User talk:Chriswright68

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chriswright68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Your reason here, I misunderstood the name policy and thought the name i had chosen would help disclose any interest in the subject, however taking into consideration i wish to change my username to reflect your policy please change username to chriswright68

Decline reason:

You have not provided a new username. Yamla (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chriswright68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

chriswright68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Your reason here as described above misunderstanding with policy led to incorrect name choice

Accept reason:

New username is fine, account renamed and unblocked. Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Pubs Code Regulations 2016 has been accepted

The Pubs Code Regulations 2016, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Daniel kenneth (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pubs Code Regulations 2016

Before I reinsert what you keep deleting from this article, I thought it worthwhile to explain my rationale for adding what I have.

I think we are agreed that the government envisaged a Pubs Advisory Service provided by the BII.

Whatever the reasons the name "PAS" now belongs to a private company with a sole shareholder,(I assume that's you) and presumably operates for the benefit of that shareholder.

The objects of the BII, by contrast, are, to quote from their memorandum of association, "...for the public benefit...", and their articles of association speak of using all monies in pursuit of their objects.

There is thus a significant difference between how the government expected things to work and how they've actually worked which forms part of the history.

The BII do have a panel of legal, property and financial advisers with multiple choices in each category. http://biibas.bii.org/Panel-Advisors

The facts above are, I believe, indisputable, and I can think of no reason why they should not be included in the section of the article headed "Pubs Advisory Service".

As the philosophy of Wikipedia seems to be, to paraphrase, the more knowledge the merrier; I am interested to hear your rationale for removing my additions relating to the above.

Pedant999 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish (if you are indeed the proprietor of the PAS) to consider this extract from Wikipedia's conflict of interest advice: "...If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions....)

Pedant999 (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pubs Code Regulations 2016

This adding and deleting could go on forever.

You have my rationale for the additions, and my concerns over possible COI; perhaps you could post your rationale for the deletions.

Pedant999 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Pubs Code Regulations 2016". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 June 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning The Pubs Code Regulations 2016, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

TalkbackThe Pubs Code Regulations 2016

Hello, Chriswright68. You have new messages at Talk:The Pubs Code Regulations 2016#Pubs Advisory Service (PAS).
Message added 13:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pedant999 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback The Pubs Code Regulations 2016 (second request)

Hello, Chriswright68. You have new messages at Talk:The Pubs Code Regulations 2016#Pubs Advisory Service (PAS).
Message added 12:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pedant999 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

There is a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard that you may wish to respond to. Meanwhile, here is the relevant information on what constitutes COI here, and the various ways that it can be handled. It is possible to participate in WP if you are in a position of interest, although it is necessary to follow certain guidelines when doing so.

Hello, Chriswright68. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pubs Code Regulations 2016 - PAS - BII & FLVA

I have amended the Pubs Advisory Service (PAS) section of The Pubs Code Regulations 2016 (diff). The http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Legal/Legislation/Trade-experts-launch-their-own-Pubs-Advisory-Service-in-response-to-Government source makes it very clear that the BII and FLVA are offering (or were as at 2012; or were as at 2012 planning to offer) a PAS service, and that they were somewhat put out by the appearance on the scene of the PAS company. Wikipedia seeks to work from reliable sources (WP:RS), and unless a source refuting the morning advertiser story can be found, I anticipate the BII & FLVA mention will remain in the article. Might I ask that if you have criticism to make of my amendment, you discuss at Talk:The Pubs Code Regulations 2016 so that we can bring the current edit war on that article to an end. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is The Pubs Code Regulations 2016. Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Commercial Rents (Coronavirus) Bill

Hello, Chriswright68,

Thank you for creating Commercial Rents (Coronavirus) Bill.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

It would be helpful to link to this page from other articles to integrate it into Wikipedia

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lineslarge}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lineslarge (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]