Onewillfind

Crown Prosecution Service

This needs citing properly if it is to go into the article at all. In particular, it needs a reliable source which is verifiable, and at present, it lacks one. There are other issues such as its placing and relevance, but they can wait until it's sourced properly. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Crown Prosecution Service. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rodhullandemu 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Crown Prosecution Service. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to read some policy before going any further, and that an Administrator's editing corrections are not vandalism. --Rodhullandemu 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Crown Prosecution Service, you will be blocked from editing. Please don't replace this again until you have understood our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Enough of this. I've told you too many times where to find policy, and you aren't getting it. There is no way you've had enough time to even read the major policies so I conclude that you're not bothered about doing so. --Rodhullandemu 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, he must have outlooked important policies like WP:BOLD. Tragic. HiDrNick! 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

You have been unblocked following discussion of the earlier block. This is not an endorsement of your earlier behaviour. Let me try to explain where you went wrong.

Edit warring is bad. It will get you blocked. If you add something to an article, and then someone else removes it, you should not add it back again. Instead, go to the talk page of the article, in this case that would have been Talk:Crown Prosecution Service, and explain why you think the material you've added belongs there. The ideal editing cycle is explained here. Yes, be bold in editing, but don't edit war.

Let's assume you think the Crown Prosecution Service article ignores criticisms of the CPS, and certainly it's criticised often enough. You can easily find case-specific criticisms, like the one you added, in news reports week in and week out. However, there are good reasons not to add these. If you refer to a particular case, you'll name the people involved. Since Wikipedia could be around for years to come in some form, this means that the names are preserved forever. That's not necessarily fair to those involved. Our policy on writing about living people would suggest that we shouldn't use particular cases if we can help it.

So, instead look for generic criticism. There's plenty of that too. This document, for example, lists the criticisms that have been made by academics and lawyers in published sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy means that we prefer these kind of criticisms to reports on ITV news or in newspapers. Google will find you dozens more similar papers and books.

We're here to write an encyclopedia, first, last and always. If that's why you're here, then welcome aboard and apologies for the needlessly dramatic start to your time here. If you have questions, the Help pages should help with any how-to problems. The Help Desk can answer more specific help questions, and the Village Pump would be better for more general questions. Feel free to leave me a note at my talk page (here and click on the + or new section at the top) if you have any questions.

However, if you are aiming to use Wikipedia to publicise a particular CPS screw-up, then we'll have a problem. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for campaigns, however well-meaning and however justified. So, I do hope that's not the case.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that your first encounter was extremely unpleasant. We have a policy that says Do not bite the newcomers and evidently we failed to follow that adequately here. I hope that you'll stay and try to help to improve Wikipedia, despite this rather unpromising initial experience. I've watchlisted this page and you can ask on my user talk page for help. --Jenny 13:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

CPS article

You were told pretty clearly that re-adding the exact same material was not a good thing. Take Angus's advice above, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)