Talk:The Pubs Code Regulations 2016

Edit warring
Both the page creator and myself are engaging in this in the "Pubs Advisory Service" section. We need to stop.

I have posted on his talk page my rationale for my amendments and additions and flagged up a possible COI issue; my view is that I am adding factual content to the article and have invited him to put up his rationale for continually deleting my text.

Having had no response, other than another deletion, I am unsure how to proceed next.

Pedant999 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
The page creator appears to be unwilling to enter into a dialogue on this, and has merely deleted my amendments and additions again without comment.

I have provided a reasoned argument for why I have made my amendments, and in the circumstances can see no alternative but to continue to attempt to post them.

Pedant999 (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring
I have rephrased my previous amendments which have been continually deleted by the page creator, latterly without explanation.

I would welcome feedback on the rationale for the removal of what appear to be the two contentious items.

1. The fact that the PAS is a private company, although this can be gleaned (by careful reading and a little research) from his own citation of the PAS website.

2. The creation of the BII panel of advisers - a historical fact.

There is a possible COI here. The sole shareholder and director of the PAS is called Christopher Wright. The page creator is Chriswright68. If the page creator is that Christopher Wright then he is, in effect, attempting to suppress publication of publicly available information about his company (and the existence of possible competitors).

Pedant999 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for discussion on "Pubs Advisory Service" section
I wish to add to / amend this section for the following reasons:

1. The casual reader may infer from the positioning of the section midway in the article relating to statutory regulations and a statutory body that the PAS is itself a statutory body, holds some special position or provides a unique service. 2. It is not statutory nor has any official status nor formal government "seal of approval"; it is one of several privately owned and membership based organisations providing property / legal / financial advice (or a gateway to such advice) to new / prospective tenants and pubs code advice to existing tenants.

I would like to discuss a form of words which are acceptable to reflect this, or, if consensus cannot be reached, as an extreme alternative, to remove the section in its entirety as the PAS forms no part of the new statutory arrangements, other than as a potential adviser to tenants. (It was a consultee during the legislative process but this also applies to some of the other bodies listed below)

Draft:

The government also wanted to see the trade create a "pubs advisory service" to help new entrants to the pubs trade with independent advice.The company now operating under the PAS name [15] has no special status, but is one of several such companies and membership organisations offering such advice (or a gateway to such advice) and, once the pubs code is clarified, pubs code advice. [link to BII, ALMR, FLVA, howtorunapub ...]

Pedant999 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Second Request for discussion on "Pubs Advisory Service" section
As above Pedant999 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

PAS section
I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing. — Pedant999 (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

PAS section
My latest edit includes reintroducing that there are several sources of advice, and reinforcing that PAS (the company) has no special status (although it did originally claim to do so) thereby generally steering the section away from "advertorial". The "self regulation movement" is not defined so deleted.

I am happy to discuss any differences of view and agree a consensus wording (if possible) before resuming "tit for tat" editing.

As the PAS (the company) has no standing in the legislation perhaps we could agree to delete the section altogether if all else fails. Pedant999 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)