This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohnnyBravo456.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that parts of the article Racial Volunteer Force should be merged into this article (In a section entitled 'Splinter groups' or somesuch), for the following reasons:
1) The RVF article is very short, barely above stub level, in fact. 2) The subjects featured in the articles are very similar (The RVF article defines by a pipe to C18 and an explanation that it is a splinter group!) 3) RVF article is very poorly written, unlikely to be expanded much and seems very overlooked by all, so quality of RVF information could benefit from being on the larger C18 page. 4) RVF requires knowledge of C18 to understand exactly what they want.
What do you think? 94.14.32.221 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, Combat 18 and Racial Volunteer Force are separate, though closely related articles. Therefore, there is no reason for merging. Quoting from Merging information page, Rationale section:
Merging should be avoided if [...] The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles.
I would like to close the merging discussion, but User 94.14.58.87 has not contributed since November 16, 2011, so I don't know if he/she will ever have a chance to comment on this...
Sapere aude22 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Combat 18 members are barred from joining the British Prison Service and police.
Is the converse true? That is, are serving members of the Prison Service and Police banned from joining C18? Do these bans apply to all British police forces? Centrepull (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It says a little ways into the article that he "split decisively with the BNP...". I've looked all though the article and I don't find anything that might give me a hint as to what "BNP" means. Is that just something that everyone is supposed to know automatically? Is it "British Native Party"? "British National Party"? "Bashing Negros Party"? "British National Petroleum"? I have no idea. I find by googling that there is indeed such a thing as the "British National Party", and so I'm going to guess that that's what it means, but somehow it doesn't seem like I ought to have to rely on Google to understand the contents of a Wikipedia page..45Colt 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see it does actually mention the British National Party about halfway down the page. But it seems like perhaps the first use of the term ought to be spelled out, and the second one written in short, not vice versa.
Also, what is with "return his plastering tools"?
"The rival faction, led by Wilf "The Beast" Browning, wanted Sargent to return the C18 membership list, in exchange for the return of his plastering tools and £1,000."
I thought at first it said he wanted him to return TO the membership list, and that made me even more baffled. Now I see that it says "return the membership list". Is this saying that Browning was holding Sargents plastering tools hostage and was offering him 1,000 pounds cash in exchange for the list back, because he was worried it'd pall into police hands? If so, it seems like it could be written better; took me a minute to figure out what it was saying. You have to infer a lot from a single sentence, and it would be better if it first stated that one held the membership list, and the the other held his plastering tools, etc, and then stated that they worked out a deal for exchange, instead of just jumping right past all that..45Colt 21:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Illustration on all combat 18 articles in different languages, advice to the claim of any ideological attack, this will be directed on all social media if needed, the issue will be disputed in court, or any measure needed to revert this misunderstanding on the same perpetual legal grounds that this construct of ideological attacks are based, per country, Norway, Netherlands, United States, France.
(fyi the logo of the Rote Armee Fraction was not deleted, indication of selective vandalism.
To the editor (?) that asked for uploading the original images, I will do so before 28th of march 2017.
Aan JCB, dhr J. Bos
De illustratie die bij dit artikel hoort, Combat 18, is copyright, zonder toestemming van ontwerper (EJ Vening) is de illustratie verwijderd- verwijt ideologische vandalisme - juridische grondslag mist, extern beoordeeld. EJVening eist correctie met terugwerkende kracht. Wilt dhr J. Bos contact met mijn advocaat in Nederland, of de oprichter van Wikipedia een schrijven van mijn advocaat in Frankrijk, ik verwijt selectieve ideologische vandalisme, evident opgezet om fracties te verstoren. Alle illustraties Combat 18 RVF zijn eigendom van onafhankelijke participant.
March 26-2017
Please avoid any misunderstanding about this issue, obvious deletion is a selective ideological attack and copyright nfringement. The claim about copyright violation is false, which I can prove. I claim copyright of all (4) illustrations related to the article. JCB is in violation with national law in the Netherlands, however, I do not only dispute the deletion in the Netherlands, I delegate the issue on all social media, if JCB decides to negate this vandalism which is a construct of hosting iomags that are ruled out on ideological grounds, moreover, selective ideological ,
This is unjustified, indirect vandalism, which I take personally for the claim of copyright infringement, I do not advocate any ideology per se.
If my claim is proved true, that the construct of this ideological attack is true, external picture databases that not only claim copyright on copyrighted illustrations but also "validate" images, without any proof, missing any juridical correspondence where or when these images were disputed in court.
JCB for Mr. Johan Bos, please elaborate on which grounds your (wikipedia external hosts) hold these images, if you want.
Signed,
EJVening.
The Combat 18 fraction logo.
"Here be dragons" , a White dragon. This is for RVF readers that understand the obvious mistake about this illustration, is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijndaal (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Illustrations done by me are released under Creative Commons, however I do claim an ideological attack, Sir, I am Dutch with this -do not be mistaken- understand what is taken for ideological attack as vandalism with this external "imagehost" construct, is not about raising the issue in any court, which is beyond Wikipedia, but on the same a priori premises of selective vandalism, up to me to raise the issue to any measure needed, in any country. It's "more reason" than you will understand what and who involved with this will be accused of ideological attack and advocating this, in the Netherlands.
"Here be dragons". A White dragon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijndaal (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason why "Charlie Sargent" redirects to Combat 18? Was there a (presumably poorly written) WP about him previously? and then what- why was it redirected ?
Does anyone know?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the exposure of these villains will illustrate the continuing danger. James Healy, 40, from Portsmouth, had extensive Combat 18 "memorabilia" and other evidence of involvement. Liam Tracey, 35, from Camden, London, and Charlie Ambrose, 31, from Brighton, were also sentenced for their part in the assault. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/24/chelsea-fan-jailed-for-attack-on-guardian-journalist-owen-jones?fbclid=IwAR27z_3wcDl3a2Fjm1suS2VbRkNb3cIwpYVGBtWtuJOpKq_3OeIAuLqr0dQ 2.31.162.38 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)