Talk:London Community Rehabilitation Company

message: I'm going to try to make some improvements to this article. I think what's missing most is a description of how London Probation operates. Internal stucture, expaning the information on programmes  etc.
Does anybody have additional ideas? Input welcome!
--Mediatoad (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to improve article, please 

message: Should "Community Payback" redirect to this page? Community payback is not confined to London, but is nation wide. Gives the impression that community payback is something that only takes place in London via the London probation trust... WillDow  (Talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Payback 

message: I am a Media Relations Officer at London Probation Trust and was given the task of updating its Wikipedia page.  In short the Page was several years out of date and as a result much of the information was inaccurate.  For example the Page stated London Probation Trust was part of the National Probation Service.  In short the National Probation Service no longer exists.  In addition I have added more information, which explains what the organisation does, some of the programmes it runs and its structure.  
I have tried to add citations to as much as I can, however, as you will see 90% of those citations are to London Probation Trust's own website.  As a result of my updates there are a number of Wikipedia alerts attached to the page.  If anyone can offer advice as to how all this can be verified/cleaned up, that would be appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Killworth (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrections in information are always welcome. The problems, however, owe to the main source being a primary one, and more importantly, that you've apparently cut and pasted the content from there, which may be a copyright violation. Sometimes organizations give their public relations writers the task of writing their Wikipedia articles, without understanding what's required in an encyclopedic entry. I'd encourage the trust to read those guidelines before doing-- or asking you to do-- the heavy lifting of editing. Copied text is often not neutral in tone, and usually must be deleted. I haven't reverted these edits outright, choosing instead to leave templates atop the article, in hopes that you or someone else may rewrite this in a fashion conforming to encyclopedic guidelines and copyright laws. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text: On second thought: since the balance of your additions appear to constitute copyright violation or closely paraphrase the trust's publications, and constitute a lengthy pamphlet rather than an encyclopedic entry, I've reverted to an earlier version. Feel free to update the information by rewriting the prose in acceptable fashion, with sources. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent revisions

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because our organisation (previously London Probation Trust) has changed significantly and we have to update our entries to reflect these changes. We do not 'sell' anything so we don't have anything to 'promote'   --MarComms LP (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion