User talk:Badger151/Archive

YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVE. IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT ME, PLEASE USE MY ACTIVE TALK PAGE. Thank you - B

Vehicle registration plate

Why are informative reference links to this, and similar articles deleted? I've also added some information to these pages, but funnily enough they have been kept. The site links I added were informative, relevant websites. Hardly free speech. I shan't bother contributing to Wikipedia anymore as you've soured the experience for me. Acjs86 16:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi -

Welcome to Wikipedia. When I started out, another user was kind enough to forward me the following links, which I hope you will find to be useful as you contribute.:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I saw your note on my talk page when I logged on, regarding the link you added to the Numberplates website. The reason that I removed this link is because, as far as I'm able to determine, Numberplates is a commercial site, and Wikipedia isn't about commercial links. See Wikipedia:External links for more - that page explains it all much better than I could. I see that you contribution to the text of an article is still present, and I hope you'll stay and continue to contribute.

Hope this helps --Badger151 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Numberplates - response

Hi, thanks for your message. Numberplates.com is not a commercial site at all, which can be easily determined by spending thirty seconds on the site. It's the largest source of information on number plates on the internet, and therefore a relevant and important source. Acjs86 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did look at the website - both before I deleted the link, and again now. Perhaps I was unlucky in my choice of links, but I found license plates for sale, a book for sale, the ability to sign up to receive notice if a particulalr plate number becomes available. So, it looks like a commercial site to me. I also see from your latest message that you consider Numberplates to be "the largest source of information on number plates on the internet", but the site only seems to apply to plates associated with the United Kingdom, which undermines this argument. Ultimately, however, I think that far more energy is being spent on this than it calls for: if you think it belongs, add it again, or discuss it on that page's talk page. Best - --Badger151 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode Island - hurricane barrier

I saw your comment concerning the Providence hurricane barrier. I don't know when it was constructed, but I believe it was a result of the flooding due to the 1938 hurricane. If you wish, you could add such a notation within the article. In fact, if you know something about Providence, I would appreciate your help given that no one else is working on the article. Pentawing 21:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Star of Life

I enjoyed your commentary on the SOL page: "available on an ambulance near you" --Badger151 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

^.^ --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Commons

I looked at some of the images at fire engine, and it seems that most of them are already tagged as {{GFDL}}, and were uploaded by Nick Precision. He seems to have been inactive for almost a year now (although he made a handful of edits in 2005), but as a courtesy, I would leave a note on his talk page telling him that you are moving them over to commons. Then, tag the images for deletion here, once it's already on commons.

I think it would a good idea to make an account on Commons with the same username as the one you have on Wikipedia, and as you said, download the images to your computer, and re-upload them. To be thorough, add a little note that it was originally uploaded to en: (which stands for English Wikipedia) and quote the original licensing info that was on Wikipedia. Just cut-and-paste the contents of the image description.

I am not sure what to do about images that have not been tagged correctly. Technically speaking, these should be marked as such. See Category:Images with unknown copyright status and Category:Images with unknown source for details.

You might also want to look at examples of what other users have done. Here's the upload log on commons: [1]

I hope this helps! :-) --HappyCamper 21:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

re:Missing from this article seems to be a discussion of the link between CO and heart disease. --Badger151 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It'd surprise me if there were any relationship like this. If you know of one, research it and add it!

Best wishes, FrankB 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

H-MICU and Fly-car

Hello,

it seems to be a little more complicated: :

• "non-ambulance automobile": the H-MICU can be an ambulance or a simple car (I just noticed I forgot this point);
• "fly-cars cost much less than ambulances": the H-MICU cost more than an ambulance
• "they can be staffed by a single person": the H-MICU is always staffed by three persons
• "A fly-car can be a resource conserver for an EMS agency": the aim is not to preserve ressources, but to bring adequate materials and people.

Some elements about H-MICUs:

• the first ones were ambulances, with a physician, a nurse and an ambulance-man;
• they are often called as reinforcement when there is already an ambulance; they thus evolved to simple cars with only the material and the three people, but there are still full ambulance H-MICUs;
• a simple ambulance, or even an helicopter, which is reinforced by a medical staff becomes an H-MICU.

So the fly-car has some of the aspects of the H-MICU, but they are not equivalent.

cdang|write me 10:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Prompt reply was luck: I usually roam on fr:, so its more efficient to contact me there.

Bye cdang|write me 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the closest notion is fr:Véhicule radio-médicalisé (VRM), which can sometimes be a H-MICU, but also be teamed by a single MD (firefighter MD).

cdang|write me 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Drive shaft

Hi, I have never redirected Drive Shaft (or DriveShaft, DriveSHAFT, etc.) to Charlie Pace, unless it was to fix up a broken link. If I had it my way, Drive Shaft would have its own page altogether!
About the minor edits, it's just a habit I got into, and I'm now trying to fight it off with a two handed plus three broad sword. Thanks for the reminder! --SilvaStorm

Hmm - someone else may have access to your account, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drive_shaft&direction=next&oldid=69185670, or I could be misunderstanding. But if you'd like the band to have its own page, why not start one for it? --Badger151 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would, but the annoying buggers on here would probably delete it or redirect it! That's the way it goes on Wikipedia. --SilvaStorm

Well, there are a few rules we all have to abide by, but they're similar to those for writing a paper in high school or college: we have to avoid plagiarism, and we have to have substance to what we write. I see that another user noted that you used copied-and-pasted text from a school's website - doing so is typically copyright infringement, and can have legal repercussions, which is why it's not allowed. I also saw your page on Lost's Widmore Corporation, which merely mentioned that the corporation was mentioned on the show - if you tell us what the corporation does (are they an automobile assembly company? a law firm? an international shipping company?) and why they're important on Lost, that would be valuable - I, for one, don't know the answers to those questions. Check out the type of information provided at Hanso Foundation for more ideas. --Badger151 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe making the article a stub would provide incentive for people to come and add to the page. --SilvaStorm

It might. I expect that there are users who specifically look for stubs, so that sounds like a good idea. You could also put it in the Lost category. You know how to assign an article to the stub category? --Badger151 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, with this: {{stub}} . I'll get right on it. --SilvaStorm

Go for it! --Badger151 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

How do I get my RfC on the RfC talk pages, I am new and dont know about all the rules. thanks...--Caligvla 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way to stick with one account might be to just abandon the unwanted account by no longer using it. Since many people frown on having more than one account, you may want to indicate that you used to use the now dormant account, and provide a link to it - that way no one can accuse you of trying to hide what's considered a sockpuppet account. To actually close out an account or merge two accounts would require an administrator.

For the RfC, it looks like you've completed step one succesfully, but you also will need to place a message on the appropriate RfC page - this is similar to posting a notice on a community bulliten board. If you go to WP:RFC and scroll down about half way, there is a list of categories - I'm guessing you'll want "History and Geography." To the right of each entry in the list you can click on "add entry" to add your request. Other editors follow these lists, and this is how you'll reach a broader audience.

In your request, you'll want to include a link to the appropriate section of the article's talk page, so other editors can find it easily. This is done by taking the article's name, adding a # sign, and then listing the section title. For instance, typing

[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles]] 

will generate a link looking like this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles

and will take you to the RfC page, but instead of droping you at the top, it will drop you off at the "Request comment on articles" section. Hope this helps --Badger151 00:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Did I do it correctly? --Caligvla 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost - the list kind of goes backwards, with newer items on the top. This way, people looking for new entries don't have to scroll down. Also, try to present a more neutral description of the dispute. If you read the other enteries, you'll see that people typicaly try not to indicate which side of a conflict they support. You'll also want to make your link not just to the Armenia talk page, but to the appropriate section of the talkpage - where you announced that you're requesting the RfC. You'll need to use the # sign, as I described above.

Regarding your question on how to delet you duplicate account from your laptop, I really don't know without seeing the machine. When you're on your laptop, does the computer automatically log you into your Wikipedia account? --Badger151 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Talk: Armenia

Howdy! Your action was perfect - I was on my way to do the same thing when I saw that you had done it. Your interpretation of Talk page policy is awesome - the only things that really can be removed is blatant vandalism, and some other select cases. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing a nice summary, someone needs to keep things on track, how do you think this will end?--Hamparzoum 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your modest proposal, I think it's very fair to both sides. --Caligvla 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Milo Minderbinder

Hey there. As far as I know, a middle name or initial is never mentioned for Milo Minderbinder. On other sites, I generally use minderbinder as a username, or milo if that's not available. When I signed up, it wouldn't let me, so I added the H. Why H? Because it's the same middle initial as Jesus H. Christ. (by the way, it stands for Harold) Incidentally, in the years of using "minderbinder" as a username, I think you're the first person to ever recognize the origin. Most people just reply using "mindbender". --Milo H Minderbinder 17:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

You are receiving this notice because you have recently commented on Talk:Alexander the Great. You may be interested in the mediation case located here. It is my hope that mediation will help solve the debate, but you are welcome to participate or not participate as you choose. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Laptop

Yeah thanks for asking, I deleted all my cookies and files in one of the setup options in Internet Explorer, that seemed to do the trick.--Caligvla 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

move

I have moved Badger151/templates to User:Badger151/templates. -- RHaworth 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Armennia

Looks like we are getting close to a comprimise, you may want to check in on the issue here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walton_monarchist89#Straw_poll-Armenia Cheers, --Caligvla 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:02 (UTC)

Adultery Article

Thanks for your previous assistance on the adultery article, and your opinions. AT the moment, I am having difficulties with another user there. I'm not asking you to take any sides, but I find continual reversion of content to by frustrating. Every time I make an effort at a wording that it NPOV, it it reverted. I have asked the other user to offer suggestions as to wording that would be acceptable, but get no response. If you could participate in whatever way that seems appropriate to you to assist in us resolving the issues I would appreciate it. Atom 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance Page

Thanks for the compliment! I'm trying to work the page in to a worldwide page, with only small sections on the countries, because it should make it easier to read. Not sure which section to do next though!

One link for the RDS system is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2621 but not all that convincing. I used to have a bookmark on the company who patented it (only slightly annoyed as some friend and I came up with the idea back in Uni in the late 90s, and i finally thought i should do something about it and found it had already been patented. Never mind. It had some references for places using the system. I'll keep looking, and post it when i find it

Intermediate Technology

Thanks for that, makes the whole section easier to read! All i really did was a spelling, grammar and syntax fix on what had been added. --Owain.davies 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'Ambulance' writing language

Hi Badger,

I'm afraid i must disagree with some of your last edit round changing back International to American English - The rest of the article ISN'T written in US english - i know because i think i wrote or re-wrote about 75% (or more!) of it. When that person made the ammends last time, i realised there were a few inconsistencies, so i moved it all to international english to avoid future confusion. This is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, where unless the topic is written about a US subject, it should be in international english (or at least consistent throughout). I think it's a stupid idea to go through and re-write my contributions to US englishj, and as they form the bulk of the article, i'm going to revert your english changes

As ever, feel free to comment on my talk page!

Owain

Owain.davies 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Owain - I do agree that there has been a slow creep over the past several months in the style of English used on the Ambulance page, however, I think that if you reflect, and take a look at the page history, you will find that:

1. from the begining, the page has been written in US English. Armor appeared before armour, -ize has consistently appeared, but I have rarely found -ise, truck appears instead of lorry, &c.
2. If you take a look at the page as it existed at the time of your first edit:[2] you will see that, where there are differences between US and UK English, most of the page uses US conventions.
   • All of "History" was written in US English (I know because I wrote it, and I wrote it that way in keeping with the rest of the page).
   • "Design and construction" is in US English: note the use of the word gasoline, not petrol.
   • "Appearance and markings": note the word favor, not favour.
   • "Private ambulance companies": I don't see much that falls specifically into only one variant of the language, but I do see that perhaps half of the section is about US phenomena, and I see the mention of a Commercial driver's license, which according to the Wikipedia page is a US phenomenon (I gather that UK’s PCV license is somewhat equivalent, but the point remains that the US term is used).
   • "Military ambulances" has something of a split personality, using armor but armoured - if you look back through the history, however, you will see that the US spelling appeared in the article first.
   • What follows is the discussion of services in different countries - sections you quite appropriately removed and spun into their own pages. Looking at them nevertheless, I see that the US section (whose height takes up 2 and 1/2 screens on my monitor - almost twice as much as any other country’s) appears to be written in US English - I note the use of color rather than colour. France's section doesn't appear to use anything that isn't used by both variants of the language, though I admit that my knowledge of the intricacies of the differences has its limits. The section on the UK is written in UK English: I note the use of recognised rather than recognized. The section on Germany uses therefore, with the e at the end - I honestly don't remember which style this falls into, though I think it is US. Norway's section uses organizations, which I also take to be US spelling.
3. There appears to be some confusion regarding the type of English to be used on Wikipedia, so I cut and paste from Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#General (you'll have to scroll down to section 3.10)

   • Should I use American English or British English? - People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of formal written English. The English language Wikipedia particularly welcomes contributions from editors whose first language is neither American English nor Commonwealth English. Still, it is generally good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation.

     (Emphasis is mine)
   • I also note:

     Disputes over style issues - In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

     which you may find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues The first major contribution was probably that made by User:Cdang in several edits between 19 August 2004 and 30 Septermber of the same year; Cdang added much of the section on French EMS, which as I have already said, is difficult to assign to any one type of English. The first moderately sized addition that chooses between UK and US English that I can find is User:Mathknight's addition of "Military ambulances" on 13 January 2005; Mathknight clearly and consistently uses armor, not armour.
4. Because of this, I have consistently used US English, as far as my understanding of it allows: I wrote the entire "History" section in US English, The work I did on "Design and construction" was written the same way, as was the work I did on “Appearance and markings,” (which you expanded on quite nicely, as I believe I commented at the time – as I look in more detail, though, I note that you overlooked the presence of colored in that section, not to mention the style of the bulk of the rest of the article, and used UK spellings in your additions. As this added a sizeable block to the article, this may be why you thought of the article as being largely UK English.)

If you look at the edits that I have done on the Ambulance article, I believe that you will find that, where I have changed between one style of English and another, I have done so only for consistancy, and generally only as I came across the discrepincies; I made the last series of edits upon first discovering that some sections had drifted, and later in determining that many of them had done so.

I also wish to point out that in your haste to attend to UK English, you undid User:GunnarRene's edit of 27 March, and my edit regarding civilian vehicles, which is necessary if the reference to Dean King's book is to be valid.

Finally, I must object to your statement that you wrote or rewrote 75% of the article. You have added about as much as I have, and I know that I haven’t written half of that article. I find your proposal otherwise to be highly insulting.

Yours very sincerely, --Badger151 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Offence of course not meant, I was in a slightly bad mood at the time... I still maintain that I think it should be in International English given that the majority of the article was written to be that way (and admittedly a general personal bias to things being written in international). I've changed a couple of the disputed parts to agreeable international (such as fixed wing aircraft) as this is the type of language I prefer to use in any case, as it's less ambiguous. Seems like a good compromise?

Keep up the good work. Owain.davies 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Owain. I'm sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you. I gather that it is important to you that the ambulance page be written in UK English, in spite of the history of the page and the policies of Wikipedia. Your actions in following this desire have caused and will continue to cause me minor inconveniences, and I am left with something of the feeling that you hijacked the page in changing it over to UK English, but I will not engage in an edit war with you over this. There are some users who do take the versions of English very seriously, though (too seriously, in my opinion), so in the hopes of enabling you to avoid future difficulties, I hope you will allow me to offer some advice. Please do review the Wikipedia policies on the use of UK and US English. I think you will find them to be as I have described above, which is different than what you proposed on my talk page. Please also be careful to consider the entire page when determining which style of English it is in. Best,--Badger151 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Badger, after your last comment i did review this, and as i said, i'm happy to not convert it over to UK English (although if i inadvertently write something in UK english in a new section, please accept my apologies - it's very hard to change!) What i have tried to do it bring the whole article in to International English (neither US nor UK), so that it makes sense to users from any country. On that basis, i've left things like armor alone, but changed airplane/aeroplane to fixed wing aircraft - hopefully neutral. Many thanks for your wise counsel. Owain.davies 05:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On forced circumcisions.

Thanks for your comment, Badger. It's too bad that we don't have two or three dozen more people like you to give such a thoughtful and measured comment. Best wishes, Michael Glass 05:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance

thanks Badger. i think its coming along nicely. would value your input though - i can't decide whether the history section needs to be made in to a daughter article to cut the length down before submitting for FAC, or whether its good as it is. Any thoughts? Owain.davies 09:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did cut the whole section down for use in Emergency medical services - do you think this is long enough, or should it be longer? Owain.davies 06:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

citations on Ambulance article

Hi Badger,

very simple answers. I changed it because i'm trying to make this article featured, and to do this, it must meet all the guidelines such as WP:CITE, which says that all references should be in the same style. The best way to achieve this is to use the same call template.

The reason the accessdate is gone is because i'm rubbish and missed it. I'll fix it now! Owain.davies 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badger, i do apologise if i have upset or offended you, definitely not my intention. I have had a very busy week, and as you can see, my edits have all been very minor edits or reverts from the top of my watchlist.

I've looked and looked and i can't find the template you refer to, unless i'm being dense. which is possible. I'm not sure where the issue is with the references - i haven't removed, changed or altered the references given (apart from typing a - instead of a = when i made a change to access date, which i fixed and apologised for), just put them all in to a template style in line with WP:CITE. I wouldn't have thought that this sort of change would create a problem? As you say, the end result on the page is the same - just as if you use the {{otheruses}} template, or one of the others.

The usefulness of a cite template, and the reason it is encouraged is that if everyone uses the template format, then every article will cited the same way, and if that style should change, then only the template need be edited. Can you point me more closely to the template you are talking about, and also let me know why placing a cite template in place of a manual citation is an issue.

I think it's a pity if you feel less inclined to contribute over what was quite a minor change. I do follow the general policy of being bold, but i thought reference templates were a fairly uncontroversial part of it!

Regards, Owain.davies 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vasa (ship) at FAC

Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

aviation spirit

The good old days when one could write an article without listing sources. I am not sure where I got the information from!

A quick Google turns up lots of links about aviation spirit. The following two links should make it possible for you to should allow you to make the decision if aviation spirit should be redirected to aviation fuel or Avgas (clearly an American name) or whatever you judge to be the best fit. Link one See the paragraph that starts "The earliest British specification for aviation fuel was ..." and a second link p. 182, also 183.

The term seems to have been in common use in World War II and is used in oral histories see this article "During mid February 1942 we had loaded a full cargo of aviation spirit and petrol in 45 gallon drums at Balik Papan, then Pladju, all destined for use by the allied forces in the defence of Singapore." From this link (a page generated from one by the UK Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (http://www.detini.gov.uk) it is still the correct British term for aviation fuels. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary under "aviation" has the quote "1920 Flight 26 Feb. 252/1 The Anglo-American Oil Co., Ltd., announce the present retail price of..Pratt's aviation spirit, 4s. 1d. per gallon." so the term aviation spirit may predate "aviation fuel" (of which there is no mention in the OED). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI see Talk:Aviation fuel#Aviation spirit --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

Hill Street Blues

I've reverted your edit concerning Sgt/Lt Howard Hunter. He DID in fact begin as a Sergeant, not a Lieutenant. If you get your old boxed-set videos out and have a look, you'll see that he was a sergeant in the pilot episode, and episodes 2, 3, 4, and 5. He was promoted to Lieutenant in episode 6. (As you rightly point out, he was later demoted, and then promoted again - though that was years later). Have a look at the episode guides at List of Hill Street Blues episodes for details. Also, see 'Command Structure' on the main page, which throws some light on his earliest rank, and subsequent promotion, in terms of a 'beefing up' of the storyline to a more complex but realistic structure. Incidentally, this is why Hunter appears in the uniform of a SERGEANT throughout the opening credits of seasons 1, 2, and 3! Only with the revised credits for season 4 does he finally appear in a Lieutenant's uniform. Have a look again at those earlier credits, and you'll see three little metal chevrons on each lapel! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications ?

Hey Badger,

I'm working on RIT Ambulance, trying to add more to the article, remove red links, etc. However, I have no idea what CEVO and EVOC are; some kind of driver training/qualification? Could you either let me know or redirect these links appropriately? Thanks Badger !

Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)