)
:b. units (unit organization)
::1. normal
:::a. duties
:::b. jurisdiction (expounding on info)
::2. special
::3. divisions
::4. bureaus
::5. auxillary
:c. recruitment
::1. qualifications
::2. selection process
4. Equipment
:a. uniforms
::1. awards and medals
::2. badges and patches
:b. facilities
::1. initial training
::2. enhanced training
::3. daily ops facilities
6. Further Information
:a. trivia
:b. publications
: c. facts, figures, statistics
:d. fictional references
7. References (for info in the pg itself)
8. External links
Sorry, didn't read the entry above about an info box that was already made until after I created this template: Template:Infobox LE Organization.  It is done in the same spirit.  I took the liberty of filling in some of the information as an example of what it can look like.  I am going to add it below to the template that was proposed and is being discussed.  I look forward to comments.
Oh and if someone knows how to successfully place that box as an example on this page...I tried but my skills are still limited.  Thanks.
cprockhill 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Body

message: I hope to get some good dialogue going on this issue and perhaps we can come to an agreement as to what a universal template might look like.  Every page will be different.  It will have different graphics, style, specific information, but that does not mean that it cannot all be organized in a similar way.  Also, I tried to pick categories that fit well with most if not all agencies.  I also placed sub categories where I think they should go if they are included, not that they should be included and should be blank if there is no information.  Also sub categories might find themselves repeated in the categories of history vs. present day.  I don't except that they would need to be repeated in other broader areas.
I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks.
It was supposed to look like an outline so if someone knows how to easily fix that I would appreciate it.
Thanks
cprockhill 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to see such enthusiasm! A couple of thoughts on your ideas: Very good overall, I agree with most of it. However, it occurs to me that mission would be very similar for many of the police force articles (for example every police force in the states would have similar missions)? SGGH 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the mission is very similar for a lot of organizations; I have added a number zero which will be the brief intro text for the article, which is great place to tell when it was found, where it is located, perhaps a quick mention of size and of course the mission statement or motto...the specific mission statement.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, organisation, duties, jurisdiction, strategies, they all seem to be overlapping slightly, and also would over lap with the present day section (thought you have already mentioned that).SGGH 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have combined organization and structure.  The difference for the sake of explanation is structure should be used in terms of rank structure and reporting and organization should be used to talk about what units there are within the organization and how they are dispersed through the patroling jurisdiction.  Again, I agree with that point and I think it really addresses the idea that we need to make sure that we make these articles and not lists of information.  Having those two seperate would make it to easy to just list in the information and a prime example of that is the category of organization used on the [] page.  Who reports to who reports to who should probably go into a nice neat gallery of some sort--like the one I added to the template upon your urging.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A lot of the jurisdiction might go in the intorduction anyway, for instace Avon and Somerset Constabulary states the jurisdiction in the opening sentence. These are just ideas of course, though I do something think that many police forces as so different that a standard structure would be difficult to enforce (for example, comparing the NYPD to the A&S Constabulary. Those are just my thoughts at the moment, great work! SGGH 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would change the Category of "headquarters and stations" in the A&S Constabulary article to Structure and Organization and then talk about how there is a headquarters and stations with the main text of that section.  The list that follows is a little lengthly and might cause me to lose sleep at night trying to figure out what to do with it to make it appear more tidy or easier to read-but this article is not my baby so I am resting fine.  The NYPD article on the other hand would have their Structure [category] changed to Structure and Organization and cats 6-9 included under the new broader title.  The info under the current Organization [category] would also find its way into the new broader category.  I currently find it much too listy and would have reorganize it to make it more like an article, perhaps add a chart graphic if I could find one or make a side bar.  So, the standard structure works for both even if the explanation is long and the two seem very different.  Not all the cats or sub cats have to be there.  This is guide line.  We fill in the cats as needed, placing them where we all have pre agreed to put them.  That is the ultimate goal.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A lot of the sub categories seem to be over lapping; I mainly just list them where I thought that sort of information might go.  I agree with the comment of listing data; bad idea!  I beleive that individuals will have to make judgement calls so as to avoid having their articles be a series of lists.  That will have to be a point of discussion for the LE project so that we have a rule of thumb that we use internally.  I will start the discussion by proposing that only the Categories and Subcats get put up into table of contents and any category beyond sub-cat will have be informational text within that area.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Added one above, I like the one on the Avon and Somerset Constabulary as jumping off point.  We might want to consider also having a picture of the place/jursidiction of the organization, the population that is being policed and/or the emblem, patch, crest etc.cprockhill 10:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will be making all these changes as we all agree to on the New York State Police page.  I would have not problem with anyone in the project going there and making the changes before I get around to it either--some people are teritorial which is strange for an open source project like this but they are--I am not just as long as things are done in the spirit bla, bla.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I added both a gallery and sidebar template to be discussed or edited that includes the strength.  I also thought that size of population, jurisdication location and/or size would give a nice perspective of strength.  I believe that a lot of the facts and figures in the Trivia section could possibly go into the main body of the article.  Again the sub cats are guidelines of things that would go under main categories.  I have a trivia section on New York State Police page because I just don't have enough information to flesh out a full fledge section on the uniform but I think it is very interesting their uniform color is made by the combining of equal parts of white material and black material.  Interesting as it may be I just don't know where to put it so it gets lumped under a bullet in Trivia.  As articles get really fleshed out the trivia will be incorporated and ultimately those sections should just die off.  Concerning the recruitment and training I seperated out the two based on what it takes to join or be selected to join an organization and the first step or initial training your receive once you are in.  The training facilities wouldn't really fall under a discussion of the rank structure or organization of forces.  While I thought it did fit nicley under facilities.  If ultimately more members of the project like it the other way then it should be changed.  Perhaps we can get some others to weigh in.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We want something flexible.  I gave an example how what we are working with can work for most pages.  Having a template will give us a good place to start, and I don't think it will be as hard as it appears now initially.  If this is truly a project then there should be some sort of overall feel to LE pages.  All the pages for each State in America in Wiki have the same feel, they have the same basic structure, the same category layout.  We can do the same thing.  It won't happen over night, after all I am the 30th member, not the 3000th member.  Having these templates, being on the same page (no pun intended) will allow us to go out there and talk to the people we see popping up and making a little changes on some of our favorite LE sites, ask them to join the LE project.  If they do join they will have the tools, templates, and direction to go out there and know what to work on next.  When I first started working on the New York State Police I found the difference just between that site and other highway patrol sites stagering.  It will take time but we can do it.  It won't work for every site (some pages in the LE project are not about the organization but a  piece of equipment I suspect) but it can work for most.cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and thanks for fixing the indents...colons...hmmm...colons...yes....damn you colons!cprockhill 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I found my own infobox that the bottom of this discussion page.  I am sure someone else will notice it...if you could tell what I have done wrong I would really, really like to know...this has been frustrating me a lot.cprockhill 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot thank you so much for the help.  Now I can see where I went so terribly wrong...plus add that box to some of my pages I am working on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cprockhill (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template Discussion

message: I created this template; 

It shows up fine in preview but is not there when I save the page...can someone help me?
Also when I put this preview in, in the template it specifies that the box should be aligned to the right; without changing that specification, how do you get it align back to the left just for the sake of showing it one this page?
Thankscprockhill 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found my own infobox that the bottom of this discussion page.  I am sure someone else will notice it...if you could tell what I have done wrong I would really, really like to know...this has been frustrating me a lot.cprockhill 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot thank you so much for the help.  Now I can see where I went so terribly wrong...plus add that box to some of my pages I am working on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cprockhill (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Problems 

message: I think that County police has some duplication with the List of U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies and is something we will also have to address probably on a wide scale. cprockhill 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: I changed the main project page and the project directory to WP:LE instead of WPP:LE as it looks like this project was the only one using it? If I made a mistake, please change it back! →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPP:LE shortcut & more

message: I just want to thank our administrator and all who positively contribute to this project. It's still in its infancy, but it set out to have a good Project free of conflict (which aside from one blip it does handily, and that not from a Project member), and we have a place we can throw out ideas, see what works, tinker and modify freely, and it is great to see what each brings to the project. Chris 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... cheers Chris. I'm not an administrator in the proper sense if that's what you meant, I'd like to be but I don't think I'd pass an RFA just yes. And yes, fortunatly, we have only have the one conflict, and that seems to have died down. But you're right to pass congratulations to all who contribute, nothing would be working if it wasn't for a number of members here, who all know who they are :) SGGH 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have our ways......On the serious side, I think you would make an excellent Administrator, and would definetly supportJeff503 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks again, if/when I get nominated for an RFA, I'll be sure to let you know! Though they don't like advertising :D SGGH 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hope my police and university work gets a reception like this when I go in May and September respectively. Cheers all, being an admin is something I would really like to be. SGGH 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All members are welcome that afford their fellows the respect they themselves wish to be afforded. This place is like life-a lot of what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Chris 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I sense sarcasm from Patchbook, or was that a true statement?Jeff503 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately it was probably sarcasm. SGGH 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just gpt through reading his user pageJeff503 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Patchbook has joined this wikiproject now, and I look forward to his future contributions. He has a lot to bring to the project, having been a police officer for quite some time as well as a law specialist. I've mentioned before how previous conflicts should now be water under the bridge. Users who put in what they should to the wikiproject are most welcome :) SGGH 12:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for SGGH

message: I have been thinking, that we should have certain roles for the commited members of the project who edit regularly. Here, if you like, we could discuss what roles we need and what users could fill them? SGGH 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I though of you as complains manager as soon as I saw it there. I agree with your choices of role so far. Wait for other users to pitch in ideas before we start assigning users to roles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea i think we should "play it by ear" lets see what others make of it. I dont mind that position of complaints manager actually Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I like all the ideas so far. I am still new here and learning how to do things, but would liek to help where I can. EMT1871 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be glad to, but on main page of this project there could be some kind of box saying "The currect duty manager is: Example" Like the box below, if you can improve it, please do! Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the small print, cause if im online I'll just mark myself as online and it won't matter. When you go off line, just take  the online tag from the table and leave your slot blank. If more than one is online, then you just have the same red tag in both those users boxes. I've filled it in at the moment the way it should be if myself and dep garcia are online and working.SGGH 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made a template you can add it anywhere you like, here is the like:   Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  16:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent work. I suggest the new duty managers have this on their user page somewhere so you can easily mark that you are online. SGGH 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have changed the title of "leader" to "General Manager" for SGGH as it is more formal, argee? Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also makes me appear less egotistical, lol SGGH 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: RE: revert, lol it's no problem, just a sleepy user. And yeah thats fine, tho my sad minded side may occasionally change my own message to "The Doctor is in!" Or something equally annoying :P SGGH 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats fine with me :-) Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a little note on the duty managers talk page (Bobanny & Necrothesp) telling them that they are a duty manager. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though the terms "duty manager" and "general manager" seem to imply an formal/authoritive position over the rest of the members, we are infact not, we have no powers over other members and we will not make ourselfs seem we do, all we are here for is to maintain and organise this project and provide help. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that. My concern is that the titles sound too (unnecessarily) hierarchical. -- Necrothesp 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent seen the main focus of it to show who is "in charge", but more to show where people can leave urgent messages if they need help quickly. It's only in trial stage at the moment anyway, we'll see. But your concerns make sense, Necrothsp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How about more of a help desk thing? As in "these members are behind the help desk at the moment"? SGGH 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there really any need? Are we flooded with enquiries? I think a simple list of contacts is enough. I really can't envisage why anyone would need a help desk anyway to be honest. Help with what? -- Necrothesp 11:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, project is growing though. Larger projects have that kind of setup, maybe we will need it one day? SGGH 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested in why larger projects feel they need it. What is the purpose of a helpdesk? We shouldn't have one simply because other projects do, but because we need one. My feeling is that on Wikipedia our primary form of "help" is discussion. If people need help with specific queries they post it on a talkpage (like this one) or leave a message for someone whom they think has expertise in that field. I think it's far more helpful to assemble a list of people with expertise in particular fields (for instance, my specific interests in the law enforcement field are biographies of individual senior officers, ranks and organisation - I'm not so interested in procedures, equipment etc, although I will naturally edit them if I think of something) to provide advice if other editors feel they need it. I feel that is what we should be concentrating on, not on trying to form some sort of generic "helpdesk" with a rather undefined purpose. -- Necrothesp 11:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we could do that, leave you're interests next to your name in the participants section maybe? You're comments have swayed me slightly with this duty manager thing I confess, I hope Dep. Garcia isn't too bothered. No final concensus met as of yet anyway. SGGH 12:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheers Dep. I still feel we need to have some sort of organisation, there are jobs to be done in this project that could be given to certain users that have expertise in that area. If we could identify those, we could allocate them as long as we avoided any hierachal appearance. SGGH 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions? SGGH 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *stands up* "Yes SGGH, i have an opinion" lol. I understand and agree with the probs posted above, though personally i find it useful to know whose online. Esp. Dep Garcia, a useful one that one, lol :D. But otherwise, maybe it isn't such a useful thing. SGGH 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have changed it to coordinators rather than managers. Even if the hierachy thing is an issue, I think we still need to identify which among us are responsibly for the housework, and who to direct questions to, and so on. SGGH 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i have also changed the duty mananger box. to include links of where to talk to us etc. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators 

message: Why is this article in the unassessed articles catagory? there seem to be others as well that have been placed in this catagory despite being assessed. Could someone take a look to see what the problem is? Cheers SGGH 10:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that article it was because it was a lower case "b" it needs to be a upper case "B" to able to work for some reason. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Perhaps best to just use capital B's rather than try to tinker with the template to make it accept lower case. SGGH 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  category confusion 

message: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope (which I will soon create) where we will discuss the scope of this project, because I think we have more kinds of articles than we should have, and I want to have a place where users can see what we should have in our project and what we should not have, and also on the talk page there they can ask if something is in the scope of our project. Discuss further on the talk page of the scope subpage, cheers all SGGH 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The scope of this project 

message: :: I started discussion on removing the WP:LE tag from Forensic electrical engineering on the articles talk page. Let me know what everyone thinks.EMT1871 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the law enforcement side of it is not the dominant aspect of the article, the dominant aspect appears to be the technological side. SGGH 12:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forensic electrical engineering

message: ::I started discussion on removing the WP:LE tag from Gait analysis on the articles talk page. Let me know what everyone thinksEMT1871 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agreed! SGGH 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gait analysis

message: ::I started discussion on removing the WP:LE tag from Lieutenant on the articles talk page. Let me know what everyone thinks.EMT1871 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we take this and the others above to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope. I don't have a definite preference, but it seems we need to clarify the parameters of the project to be consistent in these kinds of decisions (and SGGH and others seem to be on the same page). Bobanny 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the vast majority of the article is not about the police SGGH 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieutenant

message: Please drop by the project scope talk page and comment on a proposed list of subjects to exclude. Thanks, Bobanny 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a standard is being developed, thought should be given to a baseline for line of duty articles. They are the most frequent biographies targeted for deletion, like the recent Filippo Raciti probably will be, yet often the perpetrator (to say nothing of every no account rapper, video game and episode of x TV show...) has their own article. This should somehow be codified as it seems skewed badly. Chris 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability of articles on officers killed in the line of duty is a recurring problem. Often, I think the best plan of action is to merge the officers bio into an article on the event itself (if its part of a robbery etc.) as long as the event is notable enough, that way you have the weight of the officers article, the event, and the perp all rolled into one! However, if its about an officer killed in a drive by shooting or something else which is judged non-notable (no matter how we feel about such things personally) then unfortunatly there isn't much we can do when these articles come up for deletion... SGGH 11:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I can't think of a uniform standard for notability, or what we'd do with it even if we had one, since it comes down to the labour of individual editors and Wikipedia non-notability police (separate, of course, from WikiPedia Law enforcement). Generally, merging seems the best method to save something from deletion. Grouping stubby line of duty articles would be another option if the event is non-notable, so maybe have Italian police killed in the line of duty or something along those lines. Bobanny 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another point is that grouping line of duty stubby articles into one would open it up for notable context as to the danger faced by that particular force. A Canadian city police force recently lost its first member in the line of duty in its 100+ year history, and I've been curious to know what their secret is (Windsor, a small city, but right across the border from Detroit.Bobanny 14:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True, we may have to just have "use your judgement" in each case of a police officer killed in the line of duty. SGGH 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles to exclude

message: Filippo Raciti has been nominated for deletion. My vote is for a strong keep. PLease see the article's discussion page and put your two cents in. Hope you vote to keep also.EMT1871 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like it needs much help :D definitely a keep though, the significance of his death is substantial. SGGH 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD discussion

message: The military history project likes all their members of have userpages (i.e. no redlink in their signature). I've noticed quite a few in our participants list, and wondered whether any problems could be forseen, or whether anything might be suggested. SGGH 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its an overrated policy.  Userpages are a frill, not a core of WP.  Users are distinguished by their edit history, not their facade. Vees 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon if your not going to have a userpage you should redirect it to your talk page that way it wont be a red link. User:Glen S does this. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I came across admins who said you shouldn't do that... I think my worry is just that redlinked user pages are from users who don't contribute much, but I admit thats rather unfounded. SGGH 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: yea the same with me, when i see a contributer with a red linked userpage i think "oh god another time waster" often i am wrong Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh great, we could impose a rule saying you have to have over a certain amount of good contribtions to join this project? just a thought Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just seen that User:Achl253 is one of those vandals with no good edits Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect he joined cause I issued all the warnings to him. It would be nice to have some rule to stop people like this. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFH- vandal warnings should be at least an hour or so apart to give the person a chance to read the message.  I think a 2 min gap between vandal2 and vandal3 is a bit short.  Vees 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess it's a matter of opinion. I issue so many vandal warnings, there is no way I can remember to come back in an hour, and see if they have been bad again.  A large number of people do multiple vandalism, and (due to the over-lenient rules) they won't get blocked until they have got three warnings, that means I have to space three warnings over three hours (no way I'm going to do that). In the meantime, they can vandalize a lot of stuff. There is also a difference between issuing warnings for someone who may misunderstand how Wiki works - in whcih case a slow approacs is correct, and someone who inentionly makes several attacks of unquestioned vandalism.  --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because I've had other cases where someone I warned "stalked" me and joined groups or participated in discussions where I was involved. For a new user to join a project I'm in seems to much of a co-incidence. But if he does nothing bad, I guess there is no problem. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This group may be particularly vulnerable to this because attention seeking folks often try to be "associated with" law enforcement.  Vees 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Less "groupie" more "sycophant."  I"m sure you know the type. Vees 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmmm is all I can say... hmmm SGGH 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members with no userpage 

message: On the Law Enforcement template which is  on the very first line it says "This article is within the scope of..." I think we should change the "This article" bit to  so if we were to place it on the Police page for example it would read "Police is within the scope of..." or something like that. But on the template itself it would look like this: " is within the scope of..." and we could also change the word "scope" to have a link for the project scope page Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope. 
So now on that Police page it would look like this:
* Police is within the scope of..."
And this non-article page would say:
* " non-article page is within the scope of..." 
Please give me your views on this!!!!
Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it is my view SGGH 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Bobanny 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job SGGH 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Enforcement Template 

message: The article on Kevin Beary, an American sheriff who heads a department of well over 1,000 officers, has been proposed for deletion with no more reason than a bare assertion that he's "unnotable". Personally, I would consider any chief of a department of this size to be notable. If you agree, then I would ask you to voice your opinion. Incidentally, I had no hand in the creation of this article, but I don't think articles on chiefs of large law enforcement organisations should be deleted. -- Necrothesp 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the AfD was: Keep. Dep. Garcia  ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints )  12:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion