User talk:JasonShaw1980

Welcome!

Hello, JasonShaw1980, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as &, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of "isms" in the UK civil service


The article "isms" in the UK civil service has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is more of an essay than an encyclopedic article, which is WP:NOT what wikipedia is for

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of "isms" in the UK civil service


Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of "isms" in the UK civil service for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article "isms" in the UK civil service is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/"isms" in the UK civil service until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Real explanation of what happened
Hi JasonShaw1980, I'm an admin here on Wikipedia. I see that you've been left a lot of templated messages about (including from me), so I thought I should stop by and give you an actual message in personalized words explaining what's happening. Originally, User:Martijn Hoekstra put a "Prod" on the article, which you removed. That's fine, as anyone is allowed to remove a "Prod" (or "proposed deletion") tag. After that, another editor added a tag saying that the article is an "attack page" and asking for it to be speedily deleted. As an admin, I reviewed that request, and decided that it was improperly placed--while I think there are substantial problems with your article, I don't think it's meant as an "attack" in the sense that our rules mean. However, after doing so, I did start an Articles for Deletion discussion on your article. That means that any interested Wikipedia editor can discuss (on Articles for deletion/"isms" in the UK civil service) whether or not the article should be deleted. You cannot remove this tag from the article you wrote, though you are welcome to comment on this discussion.

The reason why I started that deletion discussion is because I believe that the article violates two of Wikipedia's most important policies. The first is WP:OR. This policy says that articles may not contain original research. In other words, if you've done a bunch of research on the UK government, and come to some conclusions about its "isms", you can't publish that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only allows people to explain what has already been discussed by reliable sources. Second, your article explicitly states that its goal is to "raise awareness". Well, that's not something we do on Wikipedia. Doing so would be taking a specific viewpoint/opinion on the UK government, and that is not allowed per our WP:NPOV policy, which requires that all Wikipedia articles be neutral. As such, I expect that the article will likely be deleted after the deletion discussion is done (in 7 days). However, like I said, you're welcome to comment there, and its always possible that other editors will see things differently, or will be able to edit the article to make it conform to our policies.

If you have any questions about any of this, please post them here and I'll see them and try to respond when I'm available. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jason, I noticed that you're still editing the article. I recommend not doing that, as I'd wager that the article has a 95+% chance of being deleted, and so any work you do on it will just be lost. The only way it can be saved is if you fix the fundamental problems noted above. Making it look better, or adding more sections or news articles won't fix the fundamental problem of OR and POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian - I have made some changes to the article noting the comments made above. If you have any else positive to add please do so. The aim of the article is to document facts on this particular topic without bias. If you could contribute positively then that would be nice!

UK Civil Service - Equal Opportunities
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of UK Civil Service - Equal Opportunities, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: "isms" in the UK civil service. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And now I just deleted the above mentioned article. Do not attempt to get around the deletion discussion by creating a different article. Doing so is disruptive, and seems to be you attempting to circumvent our procedures and save your content. Please discuss the issue on the AfD, fix the problem if you can, but do not attempt to "force" the information into Wikipedia. Doing so may result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and looking at your contribution history, I see you've tried to add the information to existing articles. Jason, I want to help. If there is something useful in what you're creating, let's see if there is a way to add it to Wikipedia. To do so, we need to tease apart what is reliably sourced information, and what is your own personal opinions, history, and research. The former may be appropriate somewhere on Wikipedia, the latter is not. Please let me and others help you, rather than just doing everything you can to try to get this somewhere into the encyclopedia.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if this article is not deleted, but good advice is provided to ensure that it meets the requirements specified by Wiki. I have removed all my own opinions and referenced (provided web links where they exist) to demonstate that I am interested in documenting information from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonShaw1980 (talk • contribs)

Jason, if you would like, I can give you a copy of the article you wrote in a Sandbox. This would let you work on the article more. Then I could review it and see if it you really have fixed the problem; if it seems like it's not getting anywhere, it can easily be re-deleted.. Note, though, that it's not only about your opinions--it's about original research. My guess is that while what you are proposing can't be a separate article, it may be possible (if properly sourced) to include the information in some already existing articles. Let me know if you would like a copy, and I can show you how to access it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Even if i takes time: try to read everything posted on your and the article's talk-page (especially follow the bluelinks provided), and try to understand what we are saying to you; as to our aim: Wikipedia is an ancyclopedia. Perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding on your part as to what it is for; it was pointed out to you already that under our rules there is a very strong possibility that the article will not survive the deletion debate, but this is not done out of spite, but simply in accordance with said rules.

Lectonar (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)