User talk:Erc/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Thanks

Hey, Thanks for the input. I think I have a much better understanding of how to approach editing on wiki now. I'll be more considerate in the future so that any confusion is avoided. I also found the specific talk pages for the articles where all the relevant dialogue is taking place so I now have a go-to point for editing consensus. Narchy (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool didn't notice you're at Rutgers. I've got some friends there (I used to live in Westfield, Union County), small world :p.
Narchy (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Shinji

While I agree to removing the unofficial leader thing, Shinji is implied to be very powerful, as the vizards said something about Ichigo being unwise to battle Shinji. Plus, being a former captain and all, seeing as the vizard actually said something like that shows how powerful Shinji is. The measure in power is a valid point, and so I think it should be included.--Hanaichi 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about Ichigo not being serious either. My point is not about saying how awesome Shiji is, but rather to indicate some sort of his measure of power. However, despite Ichigo holding back due to the fear of his hollow surfacing, the later fight between Grimmjow and Shinji proves how powerful Shinji is, because Ichigo couldn't defeat Grimmjow until his power growth later but Shinji could blast Grimmjow out of the way with his cero. Its like the statement at Yamamoto, as he is "considered to be the strongest captain" and is "also able to fight on par with two of the most powerful captains" and the statements arent cited.--Hanaichi 07:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Cheers.--Hanaichi 07:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Thanks for the warning, but you know you should look into the context a bit before slapping the silly templates around. It is really rather irritating. The reverts were repairing cut and paste moves that are clearly contrary to policy. Second, the moves, even if done properly, were controversial moves that have been the subject of extensive discussion in the past and should have gone through WP:RM and not simply implemented unilaterally. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tigrett

You made the right call. Feel free to revert any unsourced info. y'am'can (wtf?) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami (Bleach)

Hi, I didn't realize you were Hobbeslover. Congrats on the new username. I have sort of reverted one of your edits to the article, and replaced it with different wording. I would've probably acted differently if I realized that it was you, but I still think the current version is better. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted the second one, but as I said, I was hoping to replace it with more clear and concise wording (diff). I apologize if my edit offended you. Feel free to insert the wording of your choise if you think this one is not good. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your userbox

Hi. I have moved your userbox from User Hn-N to User:Obaidz96/Userboxes/Hn-N. You have created this page incorrectly into main article space. I have requested User Hn-N to be deleted. Please see WP:Userboxes for the correct procedure on how to create a userbox. Thanks. erc talk/contribs 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just realized that you have multiple other incorrectly created userboxes - namely, User Hn-0, User Hn-1, User Hn-2, User Hn-3, User Hn-4, User Hn-5, and User Hn-6. I have moved or copied all of these pages back to your user space, where you will find them at User:Obaidz96/Userboxes/Hn-X where X is the number of the box. I have requested deletion for all of these templates. Feel free to create these templates in the appropriate manner. Thanks. erc talk/contribs 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Is it ok now? I don't want to violate any rules. --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Type Equivalence

I am not arguing that those are nicely written pages, but they feel to be lacking something that this page had. Furthermore, I feel that those pages are done in such a way that the information would be inappropriate in those locations.

Also, how are they not really what wikipedia is? I would like further information on this as you seem to know all about reverting pages back to previous states, and are some kind of college student, so you must know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitnickenizer (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Special Operations

You can claim "special operations" has a military connotation, but is IS a term often used by law enforcement agencies for their SWAT teams. In fact, the Sheriff's Office in my own county has an entire bureau called the Special Operations Bureau and the SWAT team is called the SOS (Special operations squad). I know of other agencies where this is also the case. So please consider that just because it means one thing to you, that doesn't mean it is the same to everyone. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The way that the article was previously written was bad because it put a strong emphasis on the military nature of SWAT. Firstly, SWAT is more of a paramilitary organization. But secondly, SWAT is a civilian organization. There are really only two classifications of people, military or civilian. Yes, SWAT and police officers are generally not considered "civilian" because of their special duties and status. However, in this context, they are civilians (See the definition in the article on civilians).

As far as special operations go, the previous article's emphasis on counter-terrorism and comparison to SEAL teams was misplaced, in my opinion. SWAT does carry out counter-terrorism, but they are, at its heart, a civilian police force. Military special operations conduct secretive operations that often involve killing. SWAT do not generally kill people -- they are police. They arrest people and do police-duties such as serving arrest warrants. Naming a police department "Special Operations Bureau" draws a different connotation than saying they are "Special Forces". Special Operations BUREAU -- notice the additional term here -- makes "Special Operation" into more of an adjective in a literal sense, a bureau that conducts operations beyond the norm. Using the term "Special Operations" and "Special Forces" in the article draws a military connotation. See the article on Special forces (Special operations redirects there as well). Special forces are trained killers, who work alone in small groups. SWAT teams are NOT trained killers and they have a lot more support. It's inappropriate on several levels to call SWAT "special forces". erc talk/contribs 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, but I think you are 1) being too literal and 2) taking too narrow of a view. Most of my adult life has been in law enforcement. The use of "civilian" has nothing to do with SWAT. It has to do with the difference between SWORN officers and everyone else. Every agency I've worked for refers to NON-sworn personnel as "civilian employees". The sworn officers aren't referred to as civilians. Saying that there are 2 classifications "military or civilian" isn't very accurate. Even on the federal level, there is deliniation between sworn and civilian and even federal vs civilian. You are looking at it from a strictly dictionary sense, whereas I am looking at it from a more actual use sense. I agree that some editors have tried to make the comparison with military counterparts too strong, but that doesn't negate the fact that "special operations" is a valid term and is in common usage. One nearby agency calls their SWAT the SOU (Special Operations Unit). Calling special forces "trained killers" really isn't terribly accurate either. Army SF, for example, spends more time training to train others than to kill anyone. Their primary mission is to set up resistence networks and establish organizations, not to be Rambo or some super-soldier. SF soldiers are selected for their ability to THINK more than their ability to kill. Having been in both special operations in the military and SWAT, I can say I see little difference in an emphasis on killing in one or the other. While law enforcement uses euphamisms like "shoot to stop", the object is to put the guy down and keep him down with accurate fire, which is the same thing I trained for in the Army. The fact that SWAT and military cross-train with each other and attend many of the same schools speak to that fact. In fact, up until recently, one of the biggest trainers of SWAT teams was the Army Military Police School. Bottom line: the term special operations, in and of itself, is not out of place and shouldn't be deleted and I think you are being way to literal about the use of "civilian" Try this: Walk up to the yellow tape at a crime scene and ask the officer if civilians can enter. After he says no, watch the steady stream of sworn officers go in and out of the crime scene. Maybe you'll see what I mean. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.113 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Table at HIV

Hi Erc,

There's a discussion that may interest you at Talk:HIV#Infection_rate_chart.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Limivorous

Well spotted. Thank you. --TS 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)