Welcome!
Hello, Veraguinne, 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 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 {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
ProhibitOnions
(T)
09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
I don't know who the user is, I only welcomed him. Mario1987 ( talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
it's still pretty one sided, and if you could find some references for those block quotes it would be good. i edited it a bit to make it acceptable. ninety: one 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Veraguinne. As I was formatting the timeline on International Year of the Child it struck me that we might create an entirely separate article with much of that information called Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom, similar to what I created at Timeline of children's rights in the United States. I found it allowed me to contextualize the information better, and it would avoid the appearance of original research, which is what you that the info you added to the article appears to be. Let me know if I can assist you in creating the new article, or simply use the US article as a template. • Freechild 'sup? 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It took a little time and energy, but I've added a substantial amount of information to Timeline of children's rights in the United States about the U.S. treatment of the CRC, per your request. I think that the information you and I have collected should be added to the article on the CRC; I'll work on that later today. Thanks for prompting me. • Freechild 'sup? 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for writing again. The timeline looks great. What a strange conversation about Jersey, eh? It kind of amazes me - but only a little bit - the minutia that people pull for on Wikipedia, even though I am sure others would accuse me of the same. Anyhow, about the illustration, I can't quite help you, as I have never uploaded pics onto WP. Honestly, I am not sure if your suggested illustration would even be allowed. There are policies about this all over; if you're interested start looking on the front page. Sorry I can't be of more assistance on that. • Freechild 'sup? 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You're on the verge of opening a whole other can of worms, so to speak. From what I understand, Carpenter was important to the development of schools in the UK, and your finding was central; however, the reasoning behind the development of schools there parallels that of schools here, in France, and Germany: sourced in Hindu mythology that spread throughout aristocratic Europe from the 14th century and prior, schools were always an attempt to control the masses. I almost feel like a conspiracist talking about this, but by way of evidence, in 1933 the president of the American National Education Association wrote that his organization expected "to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force." And this kind of intent prefaces that date and certainly follows it. Many of the downfalls of Western society, including its wars, famines, diseases and other inequities, seem reinforced, if not sourced, in the confines of schools. I would cautiously tread down the path you're walking, but if you do, I might suggest the creation of an article entitled Timeline of the development of education in the United Kingdom. That may be fascinating. • Freechild 'sup? 13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Help please
I am working on the Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom and wonder if you could please help me with citations to amplify details of call-up in 1942 and post-war peace time conscription. Thanks SJB (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. You seem to have set yourself a mammoth task, not least because I imagine from your spelling that you are from the other side of the pond, as they say; it would also account for one or two other eccentricities. How did you get hooked on this particular topic?
That apart, I am also puzzled that, wide as your self-appointed remit is, you seem to have made it even wider. I cannot see that you have anywhere offered your own definition of a child. Under the UNCRC, as you will know, the age is set at 18. Yet a number of the cases and incidents you cite relate mainly, if not solely, to over-18s. Conscription in the UK is one such (about which you ask me), as it never applied to under-18s, except that, by voluntary arrangement, at the time of post-WW2 conscription, a boy coming up to 18 could ask for his call-up to be expedited if it would assist him to be released at a particular time to enter a university or college - a very minor marginal detail affecting a minuscule number of youths.
It may be that you are taking the view that until the change in the age of majority, which you refer to only as the voting age, whereas it is much more than that, you are taking the view that all persons under 21 were children. If so, you need to spell that out. Even with that, some of your examples seem to go beyond the children's realm. The Brixton riot, so far as I was aware of it, was primarily an adult affair, and I would not ordinarily expect to see it discussed in the specific context of children's rights.
On the other hand, though you have fascinatingly dug out some interesting early cases, I looked in vain for Denis O'Neill, who died in 1945 as a foster child in Shropshire, for Lady Allen of Hurtwood (incidentally the widow of Clifford Allen), whose letter to the Times you refer to in a footnote, but without giving her the credit, and for the Curtis Committee, all of which led to the Children Act 1948. I mention these simply because they sprang immediately and automatically to mind, without my having to turn to any works of reference ot the web, as I read through your timeline.
As you will see, I did some tidying up as I read through your screed, but before I go into the details of WW2 conscription, I need to know how you see it affecting "children".
Mountdrayton (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi SJB. Quick suggestion, in line with recent suggestions: Can I move this page to Timeline of young peoples' rights in the United Kingdom? It may resolve a little of the tension brought up by Mountdrayton. Just a suggestion, although I am doing the same. • Freechild 'sup? 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Having updated the Timeline about Kindertransport, and also noted in your posts an interest in Quakers and pacifism, I wondered if you were aware of the Quakers' excellent role in the rescue? --SJB (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was, indeed, aware of both Kindertransport and the significant part played by the Quakers. Also, a number of non-Quaker pacifists joined in at the level of publicity and raising funds.
Kindertransport was not the only means of rescuing children. Quakers and pacifists joined in raising funds under the guarantee system to enable whole families, or sometimes mothers and children, to be rescued. One particular organisation was the War Resisters International {WRI). There is lovely photograph of George Lansbury, WRI president, with a small girl on his lap, and her two elder sisters at his shoulders. The caption is "Grossvater Georg", which is how the chldren addressed him. These particular children and their parents were brought over from Vienna very soon after Kristallnacht. Their mother always said that the WRI saved her family's life.
As someone has said, some tidying up needs to be done on Jewish Refugee pages, and when I have more time, I will see how I can work this aspect in.
Mountdrayton ( talk) 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW
My Goodness! We seem to have a common interest in King Edwards School. My own truculent and inglorius career at KEHS ceased after another row with Head Mistress JRF Wilkes, bless her....
I digress however and have dropped in to ask if you can shed any light on the extraordinary bifurcation of the Scottish and English systems, after the 1964 Kilbrandon report.
Para 6 of the latest sentencing guidelines consultation [1] states : The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 set out to expand separation (between criminality and welfare considerations) even further, in particular providing for an increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years and providing for what has been called a “decriminalisation” of the juvenile court. However, this particular provision (and a number of other significant provisions) was never brought into force. It might hinge around the untimely surfacing of abuse allegations at Court Lees in 1967, when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary.
The Scottish system, adopted from 1971, effectively removed considerations of criminality entirely from children's proceedings in court. There are, of course, problems with the Scottish system - indeed none can be perfect. However, the divergence is all the more remarkable in the light of the 'punitive' v 'welfare' debate over English juvenile justice, ignited by the 3rd report to the UN on CRC in October.
All good wishes for 2009.-- SJB ( talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Veraguinne, 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 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 {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
ProhibitOnions
(T)
09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
I don't know who the user is, I only welcomed him. Mario1987 ( talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
it's still pretty one sided, and if you could find some references for those block quotes it would be good. i edited it a bit to make it acceptable. ninety: one 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Veraguinne. As I was formatting the timeline on International Year of the Child it struck me that we might create an entirely separate article with much of that information called Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom, similar to what I created at Timeline of children's rights in the United States. I found it allowed me to contextualize the information better, and it would avoid the appearance of original research, which is what you that the info you added to the article appears to be. Let me know if I can assist you in creating the new article, or simply use the US article as a template. • Freechild 'sup? 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It took a little time and energy, but I've added a substantial amount of information to Timeline of children's rights in the United States about the U.S. treatment of the CRC, per your request. I think that the information you and I have collected should be added to the article on the CRC; I'll work on that later today. Thanks for prompting me. • Freechild 'sup? 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for writing again. The timeline looks great. What a strange conversation about Jersey, eh? It kind of amazes me - but only a little bit - the minutia that people pull for on Wikipedia, even though I am sure others would accuse me of the same. Anyhow, about the illustration, I can't quite help you, as I have never uploaded pics onto WP. Honestly, I am not sure if your suggested illustration would even be allowed. There are policies about this all over; if you're interested start looking on the front page. Sorry I can't be of more assistance on that. • Freechild 'sup? 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You're on the verge of opening a whole other can of worms, so to speak. From what I understand, Carpenter was important to the development of schools in the UK, and your finding was central; however, the reasoning behind the development of schools there parallels that of schools here, in France, and Germany: sourced in Hindu mythology that spread throughout aristocratic Europe from the 14th century and prior, schools were always an attempt to control the masses. I almost feel like a conspiracist talking about this, but by way of evidence, in 1933 the president of the American National Education Association wrote that his organization expected "to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force." And this kind of intent prefaces that date and certainly follows it. Many of the downfalls of Western society, including its wars, famines, diseases and other inequities, seem reinforced, if not sourced, in the confines of schools. I would cautiously tread down the path you're walking, but if you do, I might suggest the creation of an article entitled Timeline of the development of education in the United Kingdom. That may be fascinating. • Freechild 'sup? 13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Help please
I am working on the Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom and wonder if you could please help me with citations to amplify details of call-up in 1942 and post-war peace time conscription. Thanks SJB (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. You seem to have set yourself a mammoth task, not least because I imagine from your spelling that you are from the other side of the pond, as they say; it would also account for one or two other eccentricities. How did you get hooked on this particular topic?
That apart, I am also puzzled that, wide as your self-appointed remit is, you seem to have made it even wider. I cannot see that you have anywhere offered your own definition of a child. Under the UNCRC, as you will know, the age is set at 18. Yet a number of the cases and incidents you cite relate mainly, if not solely, to over-18s. Conscription in the UK is one such (about which you ask me), as it never applied to under-18s, except that, by voluntary arrangement, at the time of post-WW2 conscription, a boy coming up to 18 could ask for his call-up to be expedited if it would assist him to be released at a particular time to enter a university or college - a very minor marginal detail affecting a minuscule number of youths.
It may be that you are taking the view that until the change in the age of majority, which you refer to only as the voting age, whereas it is much more than that, you are taking the view that all persons under 21 were children. If so, you need to spell that out. Even with that, some of your examples seem to go beyond the children's realm. The Brixton riot, so far as I was aware of it, was primarily an adult affair, and I would not ordinarily expect to see it discussed in the specific context of children's rights.
On the other hand, though you have fascinatingly dug out some interesting early cases, I looked in vain for Denis O'Neill, who died in 1945 as a foster child in Shropshire, for Lady Allen of Hurtwood (incidentally the widow of Clifford Allen), whose letter to the Times you refer to in a footnote, but without giving her the credit, and for the Curtis Committee, all of which led to the Children Act 1948. I mention these simply because they sprang immediately and automatically to mind, without my having to turn to any works of reference ot the web, as I read through your timeline.
As you will see, I did some tidying up as I read through your screed, but before I go into the details of WW2 conscription, I need to know how you see it affecting "children".
Mountdrayton (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi SJB. Quick suggestion, in line with recent suggestions: Can I move this page to Timeline of young peoples' rights in the United Kingdom? It may resolve a little of the tension brought up by Mountdrayton. Just a suggestion, although I am doing the same. • Freechild 'sup? 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Having updated the Timeline about Kindertransport, and also noted in your posts an interest in Quakers and pacifism, I wondered if you were aware of the Quakers' excellent role in the rescue? --SJB (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was, indeed, aware of both Kindertransport and the significant part played by the Quakers. Also, a number of non-Quaker pacifists joined in at the level of publicity and raising funds.
Kindertransport was not the only means of rescuing children. Quakers and pacifists joined in raising funds under the guarantee system to enable whole families, or sometimes mothers and children, to be rescued. One particular organisation was the War Resisters International {WRI). There is lovely photograph of George Lansbury, WRI president, with a small girl on his lap, and her two elder sisters at his shoulders. The caption is "Grossvater Georg", which is how the chldren addressed him. These particular children and their parents were brought over from Vienna very soon after Kristallnacht. Their mother always said that the WRI saved her family's life.
As someone has said, some tidying up needs to be done on Jewish Refugee pages, and when I have more time, I will see how I can work this aspect in.
Mountdrayton ( talk) 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW
My Goodness! We seem to have a common interest in King Edwards School. My own truculent and inglorius career at KEHS ceased after another row with Head Mistress JRF Wilkes, bless her....
I digress however and have dropped in to ask if you can shed any light on the extraordinary bifurcation of the Scottish and English systems, after the 1964 Kilbrandon report.
Para 6 of the latest sentencing guidelines consultation [1] states : The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 set out to expand separation (between criminality and welfare considerations) even further, in particular providing for an increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years and providing for what has been called a “decriminalisation” of the juvenile court. However, this particular provision (and a number of other significant provisions) was never brought into force. It might hinge around the untimely surfacing of abuse allegations at Court Lees in 1967, when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary.
The Scottish system, adopted from 1971, effectively removed considerations of criminality entirely from children's proceedings in court. There are, of course, problems with the Scottish system - indeed none can be perfect. However, the divergence is all the more remarkable in the light of the 'punitive' v 'welfare' debate over English juvenile justice, ignited by the 3rd report to the UN on CRC in October.
All good wishes for 2009.-- SJB ( talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)