Talk:Denver Sheriff Department

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Slain officers

I added a table of the deputies from this department listed as dying on the job. It seems such a table is standard with police agency articles. Another editor deleted it under the "No memorial" rule. (I swear, I never heard of it.)

In any case, ought it to be included here, or deleted everywhere else? One way or the other ought to be correct. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy applied was WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As examples, the same applied to lists of victims of the Hillsborough Disaster and the Costa Concordia disaster when they were added. Britmax (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is just strange that some police departments have acres of editors, and others have few. Perhaps it is up to the two of us to reach concensus? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So get out of our business Mr. "I am a bit of a busy body". In America, we honor our fallen officers, and in Saudi, apparently you cannot begin to comprehend it. So please, in the name of Allah and all that is holy, BUTT OUT! Do you not have anything else to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.115.11 (talk • contribs)

"Butt out" is not an acceptable response to a polite expression of concern from another editor. Attacks on other editors, particularly on the basis of perceived nationality, will bring sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than to serve as a memorial to the officers in question (see WP:NOT), there is no reason to include the individual names of the officers. To say that there have been 5, 2 or 507 officers killed, we need an independent reliable source. Any source directly connected to Denver is not an independent source. A database of slain cops not associated with a reliable source is not a reliable source. For assistance identifying reliable sources, please see WP:IRS. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mr. Saudi, you appear to be oblivious as to why it is important to name officers who are fallen in the line of duty for a LEA. Each person in a law enforcement agency is a family member. Each person in such an agency will list their dead just as any family would. We believe it is our privilege and our right to do so. We grieve them as we would any sister or brother, and you, my friend, may not dictate otherwise. There is EVERY reason to include these names of our family. And if you need an independent source (which has already been cited in the text), please consult https://www.odmp.org/search/browse/colorado— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.112.254 (talk • contribs) 03:14, April 13, 2015‎ I make this refence because of the citation of your log in as : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PaulinSaudi

I am neither a Saudi, nor a "Mr." You are certainly free to morn and memorialize however you see fit elsewhere. This, however, is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a not a memorial. While odmp.org ("The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc") does seem to be an independent site, I see nothing whatsoever to indicate that it is a reliable source.

As you have previously identified yourself as connected to the subject of this article, please note the "conflict of interest" notice added to your current talk page.

As this addition has been contested by more than one independent editor, please refrain from restoring the information until such time as a WP:CONSENSUS is established to the contrary. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be an over-involved wiki editor, speaking of topic content of which you have little knowledge. While I have had involvement with DSD, I am also a concerned Denver citizen and writer, and have a much greater depth of knowledge of the Department than you, whom, according to your IP address, is in fact, hailing from Saudi Arabia (that is where your IP address is assigned). Please desist in harassing those who would improve the current information in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.113.16 (talk • contribs) 17:51, April 14, 2015‎

I'm not sure who you are talking to as you do not have access to any of the other editors' IP addresses. Yes, we are aware that you have already made clear that you "have had involvement" with the DSD, including this claim and this one that your produced the annual report. We call this a conflict of interest, which is why I have warned you of same (see below).

Once your block for personal attacks expires, you are welcome to discuss this issues. Please note that where you live or personal knowledge does not give your edits additional weight. All additions to the article are judged by coverage of the issue in independent reliable sources. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editor

The IP editor discussed above needs to discuss the issues they have with this article. To encourage this, I am requesting semi-protection of the article. This will temporarily block editing by unregistered and newly registered editors. They will, however, be able to edit the talk page. Please discuss the issues.

I have just reverted a fairly substantial raft of edits by the IP.

I restored maintanence templates (including the WP:COI warning) to the top of the page. These appear to be current problems with the article. Removing them without discussion or explanation is not appropriate.

I have removed several malformed citations to the department's annual report. While cited sources should use appropriate formatting, I did not remove them for the poor formatting. Rather, I removed them as a primary source. Wikipedia has very limited use for primary sources. As a general rule, anything about the department that is not discussed in independent reliable sources is judged to be trivial and does not belong here.

I have again removed odmp.org as there is nothing to indicate it is a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by conflicted editor

I have just reverted edits by the conflicted editor to this talk page. As they are under a one week block for personal attacks, any edits they make may be reverted by any editor, per WP:EVADE. Once their block expires, they will be welcome to comment here, provided they do not make additional personal attacks. Additionally, please do not make changes to existing discussion, per WP:TALK. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted, semi-protected this page and placed a rangeblock to prevent further personal attacks and disruptions from the blocked IP editor. To the IP: repeating personal attacks will result in block extensions and more protections. Please read the advice left at your previous IP: User talk:50.141.113.38. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the person who placed this block. Material provided to update the page is supported by citations, which were also removed, but which meet the standards for citations set forth by Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.115.11 (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked under another IP and edited under a new IP. Acroterion blocked that IP for block evasion. This block had nothing to do with specific edits under that IP, only that you were editing in defiance of a standing block. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for a week for attacking other editors, particularly PaulinSaudi, whom you were convinced was Saudi and had no business editing here. You even sent him a harassing email, abusing Wikipedia's email system. Therefore you were blocked from editing. You continued to post as IPs were reassigned, evading the block, so a range of IPs were blocked to enforce the block. Please review the standards expected for Wikipedia content and for editor conduct at WP:5P. Your conduct has been far from exemplary, especially considering your declared conflict of interest. Please see WP:BESTCOI for advice on editing in such circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New talk contributions by conflicted editor

I have reverted a series of edits to this page made by the conflicted editor and placed an explanatory comment on their current talk page. While the editor in question is welcome to discuss the issues here, they must follow our policies and guidelines. The changes removed and edited earlier comments by other editors, made renewed personal attacks and were not formatted or signed. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]