Talk:Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

message: :Image:Departmentofcorrections.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Departmentofcorrections.gif

message: Please do not put in bare URLs for references. Here is the format you need to use. You have to fill in each field like I have this one:

Have a look at the references section. It is the 2nd one. You'll see the difference. - 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: Will be respected on this talk page Any further attempts to out other users will result in blocking. Discuss the article, not each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OUTING]] 

message: I made a fairly substantial removal of content earlier today because the artisl was being used as a WP:COATRACK and a borderline attack article, as it has been in the past. The issue is not about sourcing but about tone and balance. I'd invite editors to read Adolf Hitler and note the impartial tone, lack of loaded terminology, reliance on neutral sources and overall balance. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This site is intended to be a neutral, factual summary of knowledge. If you have not yet, please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Much of your contribution is unsuitable for Wikipedia, being non-neutral, referenced to books so obscure they can't be found in Amazon (e.g. "Flying Blind"), or original research (statements such as "Corrections appears to be in breach of its statutory obligations" are journalism, not encyclopaedic material). Try, if you can, to summarise your points in a short paragraph, with sourcing to mainstream sources, and see how that goes. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, of course, an exemplar of the problem. The reference should be to the judgment, which merely refers to Mr Brooking's recent publication on this subject. which could refer to one of the many articles at ADAC. The judgement says We direct the Registrar to send a copy of this judgment and Mr Brooking's affidavit to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections for consideration. How the press gets from there to Dismayed judges have ordered Corrections bosses to read an expert's book on rehabilitation after being shocked... isn't clear to me, since the affidavit at 8 pages is appears to be much shorter than the book at 312 pages. This is why we attempt to go for authoritative sources, particularly about topical and currently political issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Strange you should mention Flying Blind. In this edit, User:Offender9000 said they were the author. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Roger_Brooking in  these edits  User:Offender9000 says that ADAC (the publisher of Flying Blind) is his company, making it self published. See also WP:SELFPUB. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COATRACK]] issues 

message: Offender9000: Rather than adding stuff yourself, please tell us what is wrong with the current article and what you think need to be added. Just broadly, what topics? not specific wording. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what needs to be added? 

message: Mr  Yeates response in the section above proves my point - about the need to "not remove sourced information solely on the grounds that it seems biased". Neither Mr Yeates nor Mr Lyall have acknowledged this request or the need to follow wikipedia policies on neutrality. I have asked them a number of times to provide constructive feedback on information I have provided. Instead, they have repeatedly reverted entire sections of information without explanation which constitutes vandalism. They both have a conflict of interest as a result of which they think any information seemingly critical of the Corrections Department has to be removed - even though that information mostly comes from the Corrections department's own research and is posted on Corrections website. I am new to wikipedia and I don't understand how to use the warning mechanisms that wikipedia has. If I did, I would issue them with a formatted wikipedia warning for vandalism. 
In regard to the information that Mr Yeates wants to add. Go ahead if you wish - be constructive and add material. Just stop deleting/reverting my contributions. Otherwise, I think you and Mr Lyall should be blocked for vandalism. Offender9000 (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) I have never removed sourced information solely on the grounds that it seems biased (b) we have provided constructive feedback on a number of occasions (c) with have >1000 edits, you are not "new to wikipedia"---just apparently indifferent to learning the house style and local conventions (d) please provide on-wiki diffs that support your contention that "Mr Yeates" is an appropriate way to refer to me, or remove them (e) I have no idea how how my comments above prove your point; maybe you could restate this proof clearly? (f) you claim that we have a conflict of interest, previously you have claimed we're employees of the department; please give evidence of these claims or withdraw them. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:VANDALISM issues 

message: I have gone through this, after the posting to WP:COI/N. I am quite clear that Offender9000 has a COI and his edits are highly POV. There are also some issues in the version prior to his edits. Details posted here. I am an uninvolved editor and not an admin. Babakathy (talk) 09:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: Ok guys, I've protected the article again. I could just as easily have liberally handed out some blocks to the edit warriors as you have been more than adequately warned about this already. I again repeat that if you are unable to resolve these issues by discussing amongst yourselves, you should seek some form of WP:DR such as requests for comment or the dispute resolution noticeboard. Work it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been considerable discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Department_of_Corrections_.28New_Zealand.29, which should have been prominently linked to from here. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, although I commented there a while ago, I hadn't been watching it in the meantime. After reviewing the conversation there I believe a different course of action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unprotected  User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough of the edit warring 

message: I note that this article is under mediation and that there has been considerable debate by several editors. However, I am concerned that some of the statements made in the article could be considered defamatory to living persons - see WP:Libel. I express this opinion primarily to ensure that those editing take a balanced approach when citing criticism of the Department's staff - see WP:NPOV. A number of the issues raised as concerns about the Department's behaviour are valid and were well documented in the local media. There are also reports from a number of investigations into the various incidents, but these need to be cited in a more balanced manner.
Since it appears to be an issue in the discussion and for the benefit of all - I have no connection to the Department, nor do I have any link to its staff. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation 

message: Just noting here for any interested parties that there is a request for mediation regarding the content of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand)]] 

message: I've reverted an edit that removed the info box. As far as I can tell it is consistent with the WP:MOS. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still mystified about about what the problem is/was with the Infobox. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I intend to restore the NPOV tag. The recent attempt at mediation failed and as far as I can see none of the issues have been resolved, settled or significantly progressed. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We did make progress, just not much. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it very difficult to believe than an experienced editor such as User:SimonLyall would behave in the manner you describe and see nothing in that user's recent contribution history to support this. I would however suggest that said contribution history is very much in keeping with someone who has a busy life outside Wikipedia and does not have hours spare to indulge in circular debates. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The tag should stay as long as the "Criticisms" section is in its current form. At the moment it is extremely one-sided, in particular the paragraph which claims that "...Corrections is in breach of its statutory obligations..." (This appears unsourced and quite possibly original research). The section's content should either be balanced by other criticism from groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and/or references to the 1999 referendum, or (preferably) removed entirely. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: In the absence of any opposition I have restored the POV tag. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You have not addressed the main issue I have raised which is that you are still accusing an entire organisation of criminal behaviour, previously completely unsourced and now sourced only to a self-published polemic. I have removed the most egregious tinfoil-hattery, reinstated the NPOV tag and will shortly see if anyone on the NZ project boards has enough free time to attend to the rest of the clean-up. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Department of Corrections (New Zealand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404195018/http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=202 to http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=202
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120803165325/http://www.corrections.govt.nz/news-and-publications/magazines-and-newsletters/corrections-news/2011/corrections_news_nov-dec/farewell_interview_chief_executive_barry_matthews.html to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/news-and-publications/magazines-and-newsletters/corrections-news/2011/corrections_news_nov-dec/farewell_interview_chief_executive_barry_matthews.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Department of Corrections (New Zealand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209111509/http://corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/179695/abouttime.pdf to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/179695/abouttime.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121220164844/http://www.psa.org.nz/newsroom/mediareleases/12-03-09/Why_build_a_private_prison_when_we_have_empty_beds_in_public_ones.aspx to http://www.psa.org.nz/newsroom/mediareleases/12-03-09/Why_build_a_private_prison_when_we_have_empty_beds_in_public_ones.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502071013/http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/394902/Complete-Recidivism-Report-2009-DOC.pdf to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/394902/Complete-Recidivism-Report-2009-DOC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified