User talk:KathleenKathleen12345

Welcome!

Hello, KathleenKathleen12345, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page New Westminster Police Department did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other 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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we need to provide up-to-date, open honest, transparent information to the public, instead of information with bias

Concerns over the content of"Controversy" on "New Westminster Police Department" page

I suggest that the "Controversy" part on the "New Westminster Police Department page" should be removed.

I personally believe that the incident of 3 off-duty police officer has nothing to do with Police Departments. That was the 3 off-duty police officers' personal behaviors.

First, the Police Departments’ managers didn’t tell them to go somewhere to assault somebody. Why Wikipedia always emphasize the NWPD? As if the New Westminster Police Department's Top cop taught him to do that.

Second, the incident happened when they were off duty, in their spare time, which was their personal behaviors.

Third, Police officers are human beings, so it is easily understood that they may have alcohol drink after work. Shouldn’t Police officers make a little mistake only because they are police officers? It is unfair. Police officers are also human beings.

I give you an example. Suppose you are a mother with 3 children, and your 3 children went outside to play. For some reason, they were fighting with other guys. Why they were fighting only with those guys, not others? There must be some reasons. And media always accuse you. Especially Wikipedia emphasizes your name with this incident for 10 more years. People who view Wikipedia all know your name and they all mistakenly think that you are a not good mother who taught your children to have that kind of incident. Did you tell them to do that? Absolutely not. No mother will do that. Then what do you think about Wikipedia??? Do you ask Wikipedia to correct or do you accept it???

In the world, there are many things happen every day. Why doesn't Wikipedia focus on other events? Why does Wikipedia give overladen focus on BC Police Departments?

I can give Wikipedia some suggestions. Wikipedia can focus more on how Marilyn Monroe died, and why Princess Diana died. Those entertainments new relating to American former President and British Royal Family are more popular than police officers.

(1) The reason why Marilyn Monroe died is that she slept around two Kennedy.

     It is not something related to who was more powerful, it is something related to men's dignity.

(2) The reason why Princess Diana died is that she ruined the image of the Royal Family.

      Her behaviors made the Royal Family extremely awkward.

 She could choose to fight with her rival for Prince Charles, and people would view it as entertainment.

 However, she chose to give media improper remarks.

I suggest Wikipedia gives more attention to American former President, instead of police. The brilliant image of police officers is helpful for the stability of society.

One most important thing I need to mention is that the New Westminster Police Department is a really good Police Department. The current Chief Constable is a really good person. the officers there are all reasonable and respectful. Previous and current Chief Constables there all make contributions on good training to their officers. This is a fact!!! If only because of a previous staff's a little mistake, make the department has a bad reputation, it is unfair to them!!!!!! I believe that there must be a lot of positive reports relating to them. Why Wikipedia only keep the negative report instead of the positives?KathleenKathleen12345 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KathleenKathleen12345 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KathleenKathleen12345. I'm not sure that I can help, but I would like to try. Given that it was a fairly sigificant incident, I'm not sure that editors here will agree to remove it, any more than a newspaper would decide not to cover the story. But I think you are right in that the department is much more than the actions of one or two people. It has a long history and tradition, and I suspect that it has been a significant and valuable part pf the community for a very long time. What I'd like to try and do is to place the incident in context so taht we provide a fair account. Do you know of any published history, or any other works that we can use to expand on the department? While we may not be able to remove all of the negative commentary, sometimes if we can place it inside the correct context people can see that the organisation is more than that. - Bilby (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this user is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of NWPD media (talk · contribs), whose primary focus was removing that section wholesale. In that light, these Karenesque screeds look like a bad attempt at astroturfing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a valid concern about the article. I'm happy to work with the user to figure out if there is anything we can do while still maintaining proper coverage. - Bilby (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to New Westminster Police Department, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing content

If you want to remove content from New Westminster Police Department, you need to establish consensus on the talk page first. Until you do that, your edits will continue to be reverted, or you will be blocked from editing. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 10:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply posting the same message over and over again is not engaging. You have not constructively engaged anywhere to explain why the content should be removed - instead you tried to make some kind of argument about JFK and Marilyn Monroe. If you are willing to constructively engage then you need to post on the talk page of the article and explain why you think the content should not be on Wikipedia. Not liking the fact it is on Wikipedia is not a reason to remove it. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 11:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at New Westminster Police Department, you may be blocked from editing. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi - you're not going to be able to remove content from the page like that, but you could use the article's talk page (not your own) to suggest changes. You seem to know some of the people involved - if that's the case you should declare your conflict of interest when doing so. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KathleenKathleen12345 reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: ). Thank you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at New Westminster Police Department. Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STOP. Stop it. Telling people to get permission from the TOP MANAGER at Wikipedia Company and Wikimedia Foundation is bizarre nonsense. Claiming that you have consensus to remove well-sourced material from an article is nonsense. Claiming that you cannot deal with the stress from the well-sourced material is, I'm afraid, your problem. See WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:SPA. If I see you post any more nonsense about "TOP MANAGER" or if I see you remove well-sourced content again, I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you. I don't want to do this, but your behaviour so far is incompatible with editing at an encyclopedia. Stop it, immediately. --Yamla (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ENOUGH. Are you not listening to what you've been told? --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the WMF actually wanted this content gone, we would know. "Wikipedia Company" is not a thing, and as volunteers we do not have a "TOP MANAGER", since other than what that linked policy allows, WMF staff do not edit or interdict content/editorial decisions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

-- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at New Westminster Police Department. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. You appear to be here because of a COI, solely to remove content that you don't agree with. Note to other admins: there are additional issues behind this block that cannot be discussed publicly. Please contact me for more details. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]