User talk:Questionnaire

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Questionnaire, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Criminology. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Hall (criminologist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rational and Analytical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Hello, Questionnaire. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

(I have noticed that all of your contributions to Wikipedia seem to have the purpose of promoting Steve Hall -- or a frequent collaborator of his -- one way or another.) DreamGuy (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note - I fixed the wikilink to steve hall above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the test you added [here shows that Hall was a member of a band called The Questionnaires, your username might violate our username policy. DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was, and they were pretty good, too. I'm an ex-student and shortly to be his Research Assistant, but I chose to study with him because of his fast-growing reputation. Is that a conflict of interest? If so, fair enough, but it doesn't alter the fact that his work, along with Winlow's, is cited in most of the major textbooks in Britain and the USA - Newburn's Criminology; Lilly, Cullen and Ball's Criminological Theory, Hopkins Burke's Understanding Criminological Theory etc. etc. Hall has been described by big names such as Elliott Currie, Pat Carlen and Robert Reiner as one of the most creative minds in criminological theory, and his work as a 'remarkable intellectual achievement' that 'rocks the foundations of the discipline'. It gets great reviews in top journals like this http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/15/bjc.azs073.short?rss=1 and this http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/02/27/bjc.azp005 - in this latter one one Hall's work is described as superior to that of Jock Young's, Britain's biggest name in criminology; it is, too, Hall is light years ahead. Check all this up for yourself. The problem here is that the administrators know nothing about the discipline and its current evolution.

Look, do what you want, I don't really care, this place is a bit of a disaster anyway - the ideas of Hall and others will filter through eventually, and Wiki will be left way behind, one of the reasons virtually no academic who I've heard of recommends it. One parting shot, though - I did a huge amount of work on the Criminology page in order to include all the schools of thought and concepts from the 19th and 20th centuries... Hall and co. get only a brief mention at the end. Since then other people have been on and posted a load of misleading and barely relevant nonsense. I'm told that it's now a laughing stock amongst professional criminologists. I was getting round to correcting it all, but if you are going to censor me, I will not help you, and the page will continue to deteriorate. --Questionnaire (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Simon Winlow for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simon Winlow 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Winlow 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 high-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. Telfordbuck (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]