User talk:Veraguinne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hi and welcome to the discussion area

No problem, I must say that the title worries me a bit though - sounds a bit like a "how-to", and might have problems as a solo article as non-encyclopaedic (forgive the pre-judging). Might it not be better to incorporate in main article? Jimfbleak (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's common with very long articles to have summaries and links to subsections - see for example United States (or most other country articles) bird etc. I don't know if this helps? One thing I would do is call it "list of..." rather than "A to Z of...". Lists are accepted within the usual criteria, whereas your choice might be more suspect, Jimfbleak (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? Deb (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, subpages as such are deprecated. What you need to do is to set up a page List of terms used in...., and link to that from your main article. As I said, articles with titles like jargon buster are a sitting target. The article was tagged as a copyright violation, although if it is the link is incorrect. If you reference your sources, the article is less likely to be deleted. If the material is copied from a website, it will be deleted as soon as that is tracked by the bots. Even if you are the copyright holder for a website, you will be required to prove it (I can tell you how if necessary.

You need also to see what Deb says, as the deleter (deleted text is always retrievable, but Deb is a very experienced admin, and I think it's up to you and her to sort out whether the text should be restored. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this discussion is about. Will someone have the common sense to give an article title? I am very tempted to delete this page with {{db-context}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's about an article which purports to be a user manual on the subject of "referral orders". Whilst an article describing what a referral order is (under the title Referral Order) would be acceptable, a user guide giving advice on the subject is not. The article provided no context, and I have a suspicion there may also be a copyright issue, as the text appears to be substantially copied from a printed source. Apologies if I'm wrong on that last one. Deb (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much afraid that you don't understand the issues here. I'll respond to your points in turn.
  1. The introduction to the article launches straight into a description of referral orders without even saying that they are something to do with the justice system, let alone that they are peculiar to the UK (at least I assume they are - I wouldn't be able to tell that from the article). That is what is meant by "no context".
  2. I referred you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This includes the following text: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: (1) Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." In particular, note Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
  3. Note Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the statement that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia".
  4. I'm glad to hear there is no copyright issue, but unfortunately the other considerations are such as to render this irrelevant.
My suggestion is that you go and write an article on Referral order, describing what it is, which will meet the guidelines. Deb (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I've said above. If you feel that the description of Referral Order on the existing page is inaccurate, then you should change it and/or create a new article saying clearly what a RO is. I don't know enough about the other projects to help you; I can only say that wikipedia is not the place for a manual on the subject. Deb (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An aside

There are a couple of roundabouts that I pass regularly which have signs on them saying "Maintained by the Kingston Youth Offending Team". Now if I was a youth offender and I was working on that roundabout, I would be very embarassed to have it announced in that way. Have you had other complaints to that effect? (OK, I know that most youth offenders are usually pretty unashamed but that is not the point.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Youth Offending Team/Glossary

An editor has nominated Youth Offending Team/Glossary, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashfield

"Cool dude" indeed! You have been dealing with YPs for so long, you have picked up their language! Do you know that we delete dozens of "cool" and "awesome" people from Wikipedia every day.

But seriously, I have now created Ashfield (HM Prison). I won't pretend it is complete but the whys and wherefores it needs are, I think, minimal: date became a kids nick, date PCG took over, confirm it is boys only. And clarify its status - it probably counts as an HMP & YOI but I cannot find that stated definitively. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hi there!

I don't know who the user is, I only welcomed him. Mario1987 (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary

Hi. The reason the glossary is not suitable is that it consists of definitions of terms that already have wikipedia articles. If people want to know what those things are, they only need to look at the articles. Therefore the glossary is superfluous. Deb (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't help it if you don't understand the explanation, and I have no idea what "additions" you are referring to. Deb (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think I have spent rather a lot of time trying to explain to you the reasons why your contributions are being deleted. My main reason for being at wikipedia is to make contributions of my own. By constantly questioning the judgment of other contributors and asking for repeated explanations, you are taking me - and others - away from that task. As an admin, I do my best to be helpful and welcoming to newcomers, but there is a limit to what I can do. I have referred you to the appropriate guidelines, but you seem unable to understand them; that is not my fault. I now have to say "enough is enough". Deb (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replied at WP:EAR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, edits like this do not help to make someone's day. Given things like that edit, I think this is sensible, if not nice. The easiest way for you to understand why the article was deleted was to look at the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary. There, 4 say it should be deleted for being a dictionary, while User:Deb says not appropriate, which I would assume to be the dictionary reasoning as well. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And please don't edit my user page; now I cannot tag it for {{db-author}} if the need arises because I am not the only contributor. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the DRV on Youth Offending Team/Glossary as deletion endorsed per the consensus there. I will be happy to send you a copy of the deleted content for you own off-wikipedia use. Just tell me where (e.g. an email address) you would like it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia

Note to myself really! Your glossary now has an happy home at wikia:referralorders:Glossary. And I have put up some pictures of a Youth Offending roundabout. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ABUSE Report

Thank you for making a report about 201.240.134.191‎ (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Unfortunately, this IP has not been blocked enough times, and therefore does not merit an abuse report. Next time, please make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history.Thank you. Nburden (T) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)