Talk:Manor Property Group

Paid-contribution disclosure

Chelgate Local was retained by for the Manor Property Group to ensure the factual accuracy of its Wikipedia entry. Our project role is to review the current entry, fact check and correct any factual errors. We also intend to add new content to create a comprehensive entry and include more up to date information on the organisation and its projects. This will be written in a factual and accurate style, reflecting both positive and negative news about the organisation. It is not intended to be promotional in any way. Ruby Burdett (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of added content

Reply to Ruby Burdett - apologies for the delay caused by my illness and a few days in bed. I am pleased that CommanderWaterford picked up your enquiry. This level of CoI editing, paid and with a specific remit from the client is beyond my experience and I shall likely have to refer to others who are very adept via a dedicated portal called the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Your declaration is a bit vague and shallow, as it does not clarify your relationship with Chelgate and Manor, what Manor's brief was, and how Chelgate Local is connected to Chelgate.

I have reverted your changes as unacceptable. Please do not undertake any further changes directly without submitting your intention and reasons beforehand - generally, CoI editing is highly discouraged. Just because, for instance, your client wants to delete unfavourable historic content, correctly-based on a published newspaper is not good enough - it has to stay as part of the established content, although after some years it may need to be tweaked a bit. Secondary sources are deemed to have done their due diligence - fact checking - and this is what Wikipedia prefers, considering them to be reliable. You would have to prove why these basics were not applicable to justify any deletion - it's called WP:BURDEN. I haven't pored-over the minutiae of your changes, although I can see there are some secondary sources relating to qdos; I don't intend at this point to pick out any small amount of acceptable content.

Several other points spring to mind, not in any order: You added your own client's website(s) as sources, citing Philip Akrill at Manor; this is generally undesirable but under the circumstances can be seen to be promotional of the business. Wikipedia has non-conflicted, independent writers. Some content has been copyvio'd by you, that is, copy-pasted almost verbatim, from Scunthorpe Retail Park Viz: "...including Tesco, B&Q, Toys ‘R’ Us, T.K. Maxx, Next, Pizza Hut, McDonalds, K.F.C, Travel Lodge and Frankie and Benny’s.". Copyright violation is applicable to all; content needs to be para-phrased. That type of content is considered as WP:ROUTINE, in that there's those stores all over UK. The content would be added to local articles, ferinstance Scunthorpe, but would as likely be deleted. It's not acceptable in an article about a developer - padding out with unnecessary trivia.

The website you added citing qdos is undesirable, and using embedded links such as ‘Qdos Careers App’ and Qdos Career Hub are unacceptable anywhere, but are especially obvious when prominently sited in the lede. No-one expects you to know all of this and/or be able to assimilate it quickly. Wikipedia has become highly structured over time. Leave those thoughts with you to digest. From what you have latterly stated, you have failed to write objectively and non-promotionally. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer – Thank you for your response and I hope you are now feeling better. I apologise if my declaration was vague. Hopefully, the following information will clarify. I am employed by Chelgate Local, who were retained by Manor Property Group to ensure the factual accuracy of its Wikipedia page. As for your question on Chelgate Local's connection to Chelgate, around 10 years ago a separate division was set up, dedicated to planning public affairs and planning communications, this is now known as Chelgate Local. Upon reviewing the entry, I spotted some factual inaccuracies, which I corrected, and some source links which lead to deleted articles. Manor Property Group’s brief was to ensure the accuracy of the entry, ensure it is written in a balanced way and to include information about its current projects.

An explanation of the changes I made

Under the subtitle ‘Former Heaven and Hell nightclub on Anne Street’, for citations 3, 51, 52 and 53, the links no longer lead to a live article. The reason I removed the writing was not because the information was unfavourable to Manor Property Group, but because it was not referenced. Additionally, this line ‘Manor Property Group Ltd" is current under Compulsory liquidation & being wound up’ is factually inaccurate, rather than unfavourable, which is why I removed it, and clarified that it is not to be confused with Manor Property LTD (an entirely different company). Manor Property Group did not request that any accurate information be removed, even if it is unfavourable. Our brief included reflecting both positive and negative news.

Included in the amends you reverted, was also some new content, the purpose of this was to include more up to date information on the company’s projects, it was not intended to be promotional. The embedded links were not added for promotional purposes, however, now I understand they are not deemed acceptable I will be sure not to include them again.

Thank you for comments and advice, I have taken a lot of it onboard and will ensure I am mindful of your suggestions next time. Going forward, would you suggest I submit a draft via Wikipedia: Article Wizard, where yourself or perhaps another editor can proofread it before I make any further edits to the Manor Property Group page?

Again, thank you for your suggestions, and I hope to hear back from you soon!

Ruby Burdett (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Further expansion and comments for guidance

Reply to Ruby Burdett

ThanQ for your comments and concern for my health - I am now pain-free.

I wouldn't recommend delving into Draft possibilities at what is a premature stage; without a deeper understanding of Wikipedia this may be wasted effort and counter productive, requiring much input from others. For the purpose of these messages I will asssume you have no other experience of editing Wikipedia, and that your registration will be regarded by regulars as a single purpose account. Normally only one account is allowed. It's important to establish and stress that Wikipedia is not censored - which is exactly what you are trying to achieve, by finding loopholes which you think will enable deletion of content to satisfy your needs, and/or the client's requirements.

Making a declaration does not allow for special dispensation concerning mainspace content; every contributor has the same status on WP, but the over-riding message for any conflicted editing is "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly".

The content (Former Heaven and Hell nightclub) you were trying to delete is part of the history - that is, the history of the Manor business, the history of the nitespot and the created history of the WP article. I do not know of any rationale which allows for deletion of content due to non-availability of online references which were historically correctly applied and where/when the WP content was correctly written. The refs were annotated as {{deadlink}}. It also flies in the face of another fundamental WP precept, the assumption of good faith. Deletion of content and references is not unprecedented where new users are concerned, however.

In this case, the good faith quotient was not only that the article was correctly written and referenced at the time when refs were available, but furthermore, by extension, that the publication(s) relied upon were reliable sources and also were written correctly in good faith. To that end, I assume there are/were no legal challenges to the newpaper content. Where there is a traditional publisher, although the online content has not been maintained, it's possible that there was equivalent contemporaneous hard-copy now lodged in local and national archives. I have checked two online resources without success.

Hull Daily Mail is regarded as reliable. A list can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

You have also tried to introduce an announcement/disclaimer that the current Manor business name should not be considered as the same as Manor LTD, viz; "Manor Property Group is not to be confused with Manor Property LTD, it is not affiliated with the group and is an entirely separate entity." Unclear what this is supposed to mean, in any case as it may be formatted improperly. I don't know that such proclamations are acceptable in the prose.

I have not fully assimilated this but is covered in the Hull Daily Mail article which not only states 32 company trading styles but also quotes an incumbent as saying business as usual. The current government source is about the same, showing 30 names under Manor Administration Limited. Some tweaks will be necessary due to the considerable elapsed time, but I am unable to comprehend the company changes, initially into insolvency, then back again into solvency, with director Philip Akrill being removed and confirmed then re-installed. This is covered in documents but these are legalese Primary sources, and as such not explained adequately. The business is also stated to be a holding company, still extant, differing from the trading style of Manor Property Group, so not reasonable to try to divorce the two.

I have expanded two sections with recent published content and viable references. As I stated in the opening section, please do not as a new user try to re-write then submit a draft; the normal protocol for expansion is for suggestions to be made at Talk (per WP:PAYTALK), with suitable sources to verify the intended-content. I have noted your client's objective to eventually cover current projects, which preferrably should have been discussed in secondary sources.

The guidance for not including embedded links (which can be regarded as advertising) can be found at WP:EL, stating "Wikipedia articles may include external links, links to web pages outside Wikipedia. External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article."; another new user has just done similar. 3:25 AM and, as the magnificent Basil Fawlty famously stated...I'm hoping to get a couple of hours [sleep] myself later on. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Response

Reply to rocknrollmancer

Dear @rocknrollmancer

I am glad to hear you are feeling better. Once again, thank you for taking the time to give me feedback on this.

I would just like to reassure you that the aim of removing the ‘Heaven and Hell’ section was not to censor or benefit Manor Property Group in any way. I have been assigned to fact check the article, and to portray both the negative and positive information in a balanced and neutral tone. I removed the text because I could not verify the accuracy of the content if the article is no longer available online. I also could not find alternative sources to back the claims up. My motive is not to find loopholes for deletion, but to ensure that all of the information is accurate and portrays a factual representation of the company’s history. I do accept WP’s assumption of good faith policy and that the Hull Daily Mail is regarded a reliable source, however, if you yourself have checked two online resources without success, how can we ensure that the content is reliable? My understanding is that one of WP’s rationale for deletion is “Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed”. Yes, the source (Hull Daily Mail) is reliable, however, the information to verify the content is no longer accessible.

Going forward, do you suggest that I upload my edits covering ‘current projects’ with an edit summary, which will include an explanation of the edit, to help other editors understand my intention for editing?

Ruby Burdett (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruby Burdett: - Please do not upload any further 'live' contextual mainspace changes. Proposed changes should only be suggested at this Talk, under a new Heading, together with supporting references; the latter should be independent, ie., not from the Manor Property Group website in a format as described in edit requests: "Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. Requests should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial.".

As I have previously stated, I have to accept that, in the past-years, the (Heaven and Hell) WP content that you are again challenging was accurately-built and fact-checked 'in-house' by WP editors (in near real-time) who did not contribute to the article. By trying to delete the content, this equates to using Wikipedia as a tool to deny history.

I am just one of 41 million editors. I do not own this article; in fact, I arrived here by chance and only corrected the 'wrong' street address on the image caption. I can only provide advice to the best of my ability. If you feel that I am incorrect and that you should peremptorily be allowed to delete sourced content, you are very welcome to approach the Teahouse where you should summarily declare all conflicts and confirm an initial change of (net) +5,000 bytes (not including the sizeable deletion of content and references) where you will potentially receive advice from a variety of individuals.

I should add at an early stage that the vast majority of WP editors are volunteers and, as such, my one criterion is to re-establish a stable article version. It is not a priority to promote your client, and not acceptable to have to repeatedly engage in dealing with attempts to delete content and/or promote the company's/companies' activities. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, an over-view, not an exhaustive display of PR-based assertions, some being years-old. Wikipedia should only report upon third-party sources; generally, it's not acceptable to abstract info and draw conclusions from Primary Sources (known as synthesis). If there are any such hitherto-unaccessed secondary-sources, particularly any complimentary towards the business - then please confirm; topping-out ceremonies, openings by mayors or other luminaries, that sort of landmark occasion.

Other points I should mention.

I have now devoted an inordinate amount of time to this, including delving into the reasons behind Philip Arkill being removed as a director; I now better-understand the situation. I also extensively looked at the www.mpg7.com website and can see no substantiation that any of the alleged-projects that you have added have come to fruition. To me, these are proposals-only, often ascribed to a dedicated, limited-liabiity company name created for the purpose under an umbrella structure; physical work-in-progress constitutes a project. Circuit of Wales is an example of a proposal; nothing actually occurred and 'they' don't even own the land. It seems to me all MPG website content is (as stated by MP Emma Hardy in parliament) 'pie in the sky' and 'smoke and mirrors' with a series of similar brand-aspiration tabs default-linking to one another with nothing more than artists' renderings. Please confirm if and how wrong I am, by providing links to actual images and local-media coverage of accommodation-openings, ferinstance. New Media is somewhat different, often relying upon press-releases for their copy.

Where you added extensive content under a main heading of:

Current projects

Qdos Career Hubs
The Qdos Careers App
Qdos Student Homes
Hotel Development
Brough Haven, East Yorkshire

these are all highly-promotional, particularly with the emboldenment associated with a sub-heading, and the embedded Qdos website links as I have previously indicated. "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." In your reference-formatting, you have also attributed the home-website content to Philip Arkill where there is none visible within the browser window (I appreciate it appears in the web browser header); this content could have been generated by a director, a webmaster, an un-waged intern or by a paid outside PR-agency and no-one would know, unlike an acknowledged third-party press-writer.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Reply to rocknrollmancer

Thank you for your guidance. As per your advice, I will not be making any ‘live’ contextual mainspace changes. Instead, I will suggest changes here, and await your approval.

As I stated in my previous messages, I was hired by Manor Property Group to create a comprehensive entry and include more up to date information on the organisation and its projects, reflecting both positive and negative news about the organisation. Manor Property Group were not involved in drafting the content or finding the sources. The new content I am proposing has been neutrally written and sourced by myself.

I have taken on board all of your comments and understand you believed the extensive information under current projects to be promotional. Therefore, I am proposing to add information on the Qdos Career Hubs and the Qdos App ONLY. I will only use secondary sources; I will NOT use embedded links and I have written the content so that it reads in an unbiased and neutral tone. Seeing as the current entry is a little outdated, I believe that adding what the company is currently working on will make the entry factually accurate and comprehensive, which from what I understand, is the purpose of the article.

I am not proposing to delete any information, so I don’t believe the edits will be controversial in nature. I look forward to receiving your thoughts on my proposal.

Thanks,

Ruby Burdett (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't anticipate what you are contemplating, but any intended content should be based on more than regurgitated Press Release claims - as I stated, physical groundworks upwards for Qdos Career Hubs, reported on independently. Additionally, independent reviews of the app would be required.

I saw that previously when you revamped the article Ruth Gilbert, a Manor Director since 2018 was cited; she has been allowed to write opinion pieces in several online publications promoting Manor brands. As I pre-empted above, new media is regarded differently to traditional hard publishers, being reliant upon press releases for their copy. Also as I mentioned, I will now have to reach out, as, based on the lack of Talk input, there are likely too-few people watching this to form a consensus, and also to negate any suggestions of WP:OWNership on my part.

• Yorkshire Post, 12 November 2019
• schools week, 8 July 2020
• FE News, 16 Feb 2021
• TES 15 Sept 2020
• sec-ed 30 June 2020
• schoolsweek 4 Mar 2020
• FE News 17 Sept 2019

Please note that any content citing the above would be unacceptable, not considered as being secondary sources, having primary-submitted copy and being both promotional and of course CoI by extension. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

New content

Reply to rocknrollmancer

Thank you for getting back to me.

Just to reassure you, I am aware of the articles authored by Ruth Gilbert and will not be using any of them as sources. The content I have drafted on the Qdos career hubs/app uses secondary sources only.

When would it be appropriate for me to upload the new content for you to review? Previously you requested I do not make any ‘live’ contextual main-space changes, is there a way for me to submit a draft before editing the live article? You mentioned also 'reaching out' to better gain a consensus, thank you for doing so.

Ruby Burdett (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruby Burdett - did you mean "...primary sources only.", seen above? You can start a new section below here, headed as draft; I only have the use of one hand presently (not only is it a pain but difficult and slow) so I am not writing much. I have looked at the background of Mr Akrill who has commonality with my late uncle who was a highways/bridge engineer at Beverley, county town for East Riding / Humberside / Yorks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply to rocknrollmancer

I have amended this typo, the content uses secondary sources only. Thank you, I will upload the draft below. I wish you a speedy recovery with your hand and thank you for taking the time to respond, despite your ailment.

Ruby Burdett (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ThanQ - I fear it will be a long time; now learning ways to do everyday tasks with my non-dominant hand. It's not a big deal, but when the meaning is later changed and there's been a subsequent response, it's Wikiquette to use strikethrough to show the previous iteration, to achieve primary, changed to secondary sources only, coded thus:<s>primary</s>.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Please see below a new content draft for the Manor Property Group Wikipedia page. I believe including updated information on what the company is currently working on will help create a comprehensive and more up to date version of the existing article. Thank you in advance to anyone who chooses to review the content, your feedback is appreciated.

Qdos Career Hubs

Manor Property Group is developing and financing Qdos Career hubs across the UK. It is currently working to establish 150+ centres across the UK, which will extend unbiased and expert advice to youths across the UK, providing them with the necessary guidance to achieve their career goals. The Qdos Career Hubs are designed to offer career advice and employment guidance in a capacity which currently does not exist.

Plans for a hub in Hull were submitted in 2019 which according to the Manor Property Group, is "vital for the region" as unemployment among young people is high. Helen Gilmour, an ex- county councillor noted “I’m delighted to see a local business, Manor Property Group, spearhead investment in this critical regional education service”.

In October 2020, a planning application for a new career hub in Rotherham was submitted. If approved, the Hub will aid 25 local secondary schools achieve better standards for careers. It will also make it easier for employers to meet with pupils and teachers.

The first of these hubs is expected to open in 2021. Over the next 5 years, Manor Property Group is aiming to deliver 160 similar centres for career advice.

The Qdos Careers App

In 2020, Manor Property Group launched the ‘Qdos Careers App’, to provide readily accessible career support to young people and educators. The app is said to be "the first of its kind", providing access to expert careers advice and employment opportunities.

The app includes a number of different resources, designed to support young people prepare for employment. These include news on careers events, information on career sectors, careers tools, higher education preparation, job opportunities and news on summer programmes.

References

Ruby Burdett (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruby Burdett: I've declined this request per the opinions of three neutral editors below (myself included). In future please use the request edit template (just add this to the top of your request: {{edit COI}}), as it will summon other editors. At the same time, keep in mind that the editors who answer these requests are volunteers. --- Possibly (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of edit request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please comment below on the above proposals for new prose to be added to the article, using a new subheading for your username.

Comments by Rocknrollmancer

Generally 'wrong' tone; verbose, promotional, blogging-style is not suitable.

Qdos Career Hubs
Pointless inclusion, no tangible building works have been undertaken, two speculative-only planning applications. The 1st planning application (Hull area) to East Riding of Yorkshire Council was refused 2 September 2019. An appeal was dismissed 27 Aug 2020; in Wikipedia terms for past-events this is stale. Two other major scheme applications at the same site were refused, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. The Rotherham proposal is undecided as of 20 May 2021. The remainder is preamble, see WP:SOAPBOXING, WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors). I do not feel this is suitable content for Wikipedia, everyday business sequences such as planning applications would be considered as WP:ROUTINE.

The Qdos Careers App
No comment, no experience of apps, but I am unable to find any independent reviews. Two low-rating comments at the app store. Although this is free, I am unsure if this may be unsuitable content for Wikipedia, being a type of spam?

External links (added by Rocknrollmancer for survey purposes only)

• Apple App preview
• Android App preview

Comments by Schazjmd

I agree with Rocknrollmancer about the career hub section; plans aren't suitable for inclusion. Maybe when one is opened, it will receive coverage by independent sources and be appropriate to mention in the article. For the app, I was unable to find any independent (non-press-release) mentions of it, so there's nothing to say other than that they helped build an app, and that isn't of encyclopedic importance. Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Possibly

The suggested edits under "draft" above sound promotional, I would reject it all. I don't see such promotional text as being an improvement. Also, don't forget WP:PAYTALK, which advises one not to spend to much time talking to paid editors who are being paid to talk. Also, this has the form of an RFC, but all that is really needed at the moment is for the COI editor to use the WP:REQUESTEDIT process. --- Possibly (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need more than three editors commenting on a basic edit request. Since all three agreed, I added the edit request template and closed it as declined. --- Possibly (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.