Content deleted Content added
Line 272:
I completely agree, fwiw, that the article needs the basic APCO list. The self-justifying words on the talk page illustrate the lack of common sense that led to the list's removal. When Wikipedia has been completely cleansed of all that pesky information, it will cease to be useful. [[User:Adallas|Adallas]] ([[User talk:Adallas|talk]]) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::*"self-justifying", "lack of common sense".......nothing like coming in and going on the (personal) attack, huh? Guess what? There was a consensus reached, based on more than your personal definition of common sense and [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
::*You should probably familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not in case you haven't already: [[WP:ISNOT]]. Of particular note, Wikipedia is not a Guidebook or an Indiscriminate
The answer to problematic editing of information is not to remove the information. There would be no vandalism of articles if all the articles were removed, but that doe not make for a very good encyclopaedia. I am not sure I fully understand the problem, I only came here to look up a specific code, but I undertand there are a great number of variant codes. Surely a simple answer to this is to list a specific example and state it as such. The ACPO official code? Or even more than one example which should make it clear that local variants should not be added to the listing. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 23:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
::*There is a list under External links for both APCO's first published Ten-code list from a archived newsletter, and APCO's 'official' list snapshot at the Internet Archive. If people want APCO's list, it's not hard to find. [[Special:Contributions/71.84.227.69|71.84.227.69]] ([[User talk:71.84.227.69|talk]]) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
| |||