Hi there. Thank you for your edits. When you cite HMSO can you please make sure that you're spelling Stationery correctly? It's not Stationary! Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I have done this twice now. I will take note from now on. thank you notadev (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to point that out in case it sounded rude! :) Thanks again, cheers DBaK (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ermmmmm ... ahem ... sorry. DBaK (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Nebraska Juvenile Courts. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you that this page has now been published again with suggested changes. notadev (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are marking many of your edits as minor when they are not minor. As you can read at Help:minor edit, only edits that in normal language would be called "trivial" are regarded as "minor" in wikispeak. Any edit that changes a meaning, or any edit that another editor may conceivably wish to review, is not minor. For example, this is far from minor. Zero^talk 04:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely argue that this edit was trivial - the article can continue to exist just fine without it, it doesn't make any substantial change and clarifies points already made which appeared to have been obscured in translation, or something of that effect, and essential no meaning has been changed to mean something it didn't mean before - but if I were to use the definition you have suggested then I cannot imagine any edit which can be considered minor.

I will not mark any edit as minor anymore. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. notadev (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To quote the help page, "Examples include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism." Zero^talk 06:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be launching a edit war on the above page. Can I just remind you that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are government agencies, controlled by either the Home Office, Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office. They are therefore part of and controlled by the UK Government. also your proposed initialisation of MI5 is unknown in the UK government, or UK media.

Perhaps you would like to revise your alterations? Thank you David J Johnson (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I had to resort to reverting your revert, but in my experience very few people actually want to discuss things and would rather just go ahead with decisions. I suppose I too have now been corrupted by this cycle.

As for my rationale, when we discuss the UK we must limit references to 'the government' to only mean HM Government, and should not oversimplify and refer to the state as the government. It is not correct, for instance, to say that Parliament, the Monarchy, the Civil Service (who makes up intelligences agencies), or the Armed Forces are part of the government. This point can be exemplified by the page Government of the United Kingdom, who are, to reference Montesquieu, the executive, as opposed to the state.

However the actual reason I removed the reference to the government is because it is not the governments sole decision whether to maintain an intelligence agency or not, and most of the modern agencies are authorised by statute (for instance, see the Security Service Act 1989). For this reason it is more appropriate to make a reference to the whole of the UK, rather than just the Government, because it isn't just the Government who regulates and oversees intelligence agencies.

I do concede that SyS is a rather rare intialism, but it is definitely used, a quick search shows it was used in the judgements of Beth v The Security Service [2024] UKIPTrib 3 and Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2022] EWCA Civ 334, just as recent examples go.

If this doesn't convince you, I will not revert any more edits of yours because it isn't my intention to fight any further. notadev (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yours. MI6 is the responsibility of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary answers questions in Parliament on their behalf, likewise MI5 is the Home Department and Home Secretary answers for them and GCHQ, the Ministry of Defence - the Defence Secretary answers for them, Therefore the wording before the recent changes is broadly correct and I will be restoring that text. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said doesn't prove that it is the Government who maintains intelligence agencies, merely that the Government has responsibilities relating to them. If the Government sought to remove them they would need to go through Parliament, which just means it ultimately isn't up to the Government. To phrase it in this way is erroneous. I also don't see why you should remove the intialism when it is clearly used. To include it is especially useful to remove the conception that MI5 is still the official name for it and prevent people from abrreviating it to SS. notadev (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NotADev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Citing US legal sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]