Talk:Prisoner transport

Global perspective

I have reverted you on Prisoner transport on the grounds of global perspective, bailiffs in ontario is certainly not a global subject. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is a See also link and not an entry within the article itself. And why not list other articles in the See also section?--Jeff Johnston (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the See also section with the rationale the article remains global, and it is reasonable to assume that those interested in Prisoner Transport might also be interested in those who perform prisoner transports, such as Corrections Officers and (in the case of Ontario, Canada) Bailiffs.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patently ridiculous and a clear case of article ownership. I fail to see how you can't see that is a ridiculous rationale. If that was your true aim you would link bailiff. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the time to peruse the article on bailiffs you would know that globally, bailiffs do not perform prisoner transports, however in Ontario, Canada they are the exception to the rule, hence the direct pointer to that part of the article. Not so "patently ridiculous" if one were to spend more time getting his facts straight instead of resorting to common insults. Simply linking to the bailiff article would be ridiculously confusing to the reader who might only be interested in information related to prisoner transport. If anyone is guilty of article ownership it is the person who couldn't wait to undo another's edit without due consideration of the facts... That would be you.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified per your obvious POV interest push and article vanity. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking absolute rubbish. So bailifs dont transport prisoners, except for some wierd situation in ontario. If you think that is remotely interesting to the global readership of wikipedia looking at prisoner transport you are off your head. Link marshall, police officer, security contractor, etc etc, or even better, do the sensible thing and make this ridiculous exception clear on the article if you really absolutely think you are presenting anything more than minor footnote of information in a classic case of pushing your own article per ownership. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are unwilling to discuss this in a mature manner and seem only interested in insulting me and the province of Ontario, Canada, I have submitted this dispute for third-party resolution. Your comments are embarassingly offensive.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am insulting Ontario by ensuring a global perspective on Wikipedia? Your insinuation that you act as the voice of Ontario only reinforces my position that your edits reflect a localised POV push. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is your offensive language that is insulting. You are obviously too emotionally attached to this issue and further discussion would be pointless. I have submitted this dispute for third party resolution. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am emotionally attached? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main contributions to WP are all things correctional in Ontario? And you claim not to have a vested interest here? MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted this dispute for third party resolution.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as a rule of thumb, it should be obvious that if you need to state the justification of adding content to an article, it has to be included in the article itself, and is therefore not as you incorrectly put it redundant editorial comment. And if you submit a dispute for resoultion, you do not continue to revert, again another obvious fact. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted this dispute for third party resolution.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blind, I can read. Who is insulting who here? MickMacNee (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem bent on continuing discussion of this issue, so I am forced to reiterate that this issue has been submitted for third party resolution. Once an objective third party is involved we can debate the merits of our cases to that person.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again also, you do not appear to understand the policies of wikipedia. The correct procedure you are looking for is to file a listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion, not to post a message on an ordinary editors talk page who happens to also work on law enforcement articles (a coincidence?), and misrepresent that as requesting a dispute resolution per WP:dispute. And I repeat again, why did you carry on editing the article if you incorrectly believe all discussion stops when you request (not) dispute resolution? MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem bent on continuing discussion of this issue, so I am forced to reiterate that this issue has been submitted for third party resolution. Once an objective third party is involved we can debate the merits of our cases to that person.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not filed a dispute resolution per WP:dispute, stop repeating the same innacuracy and actually read some wikipedia policies. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem bent on continuing discussion of this issue, so I am forced to reiterate that this issue has been submitted for third party resolution. Once an objective third party is involved we can debate the merits of our cases to that person.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now you have correctly listed, finally. I'm still not seeing the point of cutting and pasting the same comment again and again, while still editting the article. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally saw no reason to register a formal dispute, instead I thought this could be resolved informally by one of the more senior editors. However you wouldn't leave it alone, so I filed the formal dispute. Hopefully, this will satisfy you and you'll stop insulting and provoking me. Certainly, if you had behaved in a more civil manner at the onset, this would never have reach this stage. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you were aware of wikipedia policies, and did not continue a POV push and article ownership, we would not be here. And still you are unaware of how wikipedia works, there are no 'senior editors'. Your insistence at including that sinlge article was completely unsupportable, and even now it is misleading at best, and as you are the creator of it, it is a clear ownership and vanity issue. These are basic facts, not provocation. I repeat, if justification is needed in an edit summary, it belongs in the article, you are clearly biased and cannot view this issue from a proper perspective. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem bent on continuing discussion of this issue, so I am forced to reiterate that this issue has been submitted for third party resolution. Once an objective third party is involved we can debate the merits of our cases to that person.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

A see also Bailiff#Ontario link is useful in the same way that the other links in that section are useful. None of them need additional description. — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious; Why is the Bailiff#Ontario format preferable to the piped text? Thanks.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I will fix that. Incidentally, users involved might want to re-read their comments above and take care to be a bit more civil in the future. One user need not be so abusive, and the other user need to continually repeat that 3rd party has been consulted. If things were escalating, its best to just leave it rather than continually replying. Remember not to climb anything while dressed as spiderman. Regards, SGGH ^speak! 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. He was obviously getting my goat. My apologies.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Piped text. I originally piped it as Bailiffs in Ontario, Canada to avoid confusion with other areas of the same name (e.g. Ontario, California). Was this necessary or does the article itself provide the clarification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc128842 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]