Talk:Monadnock Lifetime Products

Trying to understand why we can't add anything here.

Does it not make sense that police must be trained and certified in every tool they use in their profession? If they just make up sobriety test other than the "Standardized Field Sobriety Test" [1] [2] , then a DUI arrest resulting from such could be thrown out of court. Police have to be properly trained and certified in that test. I have the certification to prove that I went through that, just as every state certified peace officer should have.

Likewise, they must be trained in the use of hand-cuffs, batons and sprays. Each of those things requires a certification.

The MDTS (Monadnock Defensive Tactics System)[3] [4] includes unarmed hand-to-hand fighting, as well as tactical applications for the baton, PR-24, hand-cuffs (and pat-down/ search methods employed as part of cuffing), and weapon retention (defending against an attempted grab of any weapon on the person of the officer). It is a requirement for officers going through academies... and I taught it, and still have the physical certifications from both the state and the MPTC to prove it.

Why are you all so aversive to new information being shared?

"Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 00:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16

*************** 

Cool.

I was only in Police Explorer Post, and on the Auxiliary Security Force while in the Nav, but I know about MDTS. Now, I'm a CO (correctional officer). Don't know why it's so hard to find info on it.

Maybe it's because ONLY cops, military, special security and such can be certified in it. I mean, the MPTC doesn't exactly have to advertise, man. Federal training regs for law enforcement clearly mandate that cops be trained and cert'd in every part of the job. They finish 12-16 weeks with an academy and then still do 12-24 weeks of patrol training afte that.

Because they don't advertise, their site is likely BURIED by the thousands of orgs and cops and teachers that DO advertise. Know what I'm saying? So, it's realy hard to find their site.

I'll check my certs at home. I aint teacher-cert'd, but I can check and see if I can find a number or website that gives direct access to the MPTC and the MDTS from the company side of things.

Then, we can get passed this crooked BS they got going on here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekoelan (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So...I give a link to the actual Safariland page on Monadnock Defensive Tactics training certifications. Got that? It was an actual official Safariland website page, for the SAME company that owns and makes the Monadnock batons. It is even says that in the top right-hand corner of the article, that Safariland is the parent company.

WHY THEN DID THE EDITOR SAY THAT IT HAD "NOTHING" TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE?????!!!!!

I teach this stuff, people. Have national certifications to teach police how to use these products. Do you have any idea how much it OFFENDS me for people that know nothing about it to tell me stuff like this?

Guess it's time to call a lawyer. "Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengu16 (talk • contribs)

Looks like you finaly got it through, dude.Deleted my stuff, but I ain't sweatin it.You used my link, and I'm glad that helped.Here's hopin you can get thru to these guys. I'm already gettin tired of the Nazi cyber-gestapo crap, personally. --I think they destroy the spirit of cooperation and sharing by being so stupid strict.

Thanks. Hope you stick with it. Poekoelan (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Poekoelan

Hey guys. I'm the one who created this article about 4 years ago. I'm not an admin and don't have any special "powers" so I can't block people. I have just been editing for a long time. I'm not the one who removed your edits, but you guys need to understand that the rules for wikipedia were made for very valid reasons. Lies, rumors, slander, propaganda, company shilling (using wikipedia to promote your company).

Now, with the edits you want to put in, it doesn't look like anyone want to suppress the information. Rather, it's that it's written using a poor tone befitting a neutral encyclopedia. It sounds like a sales pitch. The info is fine, but it has to be stated correctly, as well as formatted in the correct style. Links and sources need to be put in their proper place.

Another matter is "unbalancing" the article. This occurs when a section of an article about one specific thing related to the article's subject occupies a large amount of space, dwarfing other parts. Right now, the section on training sticks out a great deal and looks out of place.

Instead of removing your material, I'm going to make some changes and fix the reference links, so you will see what I mean.Legitimus (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Legitimus. That's the way we all should be here, cooperating and helping each other. Not tearing each other apart over petty styles and format rules. Let's see if we can promote that spirit of cooperation and assistance to others within the Wiki communities. "Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16

See, that's what I been saying. Wiki egg-heads are too worried about "format", and not worried enough about completeness and content. A really good encyclopedia article is thorough and complete. How complete is this article on batons if it does not inform people of the official certifications required of the people that would be allowed to use the products????...... Not very completr at all.

You see, people who know about these things pay attention to the completeness of an article. Hey, it's even one of the things that Wikipedia has us rating these articles for, right? Who better to know if an article is complete than someone with subject matter expertise? --- But, formatting does not matter to people like that.

So, formatting should be worked by the format specialists (Wiki-heads). Just send us a blip to let us know the change, and we'll be happy, as long as our topic/ edit content is allowed to stay.

.... but keep us from putting out that content, and we'll be mad.

Wiki does not want mad customers, because that means less business. Right?

Customer satisfaction effects us all.

Poekoelan (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Poekoelan

"More" does not necessarily equal "better" with an article. It has to be coherent, and well supported. Otherwise "customers" will not understand it. And technically wikipedia is free.

Don't get too much of an attitude here about your expertise either. Here, you are words on a page, with no real way to prove your words are more accurate than any others without a source. For example I myself hold an advanced post-graduate degree. But that doesn't mean I can throw in anything I want into articles in my area of education. I have to support those statements with proof from a source other than myself, and that source has to have some kind of recognition as reliable to the subject at hand.Legitimus (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read any "attitude" in any of that rant. More of a Platonic questioning manner of guidance that is supposed to be the ideal in law and investigations. We call it "open-ended" questions, but most lawyers end up using "closed" and "limited" (leading) questions to get what they want (rather than reach the truth, or even legal ideal of "totality of the circumstances"). Guy here was probably just blowing steam, directing it at Wiki-land censors in the form of passive aggressive venting.

However, "perception is nine-tenths of reality", as we used to say when teaching about harassment and culturasl sensitivity. They may still say it.

Thanks again for helping with the article. "Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16