User talk:TheGuntz

Welcome!

Hello, TheGuntz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Please amend your article on Operation Century taking account of wikipedia guidelines, particularly the NPOV rule. Deb 11:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(In sting operation edit summary) added note to advise users of Operation CENTURY page. You don't add a note, you add a wikilink. -- RHaworth 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

continuing to edit this OPERATION CENTURY article[edit]

I am very confused by these systems - I will try to continue and hopefully things will iron thesmelves out. Today I am going to continue to edit the OP CEN text. I would like to have been able to discuss how to highlight documents and sources for this article - I am not even sure how this talk facility works - itmight help till I'm more experienced in using these systems to communicate a little by ordinary email exchanges so I add that here >theguntz50@hotmail.com<. Apologies for this amateurism - don't grass me up to the News of the World. TheGuntz 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic. We all had to start somewhere... Deb 17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is likely to be one or two additional matters to briefly refer to in the body of this article and then I will try to put in hand the wikipedia style and other revisions that are being requested - I have begun to try an figure out what they amount to but may need some help from someone who knows the wikiology much better than me - for instance to do the categorisation task and possibly make various other linkages -also there is a 1999 published report about Century and this article is largely based correspondence and ephemera (including the tape recordings) which I have in my possesion (such as the blacked out Boateng and Essex Chief of police letters) but I am unclear as to what extent they could - or ought to be - available to wiki readers or for the purpose of verification of the content of this article. Anybody got any "ordinary speak" suggestions/advice?

TheGuntz 10:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would concentrate on the NPOV (neutral point of view) angle, as without it parts of the article could just be deleted for not conforming to this important rule. Other people will be quick to correct any grammar or spelling errors, and indeed will do any categorisation for you. Deb 12:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the talk page for the Operation Century article. It would be helpful if we could track down some more publically available sources for the event.

GordonRoss (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you get this reply okay to your query which I have just seen. In the body of the article for instance Essex Police "Service Delivery Standards" are referred to as they were in the period when controversy was current and they should be available in Essex Constavbulary and other archives - they are not secret. The relevant parts are reproduced in the referenced publication "WE'RE BREAKING NEW GROUND: OPERATION CENTURY" which is the most comprehensive public source for this operation. The operation itself did not get any public discussion before the criminal prosecution of those who were convicted of the murders when as the article makes clear CENTURY came to light. The daily Basildon Evening Echo carried worthwhile regular reports as the final criminal proceedings were under way including quite a lot of detail about CENTURY but the national press almost wholely concentrated on the murders themselves. Also by coincidence as the criminal trial got under way it coincided with the death of Princess Diana and coverage that might otherwise have surfaced did not. Bernard Omahoney has his extensive website about these Essex Boys murders and I have now indicated that full texts of most of the undercover phone calls (there were not many calls as thay soon had to be abandoned for reasons which the article explains) have now been uploaded in his "DOCUEMENTS" section but he has never fully gone into the operational or policy pros and cons of CENTURY itself on his website or in his various boks about the murders or convictions - he has to some extent but not in a way that offers addiitonal documentation. The same is true of Observer Crime Correspondent Tony Thompson in his book "BLOGGS 19" about the RETTENDON MURDERS supergrass Darren Nicholls. Altho the criminal convictions themselves are a decade old the case is still wide open and is being re-investigated by lawyers acting for those convicted and new informsation has very recently come to light. I have thought of putting "WE'RE BREAKING NEW GROUND: OPERATION CENTURY" on the web but it is a lot of work and I am not especially skilled at the task. I don't know if any of this helps and please get back to me if I could help further. TheGuntz

Postscript - I am rather unhappy about the tone of your "talk" comments - if you think that this OPERATION did not take place go to Collindale newspaper library look up the SUN newspaper item referred to in the article (which is reproduced in full in "WE'RE BREAKING NEW GROUND") and furthermore at Collindale also look at the newspaper file for late 1996 early 1997 of the BASILDON EVENING ECHO which as stated above carried daily extensive reports about this OPERATION and relevant dates are given in the article. Go onto the Barnard Omahoney ESSEX BOYS website which is full of RETTENDON TRIPLE KILLINGS references and in the 1996 "DOCUMENTS" section you can find the transcrpits for the police undercover phone calls. TheGuntz.

Brian Paddick[edit]

What does the raid on the Button Factory have to do with Brian Paddick attending a meeting? Did he order for it to go ahead? This needs to be made clearer. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has agreat deal to do with Paddick - he is the Commander of L Division where days earlier he had attended the MPA meeting comitted to formulating a consultative, outreach and diversified approach to local policing. This operation would not have proceeded without his fore knowledge and it not simply a mater of whether he ordered the operration and he may have done so or been instumental in its being agreed. Is it not to be windowed simply because full disclosure has never been forthcoming? It was subsequently raised with him and with the Lambeth MPA representative. Paddick ignored the representations that were made to him. I live in Lambeth and worked for a decade in local government with police connected responsibilities. Why on earth ought not this juxtaposition of events to be discussed in context? Were Lambeth Special Branch also implicated in Operation Dursley? What (obviously selectively speaking) has "ANARCHIST" orientated Paddick comments on a local Lambeth website got strictly to do with "cannabis" policing policy? Its the way the cookies crumble these matters become extremely discursive and if you wanted to talk about all this why did you not talk first instead of deleting my earlier posts? (----) TheGuntz.

Then I think you need to point that out (though you're bordering on original research with a dash of your own point of view). The edit was removed (and has been again by someone else) because the relevance is not immediately apparent.

This operation would not have proceeded without his fore knowledge

Unless you can provide a good verifiable reference to prove that, the article is making a statement that it cannot back up in Court and trust me Wikipedia has been taken to Court plenty of times over much less.

he may have done so or been instumental in its being agreed.

This is circumspection, and evidences to me that you don't have the proof necessary to demonstrate that this claim is factual.

Why on earth ought not this juxtaposition of events to be discussed in context?

Because an encyclopedia is a series of referenced and verifiable statements of fact, not a discussion forum.

Also please learn how to format articles, and particularly references - it makes life easier for other editors. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- to Roleplayer. This won't do at all really. In my original posting which you deleted was brief. So far as the MPA meeting was concerned the link references I gave were verificable and impeccable - the MPA's own full "Minutes" with Brian Paddick's attendance itemised in black and white. For Operation Dursley I gave a link for online verification which referred to a number of named media reports about the police operation - not every word about these matters is on-line but there are newspaper libraries - such as the one at Collindale where there are records. I assume that Wikipedia is not claiming that such sources are not adequate - it cannot be for in the current article there are many news reports linked for verification and information. These items of information stood by themselves as viable. I did not make cliams for them they stand for themselves. I did not link the URBAN75 Paddick chat information it has been very widely publicised and was already withiin the ambit of the article and isn't a matter that Paddick has even been in denial about. To have deleted these factul matters is completely wrong and then to be put on trial almost about views I expressed to you in the talk exchanges which were not actually part of the actual posted article it totally wrong. There is absolutely no reason why the anecdotes I posted but which have twice now been deleted should not be allowed. It is a disgrace. Curiously enough it is a somewhat faceless dilemma of the kind that Paddick himself was (and remains) faced with in relation to the machinations of Commissioner Ian Blair's failings - wikipedia seem to be batting for the wrong side on this one. This is a high profile article but that is not a good enough reason why quite straight-forward police related matters that may not be deemed one hundred percent to the credit of Lambeth policing while Paddick was commander should be supressed. Paddick is not GOD - or even Mayor -,not yet anyway. I think the post should be re-instated and would value asistance for that to happen. I certainly haven't contributed to the detriment of wikipedia in any of my postings - far from it. (----) TheGuntz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --TheGuntz (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Guntz. You've provided references for the fact that Paddick attended the MPA meeting and that there was a police raid on the Button Factory. However, everything else that you have inserted, particularly the innuendo that Paddick somehow acted in bad faith, are not currently backed up by any references. Unreferenced allegations that put living people in a bad light are defamatory and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Also, do sign and date your posts by adding four tildes (TheGuntz (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)) to the end of your messages. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jacklee - this is the 2nd occasion when you have deleted posts to this article that I have made without consulting first - at least on this occasion you have posted an after the event message. With the first post I made you insisted that I had no references and so for todays post I produced them. What the post I made is saying in part and it is backed up by the URBAN75 citation was that the police raid on the BUTTON FACTORY was not regarded as an act beneficial to those whom it affected who used that social centre and that information stands on that basis. It was regarded as an act of bad faith policing - in the same way that some regarded in various ways policing policiies in relation to canabis use - which elsewhere in the article is windowed and is not being deleted by you as "defamatory". The URBAN75 citation is there to signify that there was unhappiness, just as to the opposite effect the article points to positive reactions to other policing developments. In any event why have you deleted the Button Factory raid and other information that was referenced and ws NOT defamatory? I am - as with Roleplayer - very unhappy about the arrogant way in which these post are being removed. So far as the one or two technical internet errors are concerned I am gradually learning - as I did this afternoon and that is par for the course. This is not a question of defamation it a matter of posting information that helps for a fuller understanding of the policing strategies that were being deployed in the Lambeth Police Division when Brian Paddick was the commanding officer so that wikipedia readers can better appreciate the community background against which Paddick developed his career. --TheGuntz (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to SinBot - thank you for this explanation for adding signature - I think I have now understood this and have jusr re-entered I hope correctly my signature to talk posts I have made - I notice that my talk page records as shownhere are incomplete and I am hoping that in time the missing talk posts will catch up and find their way to this page. If you can assist I would appreciate it - there are additional talk posts on the Brian Paddick article.--TheGuntz (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk query[edit]

Because the discussion didn't originate on my talk page, neither did you reply on my talk page. I only normally copy things across when one or the other happens. It is only in rare circumstances when I will copy across a whole conversation from another source. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen them actually. I deliberately stopped watching because it was stressing me out, and with my hospital visit yesterday stress is the last thing I need. I am willing to respond, but please be accepting of my honest response. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring![edit]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.