User talk:Webteam3

Welcome!

Hello, Webteam3, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Norman Bettison

I have initiated a discussion of the changes you have made to the above article at the conflict of interest noticeboard, as it appears that you are making the changes from a position related to the subject of the article. Please read through the guidelines on conflict of interest. I'm not going to undo the change you've made to the article at present, but will note that I feel it does lean away from neutral point of view and that the previous version was in fact more neutral, providing a balance of information on the subject. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether to make further changes.

As to your requests that the article be locked, please note that article protection is only used to stabilize pages that are subject to edit wars or heavy vandalism, and is never used to protect an article at one editor's preferred version. All articles are free to be edited by other editors; once you hit the "save" button, that information is no longer yours, but the encyclopedia's, and can be worked on collaboratively.

Finally, you may want to look at our guidelines for citations as a guide to creating inline cites to properly show at the end of the page. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll also leave it until we see what comes out of the WP:COI discussion, but I certainly don't consider the "official" version neutral. Overall, I think it's a useful basis for an expanded article, but it needs editing in areas where it actively underplays controversial areas. As I cited at WP:COIN:

This was despite a difficult introduction when it was reported that Sir Norman had been involved in the investigation of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 when 96 Liverpool football fans died. He offered to meet with relatives of those who lost their lives at Hillsborough to defuse the controversy

is just a meaningless string of events without an explanation of why his involvement in the investigation was controversial. Similarly:

An unprecedented step for a retried [sic] Chief Constable to rejoin the Service in a similar rank, it was not without penalty. Sir Norman was denied his previously paid pension

is not terribly informative without more explanation of the context (i.e. that this was a matter of dispute). And in any case, "penalty" and "denied" are non-neutral in carrying an assumption that this was an entitlement that was refused him (rather than, say, something that was not the norm that he tried, and failed, to obtain).

Another formatting issue, by the way: as this is a cross-referenced encyclopedia, if internal links exist, it's the custom to use those rather than external ones. For instance, West Yorkshire Police, not West Yorkshire Police.

This content discussion really belongs at Talk:Norman Bettison. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your specific feedback, I will look into expanding these areas to meet your requirements.

They're not my requirements. Work on the article remains collective. The discussion at WP:COIN#Norman Bettison is still ongoing, where I've asked for the promised proof that you represent Sir Norman.

If you don't, this is all academic: WP:BLP applies, and now the problem has been highlighted, plenty of people will be watching the article to make sure it is obeyed.

If you do, there is a major conflict of interest and you're are expected to take a back seat, helping via the Talk page (with the right to necessary corrections). It does not give you the right to demand your own version of the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you upload a GFDL photograph. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been advised before, you have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. It's highly advisable that if you wish changes to be made to the article, you discuss them on the article talk page rather than making the changes yourself. You removed two cited pieces of information from the article, which had been placed and stood for some time prior to your edit. Also, changing the subject's name to "Sir Norman" from "Bettison" in later uses in the article is problematic, as standard style is to use the subject's last name after first usage. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]