Hello, I'm
Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
MacArthur Maze because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Fraggle81 (
talk)
01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi 946towguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Have you perhaps conflated "pejorative" and "perjurious" here? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
( talk) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, But you are incorrect. NOBODY who lived here called 'The Maze' the Macarthur Maze' prior to the mid 1990's. The recent trend seems to be fueled by articles, such as this wikipedia article.
Where are your sources? All I see are a couple of recent instances of a reporter or spokesperson getting a name wrong. If you want a source of 'Common Name' then I am a source. I have lived in the East Bay for over 40 years and grew up KNOWING the Macarthur Maze as the Macarthur Maze. I grew up knowing the other interchange as 'The Maze'. EVERYBODY I know calls the Macarthur Maze by it's correct name and calls the Distribution Structure 'the Maze' None of the references in the article, which inaccurately name the interchange date to before 2007. It appears that, as a result of incorrect information on Wikipedia and other sites, some have begun mistaking these interchanges.
Your recent edit on Sandra Fluke was in violation of WP:NPOV. Please go to the talk page and discuss such edits. Casprings ( talk) 07:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree! the article was in violation of NPOV and I was correcting the entry. Whatever.. Editing a page to make it neutral and remove bias is apparently a violation of the rules. The article used biased and inaccurate language which was not supported by the sources. It amounted to editorial.
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Barack Obama, Sr.. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
NeilN
talk to me
19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The edit was properly sourced. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: You should check yourself before reverting edits and making false accusations.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- NeilN talk to me 19:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Epicgenius. Your recent edit to the page
United States appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please
cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Are you sure that adding the reference from 1941 is correct? It may be outdated.
Epic Genius (
talk)
16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You undid my edits. I believe you were in error. 1)I corrected the information about the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. I used a valid source from 1941, which is commonly cited by judges, but there are numerous sources that state the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a jurisdiction.2)I removed a statement which was both dated and biased. The statement was not neutral, and was based on an editorial, which was itself based on old data.The reversion was mainly not in error. You can add the reference back, but the article said basically the same thing before and after your edit. Epic Genius ( talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed the order of the list to the correct order of precedence, with the Sheriff's Department listed first and the local police after because the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)of the court's jurisdiction while local police serve the community at large. State level law enforcement should be listed third, because they are generally limited in scope and extensions of the executive branch of the State administration. 946towguy ( talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but still, you could have made it clear that the sheriff is the most important officer for any given jurisdiction. Epic Genius ( talk) 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
How about this example, from the National Sheriff's Association website FAQ page? "6. What is the difference between a Sheriff and a Police Chief?
A Sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law-enforcement officer of a county. Chiefs of Police usually are municipal employees who owe their allegiance to a city." http://www.sheriffs.org/content/faq
Hello, I'm
Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
MacArthur Maze because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Fraggle81 (
talk)
01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi 946towguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Have you perhaps conflated "pejorative" and "perjurious" here? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
( talk) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, But you are incorrect. NOBODY who lived here called 'The Maze' the Macarthur Maze' prior to the mid 1990's. The recent trend seems to be fueled by articles, such as this wikipedia article.
Where are your sources? All I see are a couple of recent instances of a reporter or spokesperson getting a name wrong. If you want a source of 'Common Name' then I am a source. I have lived in the East Bay for over 40 years and grew up KNOWING the Macarthur Maze as the Macarthur Maze. I grew up knowing the other interchange as 'The Maze'. EVERYBODY I know calls the Macarthur Maze by it's correct name and calls the Distribution Structure 'the Maze' None of the references in the article, which inaccurately name the interchange date to before 2007. It appears that, as a result of incorrect information on Wikipedia and other sites, some have begun mistaking these interchanges.
Your recent edit on Sandra Fluke was in violation of WP:NPOV. Please go to the talk page and discuss such edits. Casprings ( talk) 07:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree! the article was in violation of NPOV and I was correcting the entry. Whatever.. Editing a page to make it neutral and remove bias is apparently a violation of the rules. The article used biased and inaccurate language which was not supported by the sources. It amounted to editorial.
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Barack Obama, Sr.. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
NeilN
talk to me
19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The edit was properly sourced. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: You should check yourself before reverting edits and making false accusations.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.-- NeilN talk to me 19:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Epicgenius. Your recent edit to the page
United States appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please
cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Are you sure that adding the reference from 1941 is correct? It may be outdated.
Epic Genius (
talk)
16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You undid my edits. I believe you were in error. 1)I corrected the information about the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. I used a valid source from 1941, which is commonly cited by judges, but there are numerous sources that state the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a jurisdiction.2)I removed a statement which was both dated and biased. The statement was not neutral, and was based on an editorial, which was itself based on old data.The reversion was mainly not in error. You can add the reference back, but the article said basically the same thing before and after your edit. Epic Genius ( talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed the order of the list to the correct order of precedence, with the Sheriff's Department listed first and the local police after because the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)of the court's jurisdiction while local police serve the community at large. State level law enforcement should be listed third, because they are generally limited in scope and extensions of the executive branch of the State administration. 946towguy ( talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but still, you could have made it clear that the sheriff is the most important officer for any given jurisdiction. Epic Genius ( talk) 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
How about this example, from the National Sheriff's Association website FAQ page? "6. What is the difference between a Sheriff and a Police Chief?
A Sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law-enforcement officer of a county. Chiefs of Police usually are municipal employees who owe their allegiance to a city." http://www.sheriffs.org/content/faq