User talk:Darren@nocuffs

Thanks for your insightful essays into criminal justice and accident reconstruction. However, I feel that Wikipedia is not the proper place for essays like this. If you could turn these into proper articles, more power to you. Have fun. HubHikari 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of Proof in DMV Hearings, In-person v. Telephonic DMV Hearings[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. This essay was original research and POV, both of which are not allowed on Wikiepdia. Please read the welcome salutation below and pages linked to it in order to see the standards required for a good Wikipedia article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Darren@nocuffs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you refrain from posting explanatory essays on Wikipedia, as per my above reasons. HubHikari 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal essays[edit]

Please refrain from using Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The essays, while insightful, do not improve the encyclopedia as a whole. The contributions you have submitted may be subject to deletion under the Wikipedia guidelines Canidates for Speedy Deletion, Articles for Deletion and No Original Research. Thank you! J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Davenport Issues at DMV Hearing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Davenport Issues at DMV Hearing. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Also, please do not sign your contributions - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort - and placing "If you or a loved one was arrested for DUI, please contact a skilled defense lawyer immediately" at the end of every article makes it look like it's intended as advertising --Jamoche 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have every right to remove the {{prod}} tags on the articles, it signifies you protest their proposed deletion. However those articles will be listed for articles for deletion, which is a bit more structured process. You will be warned and subsequently banned for removing the {{afd}} tags. Please list your objections on the deletion discussion pages of the articles you wish to keep J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean them up.[edit]

Darren, I've come to the conclusion that these should be cleaned up if at all possible. Lose the "article by" header, talk to others, sort out the elements of WP:OR, wikify them and cite the sections using <ref /> and {{cite}}, per WP:CITE. Why? Because you did not add your site to a single one of them. Respect. Every day we delete articles by the dozen which are blatant spam, and links by the thousand ditto. Here you have written about your own subject area, with knowledge and experience, and not succumbed to vanity links.

Fellow editors, let's give the man the benefit of the assumption of good faith. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the material could be incorporated in other articles. The material in DUI Arrests: Alcoholic Beverage might be better placed here, for example. --Jumbo 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren, upon reviewing these, it looks like several of the articles are specific to the law of California. Wikipedia has a worldwide audience. They probably should all have titles that are state specific. Additionally, we sign our comments on talk pages, we don't put our name on articles. See WP:EQ for policy on this and similar etiquette matters. Finally, as I suspect that you will spend a significant portion of your time editing law related articles, you might take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law for resources, categories and to-do lists that are law related. GRBerry 01:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there is definite scope for articles here, regardless of whether they are California specific. I think we should aim to merge them to two or three articles on DUI and the California penal code. WP:NOT paper, after all, and the content is clearly identified as being geographically specific. Just zis Guy you know? 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]