Talk:Police memorabilia collecting

message: I am the original poster of the article. I am new to this forum and admit my first attempt at posting here may have needed some advise or correction. I am NOT a professional wiki.
The above being said, I would rather the whole article be removed than have it altered and vandalized to the extent you folks have done which gives it significantly different meaning. You could have added your information as new information without ruining.
 
From my perspective as a retired California police officer, four decade patch collector, and non-profit publisher of the most comprehensive database on California law enforcement emblems in the world...you folks have butchered the facts and the thrust of the article. 
The focus of police patch collecting posting was to accurately inform about preserving law enforcement emblem history in the US from coast to coast. It no longer does that. 
(Patchbook 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have answered this on your talk page. I can see that you've made some excellent changes to this article, but you need to keep in mind if your working on wikipedia that your articles will be edited by others, no always for the best. It is a fact everyone has to get used to I'm afraid. Kind regards, SGGH 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Patchbook-FYI No one is a professional Wikipedian. I have once again had to revert your changes back to a more encyclopedic version-see Wikipedia:No original research-Wikipedia is no one's private domain. Your article did not do all the things you claim, and you are not allowed to be the sole editor, no matter your claimed credentials. If you want to maintain your own website, you can say whatever you like. This community aims to be an encyclopedia, and appreciated as your start to the article was, it's nowhere near encyclopedic. That's why the tags were placed there, and that's why they will remain there until the article is better. Chris 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a low level warning template on the user talk page about removing the tag. Now that users have made their points and the matter has been aired, I hope all can put their efforts to improve this article to something that both Patchbook and Chris, as well as any one else who's interested, can be happy with. SGGH 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early January 2007 argument 

message: This message is directed at the user(s) operating from the following IP's, who are continually removing the tags for this article:
172.192.60.88
208.127.49.136
and now 208.127.49.53 SGGH 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another 208. domain, 208.127.49.67, that keeps spamming this article onto unrelated sites. The interesting thing is, these 208. vandals pop up in conjunction with our persistent territorial author. If it walks like a duck... Chris 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the tags 

message: I've rewritten parts of it to try to straighten it out somewhat, there were a number of sentences and indeed whole sections that didn't seem to even make sense in places, so i have removed or reworded them extensively in places, if you don't agree feel free to find them in the history and add them again, but i suggest against a total revert as some of the other changes i have made have been important, I have also removed the wikify tab and added the references one. SGGH 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its been cleaned up now, have taken that tag down SGGH 09:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your edits and will continue to revert revision back to the original unencyclopedic version when it pops up. Chris 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've now replaced the cleanup tag because I've noticed that the article is talking about both patch swapping between forces as well as memorabilia collecting by civilians, but with no clear sections for each, the prose goes back and forth between the two. Ive made a quick edit or two to try to change it but I think it needs more substantial cleanuppery regarding this. SGGH 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you've done-now it's starting to resemble an encyclopedic article. Chris 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion, duly and repeatedly noted. Your view of others' expertise is not, however, the truth, else you yourself would have written the article better in the first place. Chris 10:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-writing 

message: ::Perhaps some info on what kind of values are put on such items? SGGH 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea, but such prices are cyclical, many styles (state shapes, or ones with trains...) come in and out of vogue, so it is hard to have a consistent pricing year-to-year.Chris 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, and saying "general prices for hats can range from X-Y) isn't very encyclopedic, tell you what, you could quote specific prices to give an idea, like "for instance, a badge from the NYPD circa 1905 can fetch around..." or is even that difficult to do? Just throwing ideas around. SGGH 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pricing

message: I still have a problem with the force trading of patches etc. being there, at least there in that form. "Police memorabilia collecting is a hobby..... police forces trading..." they don't link up. Possible move to a title which would cover both sides of it? Because at the moment the title refers to the hobby and the bit about the trading seems stapled on to the end in my opinion. SGGH 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought actually it could be re-worded to police forces aquiring collections of other forces memorbilia, that would work. May give it a try in a second. SGGH 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to re-write it, feel free to comment or revert if there are serious problems. But I would suggesting commenting first in case others agree with the changes. Regards, SGGH 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  still confusion 

message: In this edit to this article, an editor said that removing a proposed deletion (aka ) is vandalism. Proposed deletion is only for uncontested article deletions; therefore, anyone may contest a prod by removing the prod notice. If one party still feels the article should be deleted, it should be nominated through the Articles for Deletion process, which will generate a discussion. The fate of this article would then depend on the consensus reached in that discussion. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about deletion process 

message: I have removed this article from the WP:LE article watch, as the problems seem to have died down now. SGGH 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Watch

message: I think this article should contain more information on what is collected. Seems a bit vague. Jeff503 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Run with it! Anyone is welcome to edit this article, that's the point we've been making all along. Chris 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If that version was at all encyclopedic, it would have been left pretty much in that state. It had good info, but was not encyclopedic, and you heartily object to the suggestion that parts should be sourced or tagged properly, so my vote is no to reversion back to that iteration. Chris 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solution is to rewrite the article further, bringing in Patchbook's information and article direction, but making it encyclopedia and verifiable. A combination of current and past. SGGH 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless there is an overwhelming reason why this article should not be reverted, I intend to do so that it may properly reflect the subject matter.Patchbook 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been explaining through the course of this talkpage why reversion is unacceptable. I can give you several overwhelming reasons
*The original article was written poorly, unsourced and unclear as to the direction the article was going.
*You refuse to work _with_ other Wikipedia users, believing your own edits to be the only viable ones. They are not. This is a community where experts, amateurs and everyone in between may freely edit the article to make it better, as myself and several others have done.
*You show you will not work with others in the future. You use this article and user talkpages such as my own as sources of contention, just as your cut-and-paste from my userpage today shows; under Wikipedia guidelines, that counts as a personal attack. The other author you quoted is also one who refuses to work within the community, and bandies about accusations as loosely as you do. I will continue to fight such bad editors. That I happened to run across two at once is sheer bad luck.
*SGGH and other moderators of the Law Enforcement Project have appealed to you to come into the fold and be a valued editor who respects others. Your edits show you have no such intention. You even edit the comments of others for style and spelling, that is rude and against Wikipedia etiquette.
*Your original article had some merit, and was a good start, but was no more encyclopedic than a cereal box. For someone who claims to be an expert, you wrote things you did not source, I expect cannot source, and do not accept constructive criticism such as tagging for cleanup and clarity. I had hoped you would realize the Wikipedia way is the way all articles are done, and would modify your behavior thus, but you have repeatedly shown unwillingness to do so.
*Originally I had thought to throw up my hands and say I've had enough, to let you go back to your original article, and let a whole new batch of editors tussle with you. Nope. Ground needs to be stood. If you want to insist that your original article be the version, then put it up for Wikipedia:Third opinion. Let another party outside of this judge your wish on its merit. If they say you have a point, I will abide by that.
Chris 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think (and hopefully both Chris and Patchbook agree with me) that re-writing the article to include both Patchbooks expert knowledge and the necessary wikipedia article content as outlined by the manual of style, in other words, as I said above, the best of both worlds. I hope we can all remain calm and diplomatic, and that goes for me as well as others. Thanks all SGGH 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: Speaking of re-writes, I think it would be a good idea to propose major changes here, where people can make helpful suggestions to each others.
* The only one that occurs to me initially, Patchbook... do you have any books or reliable websites that have the history of police patch collecting in them that could be used as references here? That would at least dispose of the need for the refs tag. SGGH 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, SGGH, that is a great constructive approach, to propose specific delineated changes here. Chris 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patchbook, it's you who are really being given a series of second chances. One important thing when you're creating the new article is to provide some references, if you have links to some sites of the history of police patch collecting with which researchers can confirm the articles info. Cheers and good luck with your re-write SGGH 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patchbook, Chris, and other interested users... perhaps discuss changes here