User talk:JoeCawley

Welcome!

Hello, JoeCawley, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Galloglass 11:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watford (UK Parliament constituency)[edit]

Hi JoeCawley. I'm afraid I have had to revert your edit on Watford (UK Parliament constituency) as all UK candidates are listed in ballot paper order per WP:NPOV. Cheers - Galloglass 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have had to revert your other edit also as firstly it lacked an edit summary and also it removed a well referenced part of the article. Can I suggest you read the five pages I have added above in the welcome message as this will help you avoid having these problems in future. Cheers - Galloglass 11:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galloglass, I have changed the article on the prospective candidates as it was out of date. It did not mention the current candidate and so was in need of revision. I also changed the previous section (mostly just in presentation more than substance) because one section mentioned irrelivant information to the constituency and ommitted information relevant to the constituency. Further the article i wrote contains only one less reference than the previous one; in a article of only two paragraphs this would seem sufficient. Thus i cannot see the desire to revert the article to the out of date version, and hope the new one will be satisfactory.

Hi Joe. There are several problems with your new version. The ones I have outlined previously and also you appear to be promoting one of the candidates in your re-write, this falls foul of WP:NPOV in a big way and cannot stand. Against that, mention of the mental health problems of the retired candidate is a big improvement on the old text. Bearing this in mind would you be good enough to read the outlined policies and merge both the best of the old and new in line with them. Thanks. - Galloglass 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the WP:NPOV and do not feel the article has been made more biased than the previous one which also only mentioned the conservative party. I am quite happy for the article to be updated to included the other candidates, though in terms of candidates they remain unchanged. However, I do not know the state of play with the other candidates and thus cannot update them. As i said i would be happy if anyone else wished to do so. I feel the changed article is better than the last in terms of actually mentioning the current candidate, but realise it is not perfect. I am open to it being changed but i feel a merely reverting to the old one is a backward move. Thanks

MASSIVE conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, JoeCawley. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Anne Main, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]