This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pee Tern. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome
Hello, Pee Tern, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please always add something to the edit summary field; just a couple of words is often all that is needed. Don't be overwhelmed by any of this, or afraid of making mistakes, as all changes are kept and can be easily reverted.
{{helpme}}
There a number of articles listed in the See Also section of Law enforcement agency, which I have rewritten, and which is still a work in progress. Some of these seem to have redundant content (even before I did the rewrite) and do not seem to comply with Wiki policy of no pages with just links.
If you see something you think needs improving, the Be bold in editing it, you do not need any "approval" or be a "long term user" in order to make edits here. Wikipedia welcomes newcomers. VivioFateFan(Talk, Sandbox)08:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. What / where is the best place to get technical advice . . . after reading the Help pages . . . ?
RE: Questions
You are right, Dep. Garcia took over the project a while ago, and then we swapped back, we must have just fluffed the editing of the leadership box. I'll go to Dep. Garcia's page now and answer your questions there for you :) SGGHspeak!10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to link other users to that discussion page I built for you on the pages that you intend to change. If you don't get any discussion by say... then end of this week, perhaps you should go ahead with it, as I believe you have given concensus and discussion long enough. SGGHspeak!10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry SGGH. I had not forgotten. I was just trying to get a bit more meat on the page for people to discuss. I will probably start the process some next week now, if there are no objections. I have now "seeded" the relevant pages . . . Pee Tern (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I am just a beginner - how did you pick it up so quick ?
re: discussion page
The project tag is just the article side of your discussion page (your discussion is on the talk page) it is red linked simply because it is not being used, I gave you the talk page because it was discussion you wanted to promote, and if you want you can join the project, it only means that you are saying that you want to contribute to the project, it doesn't place any requirements on you or anything. Does bump up our numbers though, and you get a nifty welcome message. SGGHspeak!09:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, but if you look at the assessment section of the navigation box on the right, you will get links to the categories of each WPLE article according to their rating, if that helps. SGGHspeak!23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
Thank You for Yout interest in the subject. I'm affraid that I can't translate it into English personally wihout major stylistic, grammatic and even terminological errors. There are also some linguistic differences among the use of philosophical terms in different languages: I'm not sure if in English exists popular in continental philosophilcal terminology divison on "moral evidence", "methodological evidence" and "evidence as one of the theories of truth". 83.24.95.18 (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this article doesn't have any content. You may want to move it to your user space, because such articles are subject to speedy deletion. See WP:CSD#A3.
Once you've added enough material to it for it to be considered a WP:STUB, you could move it back to article space.
If you've created any more pages like this, with subheadings but no content, you should probably move those too.
A tag has been placed on Law enforcement and society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BarkeepChat | $18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed there is no article called "law enforcement". That seems really odd. Fortunately, someone renamed it to Law enforcement (disambiguation), paving the way for an article.
Just thought you would be interested in knowing this.
Thanks. The page as it was a few days ago was just a redirect to Police, which was rather misleading. There is a lot more to law enforcement than just police. I see that it has been renamed back again. At this stage I am not going to get into an edit conflict. I have achieved my main aim of having something there that I and others can add to. Pee Tern (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But it is this type of list I have a problem with. It is essentially just duplicating what is in Category:Law enforcement by country, it just looks prettier. Note also that I do not like Law enforcement by country either. It is misleading and can never even be even distantly remotely complete, and hence has negative encyclopedic value. It should also go. There should only be the category and a page for Law enforcement in (each) country. The category should then be referred to as List of law enforcement agencies by country. If we could get a bit of flexibility in categories to make them look a bit "prettier" then we would have everything in your list and the automation of a category. Pee Tern (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The list is more accurately named than the category, and is intended specifically to tie together the articles starting with "Law enforcement in". The scope of the list is presented in those articles. Note that the list is part of the "of present-day nations and states" series of lists. For example, see Geography of present-day nations and states. Keep in mind that redundancy with a category is not a valid reason to delete a list. Redundancy between Wikipedia's various navigation systems is synergistic, expected, and encouraged. See WP:CLN. In addition to merely providing links to existing articles, lists like Law enforcement in present-day nations and states show where the coverage is lacking with redlinks, and provide a convenient means for editors to create the pages missing from the set (just click on a redlink and start typing). For more details about lists and their purposes on Wikipedia, see WP:LISTS. Note that one of the purposes of lists is navigation, and that the category system does not have a monopoly on list-based navigation on Wikipedia. My opinion of categories is that they are not encyclopedic at all in that they aren't actually in the encyclopedia, and because of this they do not show up in the search results from Wikipedia's own search box. Searches of the category namespace itself don't actually search the categories, just the category pages. Also, the entries in categories can't be edited directly, such as adding references to them, making WP:VER impossible to enforce on category entries. Due to these and other reasons, categories are woefully inadequate, which is one reason why many users (including me) contribute to lists instead of categories. The Transhumanist14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not think we are in any basic disagreement here. Actually, I think we are in good agreement regarding categories' deficiencies. Where we differ is in our approach to a solution to the problem. I would like to see categories improved, whereas you have been forced to work around the problem. I also agree redundancy is a good thing but it should be different ways of achieving the same thing, not just almost exact parallels. If categories could be also be populated from the category end, with references, with some flexible content structuring, they already have links by definition, and also tagged for searching from main space, I think most, perhaps even all, of your issues seem to go ? Do you know what is involved in requesting an enhancement ? Pee Tern (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please advise what is wrong with it ? A number of administrators I have dealt with on article matters have not mentioned any problem at all ? Pee Tern (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
'Pee' is the name of the english alphabet character 'P', the initial of my actual first given name. If you are referring to 'pee' as slang for urine, surely that is just an unfortunate coincidence ? In line with Wikipedia's 'good faith' policy, I do not see how it is offensive to anyone ? Pee Tern (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
After a discussion on #wikipedia-en-admins the consensus is that this username is borderline but considered appropriate. --Rschen7754 (TC) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been invited to join the Museums WikiProject,
a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!
Saw it, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for the article you're looking for but I'm not aware of it either. I don't see anything in [[Category:Law enforcement museums and memorials]] or anything more general. I think you're right that there's a need for the article. I'll put it on the massive to-do-eventually list TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Politics infobox templates is the infobox subcat for Category:Politics and government templates. Why that is I don't know, but that's how its set up. As for putting a rationale on the talk page, generally, recategorization doesn't really require that unless it's something out of the ordinary. --WoohookittyWoohoo!06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories in Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency
Thanks for creating Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency. I added it to the Los Angeles Police Department article. However, can you remove the added categories that automatically come with it? Or at least give that as an option. It doesn't work for the United States. Plus, the U.S. law enforcement agencies have many different sub-categories. see: [[Category:United States state law enforcement agencies]]. Cmcnicoll (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my editing error with the minister2s. It still amazes me how one can look at something and test it so often and still miss things!
But you missed updating the documentation for the 4 to now 6 minsters. I have done this. Done
I have enhanced the autocategorisation to cater for alternate category naming conventions. I was hoping to get people to change to "the standard". See Category:Law enforcement agencies - it seems that only Singapore and the United States are out of step? In the meantime though, the auto categorisation will cope. Done
Thanks for using the new template so soon. Note that I think your entry of Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners should be against the overviewbody and [[California State Legislature]] should be against governingbody?
You're right, I changed the governing body to the city council. I forgot about the overviewbody field. Thanks. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Law enforcement agencies of New South Wales in Australia
Apparently you renamed this before the discussion was closed and added resolved and done tags. You may want to review how CfD works. Generally the discussions say open for 5 days. After which they are closed and the consensus action taken. Yes, there can be exceptions but I saw nothing in that discussion that was justifying a speedy close. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to cause any problems. I had created the category only a couple of days before hand, it had not been used by any one else, the comments received were in agreement. It was not a contraversial area. It just seemed no issue to get on and do it. Noted for next time. Peet Ern (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - but have not had Internet access for over a week. Thanks for the notice.
Template edits - Done
Being relatively new at Wikipedia, do I create the new category and manually move things, or do you just move the old one first? I am happy to do the/any drudge work.
When a category is populated by a template, as this one was, all you need to do is create the new category and make the change to the template. The system will automatically move the articles over. There were only two subcategories that needed to be moved manually, which I took care of. --Kbdank7116:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll
Hello there Pee Tern/2008-Jan-Jun,
We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.
Sure, I could do that. However, first let me know are you aware that the Polish article is focused on evidence (something evident, obviousness) and not on evidence (something presented, as in court). Hence such ideas as "Evidence as a criterion of truth" or "Evidence in epistemological context". If that's really what you're looking for - let me know. //Halibutt11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did notstrike out misleading wording! know that the polish article, pl:Oczywistość, was 'philosophical' as distinct from 'forensic'. In fact, this is why I wanted it, to help me sort out Evidence.
Thanks for the comment. Didn't mean to offend if thats the case, just putting my opinion out there. Personnally I think even a stub is better than nothing and we can always build on it once the articles created. Anyway to answer your question there are several. There are a lot of Medal of Honor recipients who still need articles or you could look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. I hope this helps but please let me know if you have any more questions.--Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Pee Tern I was wondering if you could help me out. I'm trying a template at Template:HS Conference, and I would like the map section to not be seen unless the map= parameter is used and also hide the Key People section if it's not used. Is that even possible? I tried to hide it using an if, but I couldn't get it to work. Do you think you could help me out? Thanks so much and sorry for asking for help without knowing you. §hep • ¡Talk to me!00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Done - no problem at all - if I have properly understood your requirements. There is some other tidy up I might suggest but as this is a work in progress I assume you have it in hand. Peet Ern (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you soo much! I really don't understand parser functions and have been taking bits and pieces from many template. Seems I must have caused a mess. Thanks again and have this shiny barnstar for your efforts!
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pee Tern. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Resolved
