Rangoon11

A message on behalf of Andrew Large:

Dear Rangoon11,

I wanted to get in contact to discuss potential improvements to the British Poultry Council article on Wikipedia. It has been a while since the article has been updated and there are a number of inaccuracies that need to be corrected. The article would also benefit from the inclusion of additional information about the organisation and its activities.

As you’ve already helped to improve the article and have experience in maintaining similar content, I wanted to see whether this is something you could help with? If so, I’d be grateful if we could start a dialogue to address the points that I have raised.

Kind regards,

Andrew Large
Chief Executive
British Poultry Council

Thanks Vjemmett (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know your thoughts on the above. Thanks Vjemmett (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

...for the WP:99% guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well done on getting this up and running. I will have a think and put my thoughts on the project talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. My best regret for the recent events. I would like to invite you back to Talk:Columbo.
2. I'd stayed away for couple days to avoid the fight, and when I got back, I heard that Djathinkimacowboy got block. However, I'd asked the admin to unblock him, and give him a chance to learn how to co-work with others.

ThanksB3430715 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

i actually made a similar article of the iq list copying an older version of the original article feel free to editing and using it--Shokioto22 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Intelligence_QuotientReply

Thank you for the barnstar. Nice to know my contributions are appreciated. Regards, Steve. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. BaboneCar (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am puzzled by your reverting the change I made from United Kingdom to England in the infobox. I know that a hospital is not a town, but surely the constituent country is even more relevant in the case of a hospital, as the United Kingdom health system is now devolved to, and administered by, the constituent countries. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish health systems are all administered by their regional governments, and the United Kingdom government only administers the system in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is completely standard in WP articles for companies and organisations to have town/city + sovereign state given for location. The internal structure of the NHS is of no relevance to this and the location information is not there to convey a subliminal message to readers about a separate topic, but to tell them where the organisation is located. We would not omit "United States" from articles on US medical organisations just because healthcare there is organised primarily at a state level, ditto with Chinese organisations where healthcare may be organised on a province or city basis. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please make some correction as well as contribution for Infosys. And for Reliance Industries please confirm whether its a "conglomerate" or "Oil & Gas" company since bulk of there revenue comes from oil and gas sector, before taking any decision consult other editors.Thanks--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Infosys isn't an article that I have done much work on in the past but I am happy to help out with it.

Re Reliance Industries I think that it could accurately be described as either a conglomerate or an oil and gas company. As you say oil and gas (and connected petrochemical activities) are the core and by far the largest part of its activities. However it is also highly diversified in other wholly unconnected areas, and those other areas are receiving a fairly high share of its current investments. Personally I would still on balance call it an 'oil and gas company' although I can see this changing in the future. It is worth noting that it is in the 'Oil & Gas Producers' sector of the London Stock Exchange and in its profile Reuters emphasises its oil and gas activities ([1]). Searches on Google show lots of relevant results for both 'Reliance Industries conglomerate' and 'Reliance Industries oil and gas' (a very crude test I know, particularly as the diversification is fairly recent in the lifetime of the company) but the oil and gas references are more numerous. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not only Infosys try to contribute Wipro, Tata Group or Larsen & Toubro articles too. See List of companies of India.

Secondly about RIL, what should we do ? On one hand bulk of its revenue comes from oil & gas while on other hand it made substantial investments in telecom, retail or financial services sector. But, one thing is very clear its increasingly getting diversified in coming years. So lets keep "conglomerate", even though its an oil & gas company. What do you think ? I'm basically confused.

Another article Fiat, basically fiat is an Auto maker but it also has a big presence in media sector. Shouldn't it be termed as "conglomerate" what you think ?--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Personally I would still describe Reliance as an 'oil and gas company', but mention its other activities early in the lead. However I don't think that to call it a 'conglomerate' would actually be incorrect. I am happy with either approach but my preference is for 'oil and gas company'.

Re Fiat, I think that this should definitely be described as an automaker or automotive manufacturing company. That is the overwhelming majority of the company's activities, that is where the overwhelming majority of its current investments are going, it is what the company is known for, and it has in recent years sold off/demerged most of its non-automotive activities. The media activities are now very non-core and a historical quirk.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had correct the "Fiat" article pls check if you want to add something. As far as RIL is concern I'm keeping "conglomerate". Since the owner of the company is busy investing in other businesses.

Another similar problem I'm facing with Larsen & Toubro, company's core business is construction & engineering (bulk of their revenue comes from these two sectors) but it too is investing heavily in other businesses as well. What should I do?--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Larsen & Toubro I would describe as conglomerate. It has activities in a diverse range of areas including IT services, construction and financial services and it seems that third party sources either describe it as an "engineering conglomerate" or a "conglomerate". Since we are able to describe its activities in greater detail in the lead and the rest of the article than is generally possible in, for example, a newspaper article on the company, and since "engineering conglomerate" is a rather meaningless description, I think "is a conglomerate company" is best for the first sentence. BTW I do fully intend to work on some of the India-based company articles mentioned above, but can't promise that this will be immediately. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, for your valuable suggestions. About India-based company articles you can contribute at any time. There is no hurry.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm User:ThunderingTyphoons! and am relatively new to editing wikipedia, so I apologise if I'm putting this message in the wrong place. In case you didn't notice, I left a message on the talk page of London (infobox image section) over a month ago, which was largely directed at you. It's about the main infobox image of the page. Kind regards and good evening, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for your message. I'm really sorry that I missed your message on the London talk page, I will reply to it there shortly. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's no problem at all, we've all got lives beyond Wikipedia and there's no obligation to respond! Thanks, though! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I, and I think like you strongly believe a table should be included for the aeroplanes in which IAG owns. On the talk page, it appears to be 2 against, and me and you for in the discussion summary with limited discussion over reasons for/against. Would you consider adding at the bottom a bit about your arguments again, it seems a bit 50:50 at the moment. Considering the planes are by far the most important thing that IAG has, to me it would make sense to have a clear table showing what it owns. I think for Iberia and British Airways, they are perhaps more like brand names as opposed to separate companies since the merger, and would be sensible to be put together in one placeNBNK1 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC).Reply

Hi and thanks for the message. I will add my thoughts again at the article talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pity you abandoned Columbo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.155.156 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I haven't abandoned it completely, I've just taken a bit of a Columbo holiday.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I understand not wanting the list to go on and on forever but seeing as how I didn't even add Tom Hiddleston, I simply moved his named to be alphabetized, I don't see why it is a problem now when it wasn't a problem then when the original person added his name? xpinkxcasualtyx 20:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't really make much difference as the IP added the name only a few hours earlier. Have you had any thoughts about what I said on your talk page? Rangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

On who to delete to allow him to be on there? I don't know, that's up to you. I don't see it as a big deal, if you want to keep him off of the list, that's fine, I don't want to have a debate over it, I just thought he deserved to be on there, that's all. And yes I'm completely aware there is a separate alumni page, but I figured he could been on the main RADA page too. That's all. xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Tell you what, I am going to put Hiddleston in in place of Sean Bean. Let's see if anyone else disagrees with this. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lol I appreciate your understanding and solution. Sorry to have caused such a ruckus ;) Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, I am a BP employee and new to the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you’ve made some recent improvements to the BP article. There are a number of inaccuracies in the article, and I’d like to further improve the quality of it. Out of respect for guidelines on conflict of interest and the importance of a neutral point of view, I do not want to make any direct edits to the BP article. I do have some small, specific changes that I’d like to suggest soon, and was hoping you might be interested in helping make them. Please let me know if you think you can be of assistance. I’ll let you know when I propose my suggestions. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, thank you for your reply on my Talk page. As I mentioned last week, I'm interested in making improvements to the BP article and I have now added a request to the article's discussion page pointing out some of the current inaccuracies in the introduction and infobox. If you are still able to, can you assist with these updates? Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon, don't want you to feel like I'm hassling you but I did as you suggested and submitted some images for discussion on Talk:London. It would be nice to have your input, as other users' interest has so far been nil :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I will take a look and post my thoughts there later today.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

While there's an obvious DYK hook there, I don't know if there's enough reliably sourceable content out there to get the article up to the required size (1500 characters of prose) - at the moment it's only 703 characters. Maybe if there are any news stories floating around with some substantive content on how she trained him or something....?

Apologies for accusing (even if only obliquely)of being foreign, BTW ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good point about 1,500 words of prose, I think we would struggle to get it up to that at the moment without padding. Re the other, no worries at all :-).Rangoon11 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your removal of the UKPower template from the relevant articles, as the other template is far too big to be of any use. The point of nav box templates is to help peple navigate between relevant articles, and the Energy in the UK one fails miserably at this due to its size and difficulty of navigation. More specialised templates like UK Power are far more actual use. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 04:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nothing to do with your having created that template of course ;-) Energy in the UK is highly integrated and almost all the companies which supply electricity also supply gas, many of the companies which supply electricity also generate it, National Grid operates networks for both electricity and gas, Centrica also operates gas fields etc. The single Energy in the United Kingdom template also links to a large number of other cross-cutting topics such as government and regulation, energy conservation, electricity in the UK, renewable energy etc. Since the template is collapsible and uses a show/hide feature navigation is simple. The alternative is having a large number of separate templates which overlap.

There is absolutely no benefit to having two templates which contain exactly the same links. This is pure duplication. What is your proposed solution as the present situation is not acceptable. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

do not remove the sourced info they are obviously supporting the charity AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. Please don't go to another editor's talk page to tell them what to do or not to do. 2. The content is trivial, undue and looks decidely spammy. Its inclusion has been reverted for good reason. Please do not re-add the content, seek consensus for the addition of this dubious content on the article Talk page. 3. In view of your very large amount of editing on One Direction-related articles, much of which looks pretty promotional, you are looking increasingly like you have a conflict of interest. Is that the case?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

i didn't mean to tell you what to do, if your saying i'm interested in the band yes if you stalk my contributions you can see i'm a fan (so?) , isn't promotional a good thing, why can't it be added that they aided the charity AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nothing wrong with being a fan or editing a lot on a narrow range of topics. However it is not really on to be editing on a large scale just in order to make a specific group look good, particularly if those edits involve the addition of unsuitable content.

The point here is that a great many individuals, companies, artists and "celebrities" have been involved in work for the Great Ormond Street charity. However only involvements with the charity which are significant in its overall history should be added to the WP article for the hospital. If a band has done a single specifically for the charity, then that should certainly be included. If a major football club has made the charity its charity of the season then that is probably significant enough for addition. Merely selling a small number of VIP tickets for a tour with proceeds going to the charity is not in my view significant enough for inclusion. Has this involvement received coverage in the media? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Rangoon11, thank you for your help with the BP article. As you suggested, I have now added the details of other inaccurate information in the article's introductions to the Talk page there. I am not sure if you have the article on your Watchlist and wanted to let you know that I have added these suggestions, so that you can help if you are able. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for this. I will take a look shortly. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC

Thank you again for your help, Rangoon11. I wanted to let you know in case you have not seen, I have added a new suggestion to the BP Talk page, concerning the Deepwater Horizon section. I will be away on vacation for several days, starting from tomorrow, but if you can help with this please reply on the Talk page there and I will reply when I am able. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, for the article for wembly hosting the 2013 uefa champions league final, it says london, England. Why should the g5 grouping which can only have English universities be different? thanks if you explain the difference. In fact the premier league also has a welsh team, g5 can only ever be English, so it doesn't make much sence.

Hi there, it looks like we have differing opinions on POV. I hope we can hash things out on the discussion page instead of engaging in an edit war. Could you explain why mentioning BP's investments in green energy while omitting mention of its investments in oil and gas is considered by you to be a neutral stance? Also why you feel the statement about BP's environmental problems and it's investment in green energy should remain one paragraph rather than two. How are they related? Thank you in advance. petrarchan47^Tc 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Amusing that you come to my talk page saying that you wish to avoid an edit war when having been reverted for good reasons you simply made exactly the same edits again. I am therefore stuggling to summon any enthusiasm to discuss this with you.

Creating a separate fifth paragraph which merely states 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' is about as blatant an example of POV pushing as I can imagine. I will reply in more detail on the article talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, thanks for your recent help with the BP article. I noticed that you had responded to an editor on the Talk page there last week. Did you see my message there about the Deepwater Horizon section? Please take a look if you're able to help update the tense of this section. But if you are too busy, I understand, and I can seek others to help as well. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes I did notice and have been meaning to deal with it. Will do so later today, thanks for the prompt.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, why? You're considering my cleanup as "vandalism" and undoing it. That's unfair. I'm very annoyed at that. Goodbye, unionist vandal. Velociraptor888 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your editing is nothing more than blatant POV pushing and has no place in this project. Your edit summaries and general behaviour are also an embarrassment. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering about your edit here. While I understand that the "fields" is not strictly needed, having two other sections right next to each other looks a little odd, doesn't it? One has to examine the more of the template to tell exactly what is the difference between "other" and "other". Tideflat (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is logical to me in view of the use of sub groups and personally I prefer to keep things simple in these situations, especially when space (width wise) is at a premium. I acknowledge it's a subjective point of course. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, though in this case the extra word doesn't take up any extra space, as the word "communications" makes the column wider than the phrase "Other fields". (On my screen at least) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs)

True. I still think that the extra word is unnecessary however, sub group titles should not unnecessarily duplicate the parent group title, and this seems perfectly clear to me.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Should Sony be called a conglomerate or consumer electronics company what you think?--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 05:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer 'an electronics and media company'. The label 'conglomerate' really doesn't convey any information to readers and in this case is unnecessary. Although sometimes a company is so diverse that it is unavoidable (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway or Tata Group) most companies have if not one core activity then only two or three and in that case I feel they should be listed. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm converting sony into electronics & media company. Please tell me what should I mention in the "products" section. Or should I just link to "Business units" section.

Tell should Noble Group be called a conglomerate or commodities company?

Please do contribute on these articles:

• List of companies by revenue
• List of corporations by market capitalization
• List of largest employers
• List of the largest software companies
• Semiconductor sales leaders by year

Thanks!--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, apologies I have been a bit pressed for time the last couple of days and will be for the next couple, but I will get back to you re Sony and Noble ASAP, and will also try and take a look at the list articles at some point.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm waiting for ur reply. I tried to change sony from conglomerate to electronics but other editors simply refused that idea, you can try at least once. Tell me about ur view on Noble Group.

Perhaps Sony could be described as an 'electronics, media and financial services company'. Personally I think that 'conglomerate' in this case is wrong as the company has clear core activities and is well known for them. It is far more often described in the media as an "electronics" or "electronics and media" company than a conglomerate.

The products and services sections of the infobox look pretty good though.

Noble - having read their website, the activites are very diverse and I would personally describe this as a conglomerate.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have tried to change Sony's industry section from conglomerate to electronics, but other editors are not willing to buy that argument. Thanks for you view on Noble Group.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

2ndly check Online service provider, I tried to change the title to Internet industry, however it had been reverted. Do you think that it can be put at the industry section of the Internet companies.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Online service provider is an awful article and a closely related although narrower topic, but trying to convince others to agree to a move and radical overhaul of the article will be a lot harder than simply starting a clean sheet article titled 'Internet industry'. I would strongly support the creation of such an article although am too busy to do it myself at the moment.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I haven't forgotten all of this and will try to look at it all later today.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

May you're right, it would better to create a new Internet industry section article.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "BP". Thank you.

	The Original Barnstar
	Recently you said "I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks." You are getting one anyway. Here is your medal. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks that's kind, much appreciated.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've declined your G6 speedy request for this redirect because it wasn't clear. What did you mean? Please go back and re-tag it with a clearer rationale. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11: You might like to help me keep an eye on RPS Group. An editor, who is probably a company employee, keeps inserting large chunks of unwikified text. Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, happy to help, I have now done a bit of tidying there. Will jump in if the COI editor comes back.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please research first. PwC is not a global firm. PwC is the brand under which the global network of firms operates. The "global" piece is actually a company.

I work for PwC and we are extraordinarily careful never to say the "global firm".

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about-pwc

"PwC" is the brand under which member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL) operate and provide services. Together, these firms form the PwC network. Each firm in the network is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind them in any way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopeajj (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The word 'firm' does not have a legal definition, it is widely and generally used to mean simply an organisation which provides professional services. The internal legal structure is not relevant to this. Equally many major law firms are comprised of separate legal entities in separate jurisdictions. All major accountancy firms are. This does not mean that they are not called 'firms' overall.

And indeed a quick search on Google, either Google books or Google news or just the main search, reveals a vast number of highly reliable third party sources which describe PwC overall as a firm. What PwC chooses to describe itself as in its literature is not relevant to this. No doubt PwC is being careful to emphasise the separate legal nature of the entities which comprise the overall firm for regulatory and legal reasons. What is patently clear however is that PwC is much more than a brand or a mere franchise.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's not patently clear. At the start of the article, it should be clear what the legal structure is. Look at Deloitte. The other Big 4 pages do use firm; however, they do not call them "international firms". Why would you be wrong when you can easily provide readers the correct structure: a network of independent firms. I've used a reference above. If you cannot find a reference of PwC calling itself an international firm, my revision should stand. Yours is editorial.

You also contradict yourself. If "firm" has no legal definition or implication, why are the Big 4 so worried about being specific about not being a "global firm"? Coopeajj (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikpedia is based primarily, in fact overwhelmingly, on what reliable third party sources say. And third party sources are almost always preferred to sources from the subject of the article itself. A massive number of third party sources describe PwC, as a whole, as a firm. And this is unsurprising, because PwC perfectly fits the common useage of the word "firm". However I will acknowledge that there is a case for adding more information about PwC's legal structure in the lead (it is already included in the body of the article) and I will aim to do this (you are welcome to add it yourself of course).Rangoon11 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Opel Antara GTC where the troubled one is trying to create a separate article. Given that the concept is already mentioned at Opel Antara I think it best to concentrate any further sourced info on the concept within the latter article. I don't want to go 3RR so would appreciate your input. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes in full agreement with you. I will revert if they try again. I have actually suggested on Mr.choppers' talk page that we take this editor to ANI on ground of lack of competence, as their editing is now wasting a substantial amount of time on clean up.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you recently reverted an edit of mine to the Chery page stating it "removed factual info". The only info I'm aware my edit removed was a mention in the lead that the company was the 4th largest Chinese automaker, which I know to be false. Please let me know if I inadvertently removed other info. Fleetham (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You made a very large number of changes within a single edit. As a general point this is not a good idea as it makes it far more likely that the edit will be reverted.

I have a few issues with the changes which were made:

1. I dont agree with the addition of 'Unlike any other state-owned Chinese car maker, Chery has been embroiled in allegations of intellectual property theft.', in a three-line lead this is highly undue and somewhat hysterical.
2. Important and relevant details about the JV with Jaguar Land Rover, and a relevant cite, were removed.
3. I do not like edits which state 'It may have', if something is speculation it should not be included, if it is fact then it should be stated as such.
4. Details were removed about R&D investment which were cited and relevant.
5. 'most-productive' means something quite different from total output, productivity concerns output per employee or per capital employed. I am also resistant to removing the production data from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, which is a highly reliable and respected source. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Those other issues aside, please take a look at these two sources to see that Chery is far from being the 4th largest Chinese automaker: news piece, translated CAAM statistics for 2010. If you would like me to address the other issues, please let me know. Fleetham (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The issue with calculating production data for Chinese companies is whether, and how (i.e. proportionate to shareholding or total), the production of joint ventures is included. I can fully accept that there are therefore multiple different potential rankings by size of production. However I do think that the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers data has validity. It is also good to try to maintain consistency across the project. A better approach may be to state in the lead something like 'Chery is *th or *th largest China-based automaker by 20** unit production, depending upon how the production of joint ventures is accounted for', and then dealing with this in more detail in the Sales section. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think that Chery is an outlier among Chinese car makers on two counts; it currently lacks a JV with a famous name foreign automaker (soon to be rectified perhaps), and it has stolen Western IP, something that is typical of smaller, privately owned Chinese automakers--not the state-run Goliaths. Your statistic reflects the first, and I feel both are of equal relevance/weight. You've stated that you don't want to include the IP theft, but I have a hard time understanding your stance. Fleetham (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The IP claims seem to primarily concern a single model, the Chery QQ. In the context of the topic as a whole, and in view of the fact that the lead is currently just two lines long, I think that mention in the lead would be undue. If the lead were greatly expanded then I may support a brief mention.

For me the most interesting things about Chery are its export success, the relatively high quality of its products compared to other Chinese branded cars, and its extensive overseas production. The Qoros JV is also pretty novel as it is with a company which does not make cars and is aiming to build premium cars for western markets. Of course none of these features are currently in the lead. The lead generally needs a lot of development, but I don't think that the addition of a line on IP theft would at this point be a step forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can agree with that. But I'm not sure how you arrived at the opinion that Chery cars are of a higher quality than others. And as for export success, it is remarkable that by their own count near-as-makes-no-difference 30% of units made were exported in 2010. I think that an updated lead should mention everything you stated except high quality because I don't know where that comes from as well as some note on the upcoming JV(s) with JLR and Subaru. My personal feeling is that Chery is a bit of a laggard, has had only one successful model (the QQ), that the Qoros thing is born out of desperation and the Chinese state's insistence on EVs more than good business sense, and that Chery doesn't have good future prospects. Clinching a JV deal would really brighten things up. Fleetham (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, if you'd like to write the expanded lead, I'll go about re-adding the unobjectionable bits of my last edit soon. Fleetham (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering why your recent edits to Chery have removed mention of the failed effort to establish a JV with Subaru. Care to explain? Fleetham (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Despite having discussed this article above you simply went back to the article and made pretty much exactly the same edits again, including ones specifically referred to above. I therefore question the utility of discussing this article with you. What is the point if you then just return to article and make the changes again?

The specific point on the Subaru JV, I am happy to include in the main text although for me this is undue for the lead.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems that we have the same problem with one another. Let's make an agreement and stick to it! Instead of making WP:BOLD edits, let's discuss prior to editing. I think that way we can both sign on to inclusion/deletion of content and not have a silly edit war. For example, issues I have with your most recent edits and would like to discuss comprise: the fact that you state Chery is a multinational company, that you removed the mention of IP theft allegations from the lead agreed to prior, and that you added that GM a joint venture partner of "Chery and SAIC". Fleetham (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, more complaints: can you please make an effort to make not a flurry of edits but a single one instead? Sorry for all the complaining, but I find this interaction frustrating. Fleetham (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've also supported the statement that "Chery's main manufacturing location is in Anhui" with a source that simply states, "a factory in Anhui". I understand your dislike for vagueness, but please don't translate that into posting incorrect information. Fleetham (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it incorrect? If it's wrong, it should be removed, if it's right then it should be stated as fact. A citation can always be found. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

On the specific points: happy for mention of Subaru in text, but not in lead; Chery is clearly multinational according to the Operations and Sales sections of the article; I am happy for a brief mention of IP issues once the lead is longer, it is still short for that however; the Chery and SAIC JV point was a mistake, now fixed.

We can discuss the article together before making changes, but I find that this slows things down massively, greatly increases the quantity of work, and often actually produces worse results. One person can make bold additions or changes, and then others can polish them or build on them. I guess the question is what do you have planned for the article? Personally I would like to see the lead further expanded and improved, more pictures added, a separate section for joint ventures created, the electric vehicles content brought together with other products and services, and the Motorsport section expanded and the text generally polished.

Multiple edits are better than a large number of changes made in a single edit as it is then possible to revert parts of the changes more easily. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

IDK what the definition of "multinational" is but the title appears self-serving, so I believe it fails WP:SELFPUB. I doubt that a company with no overseas production bases can be considered "multinational". (And Chery has none; those overseas factories are owned by others.) I'll go ahead and make changes, and see what you make of them, as you, understandably, don't want to discuss changes prior to editing. Fleetham (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Chery is investing half a billion dollars in Turkey on a new engine factory and assembly plant, its vehicles are produced in 17 countries and sold in many more. You say it doesn't own the overseas assmebly plants. Im not certain if this is true for every single one, but in any case it is very closely involved in those operations by necessity. They are producing Chery vehicles which are marketed as Cherys. Chery also operates marketing and distribution activities on a multinational basis. This is much more than a China based company just selling in China or exporting from China.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, I wanted to see what, exactly, you object to in the following prior to posting it:

In 2012 Chery again sought to partner with a foreign automaker, something it had previously tried in 2007. While a proposed joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover is awaitingstill under consideration,^[1] a tie-up with Subaru was canceled due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. ^[2] If the joint venture comes to fruition, Chery and UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China, the establishment of a R&D facility and a new brand name, and the sale of vehicles produced by the company.^[1] The proposed joint venture has yet to receive the go-ahead from the government,^[1] which has recently "been stringent in screening foreign automakers setting up production units".^[2] Fleetham (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm just about to eat but will respond this specific point in about 30 mins.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

How's this? I'm not sure if you're stuck on too negative a POV or removal of details. This addresses the former, as I don't see much reason to mention the possibility of a new marque or an R&D site:

In 2012 Chery again sought to partner with a foreign automaker, something it had previously tried in 2007. While a proposed joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover is still under consideration as of March 2012,^[1] a tie-up with Subaru was canceled due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. ^[2] If the Jaguar Land Rover deal receives the go-ahead from the government, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China.^[1] Fleetham (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The current text regarding the JLR joint venture is neater. There is no reason to state more than once that the JLR JV is awaiting regulatory approval, and that type of editing also creates more unnecessary work once the venture is approved, particularly when it is woven into the text in that way. There is no need to repeat about prior JV discussions in 2007 when these are described just a few lines higher up in the section. The Subaru discussions can be placed in a separate sentence. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there's no reason to state more than once that it's pending approval. Why adding an introductory sentence "because the info's already been stated" is something I don't understand. I don't understand your core dislike about the paragraph, is it that it makes it seem as if the JV will not go through? Fleetham (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just think that the present wording is better, for the reasons just stated. If this was a book and the 2007 discussions were a few pages earlier then yes referring to it again would make sense, however here it is just a few lines higher up. And yes there is no need to keep repeating about approval being pending. Once is enough. There is also need to keep repeating that Chery has had prior attempted JVs which, for various reasons, never got started. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't appear to be a reason to remove cited material. See WP:OWNERSHIP. In regards to your most recent revert, I would like some clarification: 1) Do you think a company calling itself "multinational" passes WP:SELFPUB? Why? 2) Are you still agreeable to including a mention in the lead about IP theft? 3) Why did you re-include a statement that is not supported by its given citation? Again, say we should discuss prior to editing, as I don't see how that's "more work". It seems that agreeing to things first would be a better solution, don't you think? Fleetham (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You keep adding the reference to Subaru at the same time as making other contested changes, and weaving the Subaru reference unnecessarily into the text. Add some text about Subaru in a single edit without making other contested changed and it wont be reverted.

I don't care what Chery calls itself, my personal analysis is that, based upon the content in the article, 'multinational' is an accurate description of the company.

As I have said multiple times, in principle I have nothing against a small reference to IP issues in the lead, but not at present whilst the lead is still small.

What sort of changes do have in mind for the article? It would be helpful to know that in order to work out how best to work together on the article going forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's work things out before we post, and that way we'll end up with a page we're agreeable to.

Points to discuss:

Lead mention of IP theft

Will be added when lead is expanded - AGREED BUT A SMALL MENTION, NO MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE, AND TOWARDS THE END OF THE LEAD

Referring to the company as "multinational"

I think it fails WP:SELFPUB, you think it's an "accurate description" - MERELY A SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE

Wikipedia says a "multinational corporation" is "a corporation enterprise that manages production or delivers services in more than one country." Investopedia says it's, "A corporation that has its facilities and other assets in at least one country other than its home country." As Chery does not have facilities or assets outside of China (although many small factories owned by others produce its products from knock-down kits), I believe Chery fails these definitions. Do you have an issue with the definitions or does Chery, in fact, have overseas assets I'm unaware of?

Recent JV activity

Is this an acceptable paragraph?

At the start of the decade, Chery sought a tie-up with Subaru, but this was canceled in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval.^[2]

Currently, the company is in the midst of negotiating a joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover. If this deal receives the go-ahead from the government, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China.^[1] Fleetham (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer

"In 20**, Chery and the Japanese automaker Subaru agreed to form a joint venture, the primary activity of which would have been the production of Subaru-branded vehicles in China. The proposed venture was abandoned in 2012 due to difficulty in obtaining regulatory approval from Chinese authorities.^[2] In March 2012, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility, the creation of a new automobile marque, and sales of vehicles produced by the company.^[3][4] The joint venture is awaiting regulatory approval."

Note that Chery and JLR have reached agreement, the issue at this point is regulatory approval. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The issue I have with that is that it makes it appear as if the JLR JV is going ahead, while I'm of the opinion it's no sure thing. Can you address my concern? Fleetham (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with the wording 'The joint venture is awaiting regulatory approval.'. This seems more than adequate to me, to emphasise it any more strongly would be to suggest that approval is unlikely to be granted. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think in the current environment, with a slowing economy that makes the Chinese government wary of overcapacity, a recent failure to gain approval for a outwardly similar JV, more than a footnote is warranted. Several news articles play up the fact that regulatory hurdles might kill the project: article, WSJ article. This recent Xinhua article quotes a JLR exec. saying the JV is on track, however. Why not make the regulatory hurdle bit into an entire sentence that details why it's more likely to be a more of a stumbling block than you might think? Fleetham (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I also feel that the wording "Chery and JLG agree to JV" makes it appear as if it's their decision, not the Chinese state's. What about "have proposed", "have plans to establish", or "may enter into" a JV? Fleetham (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Chery and JLR have agreed between themselves, they are corporate entities, we do not need to state who ultimately controls the companies in this context. JLR and Chery have agreed to set up a JV. Period. For the JV to begin activities, the permission of the Chinese authorities will be required and that is currently pending. We can place a little more emphasis on the point that the permission of the Chinese authorities is required for the JV to begin activities if you wish.

Your links above, the first is dead and the second requires a subscription. Speculation on whether the JV will gain approval is in any case crystal balling which is deprecated in WP. Just becase other proposed Chery JVs did not gain permission does not mean that this one will not. It would also be something of a snub to both the UK and India were it refused. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just because you can't view the links doesn't make what they say less valid. I just can't understand why it's so difficult to get you to see the validity of what I have to say. Fleetham (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here's the first link: Reuters article. Fleetham (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

WP has its own approach and future speculation is generally deprecated. General comments on the approvals process also belong somewhere like the Automotive industry in the People's Republic of China article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Which is exactly why it's important to state that this plan may not see fruition. To do otherwise would contravene WP rules, no? Fleetham (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It already states that, by saying that approval is pending. Commentary on the likelihood of approval being granted is what you appear to be seeking. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Which is why it's important to ensure the prose doesn't misinform the reader as to the likelihood that it will be approved. I feel that the wording "Chery and JLG agree to JV" makes it appear as if it's their decision, not the Chinese state's. What about "have proposed", "have plans to establish", or "may enter into" a JV? Fleetham (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

They have agreed. That is a plain fact. Why not add greater emphasis by changing the following sentence to 'In order for the joint venture to be formally established and begin operations the approval of the Chinese authorities is required; as of July 2012 this is pending.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Something like that would be good, but I still take issue with the "agreed" bit. When I first read that, not knowing what I do now, I imagined that it meant the JV was a go. If you insist on that word I would prefer something along the lines of "While Chery and JLR have agreed to this JV, the Chinese government has not." I just want to ensure that the take away is that the JV is very much a future possibility, not a certainty, and when I read what you added, I imagined the latter. Fleetham (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

But that is what is stated in my proposed text. To state "the Chinese government has not" is to suggest that permission has been refused. It hasn't been, and whether it will be or not is pure speculation and inappropriate for WP. There has been no indication as regards this specific JV that permission is likely to be refused, it is pure supposition based on indirect factors. Personally I would be amazed if permission were refused, although I do recognise the wider context. However the point is, to go beyond stating that permission is required and is currently pending is to enter into the realms of pure speculation.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why not leave the entire thing out until a decision have been reached? I think the speculation argument dictates either that or balanced content. I just would like it to be clear that, while the two companies involved have agreed, that does not mean the thing will go forward. Fleetham (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because it is purely factual, highly significant and relevant and can be cited using high quality sources. I am struggling to understand your issue with the formulation which I have suggested above, and which would make even clearer that permission is required before the JV will commence. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your solution is probably fine. It's just that literally half of the Reuters article, and the WSJ one as well (which I can't access now and the version I can get through a database is different), was dedicated to the fact that regulatory hurdles are higher now than ever before.

Anyway, how's this? I'm not sure where the Subaru sentence should go--one-sentence paragraphs are fine by me, but I don't know how you feel about them:

During 2011 Chery sought a tie-up with Subaru, but this was canceled in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval.^[2]

As of July 2012, Chery is on track to consummate a joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover.(that Xinhua citation with the JLR exec quote) Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker plan to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China, but the government must first sign off on the deal.^[1]

After having taken a look at WP:FUTURE, my interpretation is that until this thing is finished one way or another, it shouldn't be included as that policy states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I think I've provided evidence that speaks to the fact that this latter criterion is something this JV fails. Fleetham (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The agreement has happened, it is a fact and has been reported on. The only element of speculation concerns whether approval will be given. However the agreement itself is highly notable for inclusion and has received wide coverage in third-party sources.

This text is in my view more precise, the dates are important:

"In 2011, Chery and the Japanese automaker Subaru agreed to form a joint venture, the primary activity of which would have been the production of Subaru-branded vehicles in China. The proposed venture was abandoned in 2012 due to difficulty in obtaining regulatory approval from Chinese authorities.[2] In March 2012, Chery and the British luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture the activities of which are intended to include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility and the creation of a new automobile marque.[3][4] The joint venture must receive approval from Chinese regulators before proceeding, which as of July 2012 is pending." Rangoon11 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not that it's the best argument, but I think that mentioning an event that did occur which is wholly part of and subsidiary to an event that has yet to occur can still be considered to fall afoul of WP:FUTURE. And maybe you should read rules before quoting them; my referenced speculation about the likelihood is totally fine per WP:FUTURE, which states, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." While your above suggested paragraph makes it clear that the JV has yet to happen, which goes some way to placating my concerns, I'd still be happier without the word "agree". In this context "agree" really means "want" not "intend" because the two don't intend to go ahead without approval. Hopefully you can be sympathetic in regards to that that distinction. What about the following? Controversial words in bold

In 2011 Chery and Subaru sought to form a joint venture company in China, but the Japanese car maker abandoned the plan in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. Chery is currently exploring a tie-up with Jaguar Land Rover. As of March 2012, Chery and the British luxury automaker want to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the China-based project, which will include the manufacture of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles in China. The joint venture must receive the go-ahead from Chinese regulators before proceeding and, according to Jaguar Land Rover, is on track for approval as of July 2012. A sentence expressing the fact that approval may not be given, however. The establishment of a research and development facility and the creation of a new automobile marque, two other parts of the planned project, were stipulated by the Chinese government. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, your The Guardian citation is a deadlink. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe that this conversation would best have belonged on the Chery talkpage, but no matter. I definitely do not think that this sentence is needed: "A sentence expressing the fact that approval may not be given, however" Pending means pending, no need to qualify it further.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I have to agree. Why in (insert deity)'s name is a discussion regarding consensus in an article being held on a user talkpage ... it takes more than 2 to determine consensus. Nothing on this page can be considered as valid consensus for anything in the article ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and I'm quite happy for the above to be copied over to the article talk page. Sometimes what one thought might be a brief exchange of opinions can quickly grow however. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fleetham - are you happy for the above thread to be copied over to the article talk page, and for the discussion to then continue there?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Quite frankly, I have had multiple bad interactions with Mr. Choppers and don't care to continue this or any discussion with him. Copy this to the article's talk if you want, but count me out of any discussion with Mr. Choppers. Fleetham (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but in order to obtain WP:CONSENSUS, you have to interact with anyone who wishes to take part in such a discussion on the article talkpage, period. Now it appears that having this side discussion here was an attempt to circumvent the consensus process ... is "I can't do consensus" really the message you're trying to send? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let's not jump to conclusions. I don't want to take part in a discussion with a person because of WP:no personal attacks. And I am engaged in a discussion on a talk page. How do these two events become "an attempt to circumvent the consensus process"? Anyway, I'm quite adamant that I will have no further interaction with Mr. Choppers, so if that means I can't take part in a discussion to reach consensus, so be it. You can easily reach a consensus without me. Fleetham (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why did you do this? Chongming is the most outlying administration of Shanghai, and for that reason, it is more logical to list the districts first. GotR ^Talk 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Simply to maintain alphabetical order.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I thought so. In my view, that isn't a sufficient reason to break the District-County conformity with the other 3 municipality templates, nor is it user-friendly. GotR ^Talk 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The rest of the template is alpha order, and the districts appear immediately below. Personally I can't see what the issue is. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, it breaks conformity with the 3 other municipality templates, and moreover, all provincial templates list the districts, which form the core of a city's metro area, first. GotR ^Talk 20:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Those other municipality templates are not in alpha order throughout. And the templates don't appear together. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You have been consistently working against consensus at GlaxoSmithKline, taking a very pro-industry stance, and it has been suggested on the Talk page that you may be doing "PR work" for multinational pharmaceutical companies. So I would like to respectfully ask if you have any WP:Conflict of interest to declare. Johnfos (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That posting isn't really worthy of a response but I will give one anyhow.

No I don't. I edit whichever pages I am interested in and feel need work and wherever I feel my knowledge base best fits. And I take the stance which I feel is fair and true and best for WP. But actually it would be very nice if I were being paid by GSK, or anyone else, to edit their page.

Since you have come here asking a question which is in neither respectful nor assuming of good faith, I will ask the same back. You have been consistently trying to emphasise "controversies" in the GSK article, taking an aggressively anti-business stance (which is a common thread throughout your editing), being obstructive to efforts to make wholly reasonable additions to the lead, and showing zero interest in the majority of the topic. Do you have any conflict of interest to declare?

And I will make a more general point. You obviously like using WP as a platform to promote your various causes on nuclear power, renewable energy, anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals, crime etc. Perhaps you should reflect that such content which you seek to add, will actually carry far more weight for readers if it is found within otherwise high quality and balanced articles with high quality and balanced leads. I understand that you have no interest in GSK as a topic beyond its "controversies". Perhaps you could show a bit more respect to those who actually do view the topic as a whole, and have a knowledge of it as a whole. Anyone who is objective who currently comes to the GSK article sees a slanted, undue lead with no mention of many hugely important aspects of GSK as an overall topic, yet a heavy emphasis on a single very recent "controversy". The credibility of everything else in the article, especially all of the "controversies" content, is damaged in their eyes as a result. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Rangoon11. You have new messages at Jean.julius's talk page.
Message added 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

A note - When I read your question again, I understand that you are talking specifically about the lead section. The way it is structured currently looks good (looking at the series of mergers). If you incorporate my earlier thoughts - the lead could be made bit more concise with cross references to the predecessor company pages. A lead interesting enough ( with some info missing) which prompt us to navigate to the connected pages - to understand and cover the multiple key aspects. Jean Julius Vernal 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon! Missed you at Wikimania :(

I think that a summary of the controversies of the article does belong in the lead. WP:LEAD encourages the introduction to reflect the content of the article, and since the controversies take up roughly 1/3 of the body, the lead should give them at least a sentence if not a paragraph. I think the ideal type of statement would be something like : GSK has been involved in a number of high profile controversies over their drugs. Notable ones included X, Y, Z, and A--which included a record-breaking 3 billion dollar settlement. That's my honest opinion on this one, at least at first glance. So, I think you may be slightly under-representing the controversies in the lead at present. Let me know what you think! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would have been to great to go but sadly couldn't make the trip this time. Hopefully next time!

Thanks for your frank and honest comments on GSK. There are essentially two main points here. One is whether controversies should be included in the lead, and if so which and at what length.

The second is the extent to which the lead should be expanded with details of other aspects of GSK which are currently not mentioned, for example its acquistions, key pharmaceutical products and the ViiV joint venture.

Personally I can accept some brief mention of controversies within a decent sized lead which also covers the rest of the topic properly.

At present the two sentences on a single recent controversy in the context of a lead which does not even mention ViiV or major acquisitions is for me very undue, and verging on attack content.

If you could put some thought on the article talk page then that would be great as the discussion is a little deadlocked at present. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rangoon11, I'm confused about Commodity trading company. If you see those company articles most of the sources say they are food processing other source say they are commodities trading company which one is true. I for instance changed many of those company "industry section" to food processing, source taken from here Forbes Global 2000. Do you think they are correct? and what do you think about commodities trading. Please let me know quickly. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that some companies essentially just trade food products, some essentially just process it, and some do both (as always there will be many cases which are not completely clear cut). For example, Glencore essentially just trades food, whilst Tate & Lyle essentially just produces it (and distributes and markets it - but this is a distinct activity from trading), and Cargill does both on a large scale.

The same can be said of other commodities. For example, Glencore both trades and produces mining products (it owns a significant number of mines, although the majority of what it trades is produced by others), whilst Ashanti Goldfields is essentially just a producer.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

So Rangoon11 below there are list of food processing and commodities trading company, please mention below with good research which one is what? Because I will put that in the "industry section" of those companies. And if you know any other company of these types please let me know. Thnaks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. Vitol /
2. Glencore International AG /
3. Trafigura /
4. Cargill /
5. Archer Daniels Midland /
6. Gunvor (company) /
7. Mercuria Energy Group /
8. Noble Group /
9. Louis Dreyfus Group /
10. Bunge Limited /
11. Wilmar International /
12. Olam International /

Hi, I will try and get back to you on this in the next few days.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

How shall it take to asses these companies? Its been almost 1 or 2 weak.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apologies yes I do intend to look at this. Is there any particular deadline?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

My-dear friend there is no particular deadline since it was posted so long I thought may be you were not interested in the subject. I desperately need your help to resolve this problems since many information about these companies are incorrect and am not sure what exact some of those companies really are ?-Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion at Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom#Hatnote. Your input is welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for collaborating with me on the Chery page. The current lead is much better than the one I had up there, and that's really due to your sustained effort to improve it! Fleetham (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this, and for your participation too. We got there in the end! Yes I think that the new lead is a big step forward for the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you removed the template stating it as trivial, when the template isn't trivial. It is part of a contest that is very notable, and London is notable for having played the role of host city to the well-known event a number of times. Having the template adds additional notable facts to the general reader viewing the article. Something which they may not have known if it isn't included. After all an encyclopaedia is about providing notable information that is relevant to its subject. All of the articles for host cities hold these templates purely for the fact the contest is notable, so why should one article be treated differently? Wesley Mouse 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is a wholly trivial competition in the context of London which has had zero impact on London's history and development and played zero role in its notability. There are a large number of templates which *could* be added to this article but the line has to be drawn somewhere to avoid bloat. Please take it to the article talk page if you disagree.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do disagree, as you are clearly wrong here. The competition is not trivial. The competition is watched by over 125 million viewers worldwide. The contest has been around since 1956. London has played host to the contest 4 times. Each time the contest is held in a host city it attracts tourism and those tourists contribute to the city's economy. Making it very notable indeed. The article should also have a WikiProject banner on its talk page, which appears to have been removed too. Wesley Mouse 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

And you should have actually taken it to the talk page before rereverting it again, that move goes against BRD. Wesley Mouse 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is something of a "joke" in the UK and has played an infinitesimal part in the story of London. Inclusion of a template would be undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It would be undue in your opinion. But articles are written and include details based on facts and notability regardless of whether you personally think it is "undue" or a "joke". I am British I know the British public treat the contest as a little bit of a joke. But facts are facts, a notable event was hosted 4 times in the city - making it due weight that its content should be included within the article. An article is suppose to be neutral regardless - omitting the facts that London hosted the contest isn't sticking to neutralness. Anyhow, I have opened a discussion, something which you should have really started as part of WP:BRD before rereverting. Wesley Mouse 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You boldly added - perfectly right - I reverted, and then... you boldly added again. Sorry but I can't agree with that analysis but good that a discussion is now up and running, I have added some thoughts there. The thing to understand is that the article simply cannot have every possible template added. It already has 12, which is arguably too many as it is. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You do realise that templates alone can also be placed into a template? Thus allowing them to be grouped together into relevant topics. Take Düsseldorf for example. That has loads of individual templates, but they have been grouped into one template to store them away. Wesley Mouse 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Düsseldorf has six templates, London already has 12. And do you really think Düsseldorf and London are comparable? The only place I can see which is comparable is New York. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your approach to this is seriously jeopardising the chances of this article at FAC. You may want to Fleming to be sub-standard: I do not. Two FAC reviewers have requested the removal and I am certain others will follow. If you leave the RfC in during the FAC process there is a danger that a) the article will be accused of being unstable; and b) the reviewers will lose any sympathy they have with the process and give a blank oppose. That is not something I want to see happen after a considerable about of time and effort has been spent by a number of people to get it in with a chance. Articles do not have to have infoboxes and summarising the life of an individual into 9 or 10 points merely panders to the lazy and feckless who cannot be bothered to read the lead section alone. Please remove the RfC: if you want to make a comment, do so at the FAC where better and more experienced editors than I will be able to have their say. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The whole effort to remove the infobox from Ian Fleming, which has been a part of the article for a number of years, has a bad smell around it. The canvassing has been blatantly cynical, and there is an effort to create a wholly false sense of urgency by conflating the issue with a FAC. Which is of course wholly erroneous anyhow as the vast majority of FA biography articles have an infobox.

The issue of the infobox requires proper discussion. Even more so in view of what I have discovered about canvassing efforts and the parallel effort to remove the infobox from Peter Sellers, again with the same editors involved.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

So you said on the other page. I seriously hope that what I think are your rather selfish actions have not damaged the chances of this article at FAC. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No what is selfish is trying to remove an integral, long standing and wholly standard part of an article in an underhand manner. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Underhand? How dare you accuse me of such a thing. I have worked hard to get this article to something that is under serious consideration for FA status and I am following that process carefully and taking on board the comments of the wider community to try and improve it further. Your single point in this seems only to try and undermine that position and go against the FAC process to ensure that a sub-standard article is retained. I ecpect a withdrawal and an apology for accusing me of being underhand when it is the FA reviewers who have requested this in the first place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time for this tedious back and forth. The canvassing has been blatantly underhand and yet you have been defending it, therefore associating yourself with it. Now please desist from posting anymore here and please let's keep the discussion on the article talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I expect an apology and a withdrawl. Nothing less. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You come to my talk page, accuse me of being selfish and of wanting the article to be sub standard. And then demand an apoology because I take issue with underhand canvassing efforts which you have associated yourself with by defending. For real?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And I'm still waiting. Could you point out where I have been underhand? If you can't then withdrawn and apologise here and on the Fleming talk page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Once again, please stop posting on my talk page if you have nothing interesting to say. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can I suggest you take a step back, look at what I have done, look seriously if you think I have done anything underhand and then do it all over again. As I have already asked: what have I done that is underhand? Is this additional bluster because you know that I have done nothing underhand? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall stating that you did the canvassing. You have however been defending it. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, as I have said numerous times above, I have done nothing underhand and I expect an apology. What I have done is to say that bringing a conversation to the attention of other editors is entirely acceptable and is also not underhand. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Canvassing only editors who one knows from prior discussions do not like infoboxes is underhand. That you cannot see this is troubling. Cassianto has also been posting messages stating that the issue was one of the addition of an infobox rather than the removal of a very long standing one. And has been stating that I am a drive by editor. I will judge you on the company you keep and the actions which you defend. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will await your apology—probably vainly, as think you have talked yourself into a corner over this. Only time will tell whether your actions today and your stance over this has not damaged the chance of this article going through to become an FA: I can only hope they have not, but I fear that you have damaged its chances. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see the article achieve FA, and generally appreciate your commitment both to the article and to all things James Bond related where you have done good work. However I see no reason why the inclusion of the infobox should in any way preclude FA being achieved, when well over 99% of all FA biography articles have an infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rangoon, I come here with an olive branch. I admit that my "canvassing" was wrong as, at the time I wasn't aware of such a policy. I have now been introduced to it via a private email and have digested it at my leisure. I would like to therefore apologise for this unintentional breach. However, I make no apologies for my stance on the infobox dispute and my opinions are very much current. I hope we can all soon put this one to bed. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you acknowledging that the canvassing was wrong (something Schrodinger has failed to do) and the apology.

The problem which I have is that the discussion which has taken place today at the article talk page is in my view irretrievably tainted, and new posters are still adding comments based on the canvass, such as the "contribution" which Wetman just made.

I would like to have a proper and fair discusssion on the matter. I appreciate the commitment of yourself and Schrodinger to the article, but I ask that you also appreciate that others who may not have edited the article so much in recent months still have a strong interest in the topic.

We have a clear difference of opinion on the merits of infoboxes in biography articles, but we do at least share a desire for the article to be as good as possible, and to achieve FA, of that I am in no doubt.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Will you please remove the Fleming signature? It is a non-free image and will count against the article at FAC. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rangoon, as per my rquerst on the Fleming talk page, could you please close the RfC? I do not think there need be any futher action needed on that part. Any requests made in the near future regarding the total removal of the infobox can be directed towards the discussion, which should ensure the requester withdraws the request. A second point, but would you mind if I removed the "Period 1953–1964" from the box? Given a number of people commented about that particular piece of information (ie. the article is about Fleming's entire life, rather than just that eleven years) it would seem sensible to remove it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes happy to close the RfC, will do so shortly. It seems like the 'period' field has now disappeared as a result of a switch from a writer infobox to a more general one made by Br'er Rabbit, which I have no great issue with. As I noted before I would also be prepared to the lose the various 'deceased' references in the relatives field. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I've removed the 'deceased' from the box too, as per your comment. Would you consider also losing the Resting Place field, or would you prefer that left in? It's not a major point and I'd rather have it left there if it avoids any further dispute. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes I would be prepared to lose that. I'm not sure if there is a consensus for that on the talk page though. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've asked BR his thoughts too: as you, he, Cass and I were the main people on the talk page discussing this I don't think anyone will complain. I seem to remember at least one other person suggested dropping it too. If BR objects then I'll leave it there. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with dropping deceased on the relatives. If dropping the resting place will end this, ok. It's settled, right? {{infobox person}} with reasonable fields but not trivia? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good compromise. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, I've been waiting to see if anyone else would comment on the draft for BP's UK operations, but since there have been no replies other than from yourself, do you think it would be acceptable to add the information into the article? If you would be able to do so, I would be grateful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

WARNING Your reverts in Automotive industry by country#United Kingdom ([2], [3], [4]) and Automotive industry in the United Kingdom ([5], [6]) are unacceptable, destructive, unaccurate and near violates the 3RR in first case already. Please, stop.

Any reverts and deletions must be argumented, but no based on subjective estimation and like/dislike preferences concerning to info.

But in 1st article 1st revert was with argumentless subjective remark "better before" and 2nd revert was without any contr-arguments after reasonable arguments are submitted by me already. Only at 3rd revert in 1st article and at reverts in 2nd article, besides of subjective again "messy" remark, you presented "uncited" and "no improvement" opinion.

About "uncited" ostensibly. If you has doubts, you may put Source template at first. But in these cases it's no need even because all data verifiable and presents just in article below or/and in appropriate List of countries by motor vehicle production and other articles.

And "no improvement" is absolute false. I contributes the actual and additional data but you restores obsolete and today's wrong ones.

By essence.

Dewikification of UK, Essex, etc words and , instead . delimiters, removing of "by the 1950s the UK was largest in Europe", "high points with annual output more than 2 million...were achieved", "beat by more grown other auto making countries...", "5th in Europe now" verifiable facts looks as vandalism.

The sentence "marques owned by foreign companies..." logically no concerns to the paragraph about world's ranking but fits to first paragraph about British brands.

While significantly newer data available, your keeping of obsolete data about output and 12th-largest place in 2008 only is harmfully and reduces value of Wiki.

And removing the info about UK cars-winners of the international awards looks as vandalism again.

Urbanowatcher (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Stop edit warring to try to impose your low quality, illiterate changes, which have been reverted by two separate editors, and start a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

(successed from [7]) Dear wikiuser. Unfortunately, this your reply again contains "low quality" subjective estimate and complaints on English only, like such subjective commented ("bad changes", "badly written") reverts of only one of specially called by you and now talk-hided [8] another your friendly users. Both were without deal arguments.

Before to contribute info in Wiki start of discussion no need but according to rules all deletions must be argumented and/or discussed that exact you no adheres this.

What fluent English need for logical transfer the unchanging phrases and for wikification, last figures, illustrations that your total reverts? How long you will try to keep the obsolete 2008 data? (Rhetorical questions). In order to view what seeming doubtful info wishing be confirmed (if this no verifiable under links and/or other articles indeed), no info's hiding total reverts, but Source template uses. If you does not trouble itself with viewing of sources like OICA, * Cars of year, etc in the same Auto.Ind.UK article below and in revealed concerned linked article, it is your problem but no Wiki article.

I would very glad if you change, at last, started by you edit war with impulsive uncompromising reverting skill to constructive one and correct English in texts after my updating and adding contributions, if this so strong need as seems to you (or other users). Urbanowatcher (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The 2008 data is of course outdated. But when compared to an uncited and illegible article, I prefer the outdated one. You cannot expect me (or any other editor) to source and translate your edits, which are largely meaningless to an English speaker. To provide you with an example I (Mr.choppers) have thus far 53 edits in Japanese WP, all in a language I do not speak. AFAIK (as far as I know) none of them have been reverted, simply because I have stuck to removing errata, added pictures, or added plain sales numbers (with references). No one expects you to magically become a proficient writer of English, but we do expect you to treat us in a mannerly fashion. No one here will spend hours trying do decipher your intent, translate it, find sources to support your findings, and incorporate all of this into the articles. We will simply look at the mess you caused and revert it all.

My suggestion to you (Urbanowatcher) is to supply links to sources which contain the needed info on the relevant talkpages. Eventually it will then be incorporated into the articles by well-willing, English-speaking editors as ourselves. Sometimes we may need a nudge and a reminder, but we are after all unpaid volunteers. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

A city in the United Kingdom is not just any old collection of buildings. It obtains that status by royal prerogative or in the case of the City of London is deemed to have had that status "since time immemorial". Greater London has never been accorded that status and cannot sensibly do so as it already contains two cities.--MBRZ48 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

City also has a general meaning in the English language and London clearly satisfies it. There are literally millions of reliable third party sources which exist which describe London as a city. Since you appear to not have access to a dictionary, here is a stanadrd definition of a city "A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance." Rangoon11 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The confusion about the fact that there's a "City of London" as well as a "City called London" is a common returner in the London/UK article space - it's been discussed many times. Some people just get fixated on the political/administrative units and forget the point that common usage also gets commonly used in wikipedia articles, provided explained. Shades of UK/GB? :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks James. I wonder why the UK seems to throw up so many of these linguistic issues!? Rangoon11 (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your are consistently failing to abide by WP:AGF on the United Kingdom article. Such behaviour inflames situations and prevents agreements being reached. Please stop and contribute constructively to finding a solution and stop the attacks ----Snowded ^TALK 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but I speak as I find.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are subject to wikipedia rules on behaviour just like everyone else. I've brought the failure explicitly to your attention here, and pointed out that if anything it will prevent progress. So please don't say that you haven't been warned. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rangoon seems to be getting a little heated at one or two points, but which were the failures of AGF specifically? I've just read through his comments and they seem forceful but not lapses of AGF to me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk)

Accusations of POV posturing and related throw away remarks. Anyone on these pages should no the impact of that sort of nonsense and hold back. Things seem to have calmed down although there seems to be a hangup over "incorrect" which as far as I can see no one is saying (despite Rangoon's protestations) applies to the common name. The issue is to make sure that people don't think that a common name is a correct name. If it heats up again I will track down the diffs on AGF----Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rangoon11, please tell me what exactly Cobra Group (company) does?. The article is very confusing since you are an expert on this field I need your help. Please reply me as quickly as possible.Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not a company I had ever heard of. The core activity seems to be door-to-door sales for third parties i.e. they employ people to go round residential areas attempting to sell products on behalf of other companies, such as utility companies, pay TV companies, financial services providers etc. The customer will probably think that the person who comes to their door is actually an employee of the final service provider rather than of Cobra.

It's slightly complicated as Cobra seems to have also diversified into a variety of other areas, some of which have no connection to the original core activity, including financial services, manufacturing and motorsport.

It's hard to gauge how large a proportion of turnover the non door-to-door sales activities are as it seems to be a private company and there is no financial data given on its website. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any way, its too confusing. Do think that this company has any similarities/dissimilarities between Amway? please tell in brief and last question, has this company been associate with some kind of fraud or involved in some sort public scrutiny.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Amway is different in that it sells its own products to customers, Cobra (or at least the main subsidiary of Cobra) sells the products of third parties and it sells them under the third party name. It seems like the company has had some bad publicity in the media e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12] but not aware of any fraud. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon, since no one else has replied on the BP Talk page about my draft subsection detailing BP's UK operations, do you think you would be able to add the draft into the article? If you'd rather, I can look elsewhere for others to comment and make this addition. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, apologies I will do this shortly.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, I've completed the page move to Pearson PLC and tidied up a couple of the backlinks for you. This is just to let you know that I noticed Category:Pearson PLC, which needs to go to WP:CFD. Also there are probably more backlinks that I missed, so you should have a look through them when you get a chance. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will do.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Help me sort out the Mini cockup. The articles all need to be restored back to their original names and then proper discussion needs to take place if different names are to be applied. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Panic over, all sorted now. Same contributor also fcuked up the Fiat 500 and related articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was kind of aware of the Mini issues already, it seems that this editor has been leaving a wake of disaster behind them!Rangoon11 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Much like Coolboygcp‎ and Urbanowatcher! --Biker Biker (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes! Car articles seem to attract them. BTW there has been a discussion about how to deal with the various Mini article titles which you might be interested in: Talk:Mini (marque)#Vote. Very long discussion, but at the bottom there are some options A, B and C which it would be good if you could add your thoughts to.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rangoon11, Please check and fix problems of Infosys and Wipro article. And please see Volkswagen Group, although its under protection see history you would get a clear idea what went wrong.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Will try to take a look, can't promise it will be straight away though.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the section on numbers educated independently belongs more properly in Independent school (United Kingdom) and have placed it there. However we have a problem, in that as it stands, the article minimizes the continuing disproportionate political role of public school educated men and women in the UK today. Most of the 'independently educated' Cabinet Ministers identified by the Sutton Trust were in fact educated at traditional public schools, or at least at one of the 250 odd schools that are members of the Headmasters' Conference. Not sure how to go from here, but will try to find an appropriate form of words, after checking the specifics in the reference. VEBott (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I take your point. What is needed are sources which convey the same or similar info but explicitly refer to "public schools".Rangoon11 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Or a source that simply lists actual schools attended by Ministers, schools which do, in fact, meet the criteria for being public schools? I hope counting up to 15 doesn't count as original research. The term 'public school' is very misleadingly not used to delimit a category of schools in UK academic research. VEBott (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I deleted your last comment in that section, which effectively accused P of being stupid. I think we agree on most of the substantive issues in the article, but I also think you have a tendency to get drawn into personal issues on the talk page which are best just left alone (and just in case anyone is thinking of picking up and quoting this comment against you, you are by no means the worst or the first at this).

If you restore the comment I won't remove it again, but please consider just letting the deletion stand.

On the more substantive issue of OptimusView and his contributions: well, you won't be surprised to learn that I'm not keen on them here, per my comments on the talk page. And I wouldn't be sad if he just left the article alone. But just inviting him to join in the talk page? That doesn't rise to the level of noteworthiness.

One last thing: the admin G contacted, NW, is good William M. Connolley (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate your comments. I have allowed myself to be provoked on the BP talk page. In my view the provocation has been pretty extreme and sustained (repeated comments about COI, paid editing, harassment and lying, and a failure by others to make constructive proposals) but I have at times risen to the bait and shall endeavour to exercise greater self restraint. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon, thank you again for your help with the BP Operations section. I have a new draft for the US operations in my user pages and wanted to ask if you would be able to review it? I also have a request on the BP Talk page and welcome your comments there. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes happy to. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you have new messages at Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica#British spelling. Regards, 78.147.84.10 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you list some sources to prove it "have been cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down" ?--王小朋友 (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is a subjective part of a guideline rather than a policy. In my view the lasting notability of the events is strongly demonstrated by the sources already in the article. Remember that you are free to start an AfD discussion on it though.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading File:Heythrop College logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would like you to stop your disruptive editing at BP. Your repeated reversions do not serve the reader who expects a balanced and neutral article. Instead, your reversions serve BP's public relations department—all of your reversions have taken out negative information.

Here are your article edits from the last two months:

• 21:31, September 10, 2012 [13] (-5,604) ‎(rv - further attempt to force changes through edit warring, and despite ongoing talk page discussions and an open RfC, all of which edit is aware of)
• 16:03, September 10, 2012 [14] (-1,750) (rv - essentially exactly the same text as reverted previously, and which is under discussion on the Talk page)
• 21:51, September 9, 2012 [15] (-2,690) (rv - complete contempt being demonstrated for open Talk page discussion and an open RfC)
• 17:01, September 9, 2012 [16] (-2,268) (rv - per previous - exactly the same edits as rejected previously)
• 16:46, September 7, 2012 [17] (-430) (rm - duplicated in relevant sub section)
• 16:43, September 7, 2012 [18] (-1,751) (rv - crude, simplistic and misleading attack content - take to Talk)
• 16:31, September 7, 2012 [19] (-88) (rv - crude POV-pushing, recentist, US-centric attack content - also (again) blatantly ignoring talk page discussion)
• 17:55, September 6, 2012 [20] (-1,299) (Undid revision 511100958 - heavily discussed and clearly no consensus - this is disruptive editing)
• 16:25, September 6, 2012 [21] (-1,299) (Undid revision 511089948 - you are well aware there is no consensus for this on the talk page)
• August 30, 2012 [22] (+16,861) Ten sequential edits; mainly an expansion of the "Operations" section, the "United States" subsection.
• 00:01, August 24, 2012 [23] (-32)‎ (Undid revision 508855154 - per previous, and its spelt CONSENSUS)
• 20:17, August 23, 2012 [24] (-33)‎ (rm - disputed - please seek consensus for addition of tag on talk page)
• 16:55, August 23, 2012 [25] (+7) (link)
• 16:47, August 23, 2012 [26] (-15) (rm - linked in article)
• 16:44, August 23, 2012 [27] (+1) (ce)
• 16:42, August 23, 2012 [28] (-75) (rm tag - this is disputed - please establish a consensus for the addition of the tag on the article talk page)
• 17:21, August 22, 2012 [29] (-74) (Undid revision 508643621 - in your opinion - seek consensus for the addition of this tag on the talk page)
• 12:01, August 22, 2012 [30] (+1) (ditto, ce)
• 11:58, August 22, 2012 [31] (-94) (rm - main site is adequate)
• 11:54, August 22, 2012 [32] (+15) (ce)
• 11:53, August 22, 2012 [33] (+1) (separate issue)
• 11:46, August 22, 2012 [34] (-20) (fix)
• 11:45, August 22, 2012 [35] (-15) (rm - lead is quite adequate in length)
• 00:45, August 17, 2012 [36] (-1) (Undid revision 507759822 - lead has been discussed at length including in a DR)
• 00:58, August 15, 2012 [37] (0)‎ (ce)
• 00:53, August 15, 2012 [38] (-340) (ce)
• 00:48, August 15, 2012 [39] (-2) (adjust)
• 00:46, August 15, 2012 [40] (+6,568) (add text per talk page, ce)
• 12:21, August 8, 2012 [41] (-1,369) (Undid revision 506382633 - clearly no consensus for this having been discussed at length)

Here are selected sources that your reversions removed:

• Lundborg, Zinta (15 February 2011). "How BP's Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence". Bloomberg.
• Vaughan, Bernard (29 February 2012). "Browne's BP cost-cutting led to Gulf spill, book says". Reuters.
• Lustgarten, Abrahm (2012). Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 214. ISBN 0393083160.
• Reed, Stanley; Fitzgerald, Alison (2011). In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down. Bloomberg. Vol. 137. John Wiley & Sons. p. 98. ISBN 0470950900.
• Brent, Coon (28 June 2010). "The Inside Story of BP's Negligence on Oil Safety". Esquire. Hearst Communications.
• Bower, Tom (1 July 2010). "July Fourth Outrage: British Gov't Elevates Disgraced BP Boss". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
• Elkind, Peter; Whitford, David; Burke, Doris (24 January 2011). "BP: 'An accident waiting to happen'". CNN Money. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
• Lustgarten, Abrahm; Knutson, Ryan (June 7, 2010). "Reports at BP over years find history of problems". The Washington Post.
• Lustgarten, Abrahm (26 October 2010). "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present". ProPublica.
• Lustgarten, Abrahm (19 April 2012). "A Stain That Won't Wash Away". The New York Times.
• Korosec, Kirsten (May 7, 2010). "BP's History of Oil Spills and Accidents: Same Strategy, Different Day". CBS News.
• Thomas, Pierre (May 27, 2010). "BP's Dismal Safety Record". ABC News.

Amidst your expansion additions are too many major reversions, removing too many high quality sources. You are the main contributor at BP; your editing there began near the end of August 2010 with this "tidy-up". The prominent position you have assumed at the article has changed to become harmful to its development—even well-referenced text is removed. Can you step back from the battleground attitude? Can you indicate here an intention to let information from high quality reliable sources be used to expand the article? Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with this warning. The "this is an RS, therefore it belongs in the article" style of argument is simply wrong. You're failing to recognise the massive problems that article has, and the strong POV pushing from "the other side", and indeed I think your own partisanship William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The "this is an RS, therefore it belongs in the article" style of argument is indeed wrong -- but no one has advanced that argument. What a stupid, unsubstantiated thing to say, on it's face; 6.5 years and still same as it ever was. Additions of unflattering encyclopedic information widely covered in high-quality reliable sources ≠ "strong POV pushing", regardless of how distasteful it may be to "the other side" to see it introduced. I'm witnessing a case of the "incredible morphing revert justifications", accompanied by Talk page filibustering, instead of a collaborative effort. And much of that Talk page filibustering takes the form identical to the steaming heap left above: absurd statement coupled with a personal attack alleging partisanship. It's no wonder the article has "massive problems". Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

For those who don't follow BP who may be reading this, Binksternet's post here is in reaction to my post on the BP talk page about their repeated attempts to force changes in complete contempt of open talk page discussions and an open RfC: [42].

I like the way you have tried to present my edits above in a misleading way, by collapsing the edits which were not reversions so that a superficial glance at the list from someone not familiar with the article history will not in fact pick up that a number of the edits, even over the wholly arbitrary period you have selected, were not reversions.

However I make no apologies at all for reverting the addition of crude attack content which uses sources in a highly selective manner, and in reverting additions which are being added in complete contempt of concerns expressed by multiple editors in very lengthy talk page discussions.

Xenophrenic has stated "The "this is an RS, therefore it belongs in the article" style of argument is indeed wrong -- but no one has advanced that argument." Perhaps you should actually read Binksternet's post above, in which that is clearly what they are saying. Why else paste in a list of sources with the heading "Here are selected sources that your reversions removed:" and state that I have been "removing too many high quality sources." That is exactly the point that they are making and it is wholly wrong. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Precisely: Xenophrenic: B is using the argument you don't seem able to see. As for "stupid", "steaming heap" - are you deliberately trying to be offensive? Its hard to see your comment any other way. And you have the gall to talk about PA William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The statement is a stupid, steaming heap - and I stand by that. You are confusing your personal interpretation of a situation with reality. It's an either/or situation.

Either:

• An editor noticed a lack of specific factual, encyclopedic information in the article; attempted to add the information; and ran into other editor(s) "strongly against such views being presented as fact, or given an excessive coverage", so he therefore has accumulated and presented numerous RS to establish both the nature of the information, and the prominence of that information in reliable sources.

Or...

• An editor has a personal point of view and would like to interject that POV into the article, so he found a source(s) so he can claim "this is an RS, therefore it belongs in the article".

After reviewing the article history and the expressed intents of the participating editors (and specific edits which frequently do not mesh with expressed intentions), it's obvious that reality is to be found in the first description, and not in the steaming heap. I, too, find the stupid, steaming heap to be offensive, as it asserts without substantiation that an editor is POV-pushing instead of attempting to improve article content. One might call that a personal attack. Do I have the gall to talk about personal attacks? Is the sky blue? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rangoon11, you were putting your BP talk page entry together at the same time I was putting this user page entry together. It took me several hours to assemble this; your post came during that time. My post here was not in reaction to your single post—it was in reaction to months of your editing behavior.

Regarding high quality reliable sources, my argument is they must be dealt with by incorporation rather than deletion. Editors with entrenched positions must allow the source to have a place in the article; they should read the source and make certain its facts and tone are adequately represented. The best they can do against negative information from a high quality reliable source is add other text taken from the source or change the summary to be more representative of it. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have said on the talk page already - no problem with most of these sources, although we are unlikely to need all of them. I have also said that what is needed are proper overviews of BP's safety and environmental record to be added at the start of the applicable sections of the article (which are at present essentially laundry lists of recent "incidents".

However the text which you are seeking to add will not move the article forward, it is simply too crude, too POV pushing and too selective. That is not to say that some of the points should not be included in some form however. I have already stated that personally - I know others disagree - I have no problem with something about the fact that some critics have ascribed some of BP's accidents in the US to measures implemented by Browne. However I am strongly against such views being presented as fact, or given an excessive coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You have never offered to take any of my text and rework it to suit your preference. Instead, you have performed knee-jerk wholesale reversions of everything I have written. An indication of good faith collegiality would be to assemble text from these sources and propose it or boldly insert it. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to work with you to develop text on the talk page. I started a thread specifically to develop a proper overview of BP's safety record and it would be good if energies could be focused there. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Happy" is as happy does. On the talk page at your "Safety record overview" section which you started four days ago, you have not yet contributed any text and references. Nobody else has either. To me it looked like an attempt to show that BP was not really as dangerously "egregious [and] willful" a safety and health violator as has been observed in the last 15 years. I don't count that as a good faith attempt to bring even one of the above-listed references into the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping that the section would generate more interest from the large number of people involved in BP issues, and your own response (the sole one to date) demonstrated no interest in actually participating in what I proposed. Nonetheless I would still like to do as I proposed in the section and I would be willing to work with you and others to develop a balanced text, including explicit mention of criticisms of John Browne (depending on the outcome of the BLP discussion of course). Would you be willing to do this? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am a talk page participant interested in developing the article. I will comment on your proposed text. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will try to post some text up in the next day or two. I want to be clear though that I will not be proposing it as the whole text for the section, but merely part of it. That is why I have invited others to assist, I am clear that a decent, comprehensive text which is as neutral as possible will require the contributions of more than one editor. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there some reason that you feel that "England" doesn't belong in an article about a notable place which is located there? Radiopathy •talk• 23:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there some reason that you feel that "United Kingdom" doesn't belong in an article about a notable place which is located there?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Soar Automotive logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Shanghai Volkswagen logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rangoon11. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reaction Engines, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: don't think G6 applies this time - see the articles talk page in a moment. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Geely logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Emgrand logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:AgustaWestland logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Rangoon11. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

JetBlast (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Too much vandalism going on with this article if possible please do something.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I will take a look.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is Cognizant Technology Solutions an American or Indian company pls tell me ?--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Most sources seem to describe it as either "US based" or "American", although some Indian sources do seem to also call it "Indian". Personally I would stick with "American" based on HQ, primary listing and the majority of third party sources. The option also exists to simply drop the "American" and start something like "is a multinational information technology, consulting and business process outsourcing services company headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey, United States". There is no doubt that the fact that the majority of staff and operations are based in India should be mentioned in the lead, and a mention of the Indian role in the company's foundation would be useful too. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, personally I also think its better not drop "American" while mentioning the Indian role in the company in the lead section. Therefore could you pls help and rewrite sentences providing with all the necessary information's. If you can rewrite the top section it would be really helpful for the viewers. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi- I'm editing the Brick Lane Market article for a class project. Our teacher warned us that our contributions could be deleted if we don't have backing from other Wikipedia editors. I was wondering if you could help my project group by looking over our additions to the article in the next few days. Any advice you have would be much appreciated. Thanks! User talk:D4n2elle/BrickLaneMarket Joey236 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes happy to help. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Kumho Tires logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is Japan Post Holdings a conglomerate or courier or financial service company pls reply me ?--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as it has two core activities - and they are in some ways connected, eg through the branch network - I would personally call it "mail services and financial services". Rangoon11 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I had changed it in the infobox its quite clear its not a conglomerate company though provide different services which are quite similar and interrelated.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

		Zhonghua Barnstar of Merit
		this WikiAward was given to Rangoon11 by Windows.dll (talk) on 10:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!Rangoon11 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:State Grid logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on File:Baojun logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please do not break references like what was done here. McGregor's source was being cited. If you felt the reference shouldn't be in the reference section, please take the time to consolidate it into the ref links. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

If it is being used as a reference then it should be properly footnoted. What is it being used to support in the text?Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see: Another user had removed and broken the sub-reference without explaining so in the edit summary. It was being used to explain the ownership structure, and that Lenovo once had its admin HQ in the United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've no problem with the work being used as a source to footnote text, of course, but the work seemed a little tangential (and POV) for mere further reading. We probably need to be clearer about the HQ. So far as I am aware Lenovo never actually had its HQ exculsively in the US, at most it was co-headquartered in the US and China for a period and even then it was just the operational HQ for a period after the IBM PC acquisition. It was very much a Chinese company before the IBM purchase though. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

He probably meant the HQ being in the US as "and then just the operational HQ for a period after the IBM PC acquisition" - I notice that at least in English HQ often means the operational HQ and not the registered office - The author still acknowledged Lenovo as a Chinese company even when its HQ was in the USA WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and reading the rest of the article this is in fact reasonably clear. We should probably be 100% clear in the corporate affairs section though if HQ location is going to be detailed there. For example ideally we need the dates that operational HQ was split US/China. I will see if I can identify this and provide more detail, unless you want to?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll be happy to see what I can find - The more the merrier, right? :) - HQ sections I've worked on are like Air France#head office and Continental Airlines#Headquarters WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK great.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Using English sources only, I was able to find when it moved to Morrisville. But I'm not sure when the company moved its worldwide Admin HQ there... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Baojun logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Nuclear power by country has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Beagel (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, I've been busy elsewhere for a while but I recently posted a new request on the BP talk page about a replacement draft for the BP Alternative Energy section. If you are still interested in reviewing my drafts I would appreciate your feedback. In the talk page request I have explained the differences between the current version and my draft, which is in my user space here: User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy. I also added a short follow up request to the same thread looking for someone to remove some now outdated information in the United States operations section you helped with in August. Do you think you could help with that too? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure, will take a look.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon, have you been able to review my suggestions for BP Alternative Energy and US Operations? I haven't heard from the other editors I've reached out to, so your input would be very helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've now updated the US operations section as requested and checked the new draft text for the AE section, which I am personally happy with and think is a big improvement on the current text. Let's wait a couple of days to see if anyone else has any comments and then I will add it into the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:SNL Financial logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Like your latest edit, but I m wondering whether we should provide a summary league table for the two major international rankings ( pretty much like the one you pasted for national rankings ) ?

Also I m not sure to what extend Royal Holloway is ever included in this informal notion (not clear to me from the ref you provided). I am quite familiar with the UK university landscape but have never heard anyone include Royal Holloway in the Golden Triangle ! ( There seems to be no objetive criteria based on which to include Royal Holloway unlike King's which is also less frequently cited as part of the GT but has top 10 research income and does well in the international rankings even though it's not doing so well in the national ones. )

best,

Hypatia (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi thanks for this. Re Royal Holloway, I agree I don't think it should be mentioned based on one rather eccentric and perhaps tounge in cheek comment in a single source. I have started a thread on this on the article talk page and it would be good to have your comments.

I agree that a summary table for the international rankings would a good idea, neater and more relevant, we should also include the ARWU in it and rankings for the other members of the triangle.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good ! Probably the US News World Ranking would be a sensible addition to complete the international overview, I think it may be one of the rankings most frequently looked at by people in North America. ( http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world?page=1 )

Hypatia (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Do you want to have a go at implementing it?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I will add the US news as soon as I get a chance. I also had a look at the THES Reputation ranking, I think it s not a subranking, as the general one does not include reputation according to the methodology as per THES. May be we should bring it back to bring the total to 5 just like the national overview. ( I have added a section on the talk page to discuss this ) I also had a look at the lead controversy, I have added a few more sources that back up my claim that LSE inclusion is not a minority view, and I think SV was also misrepresenting some of the old sources, but I have outlined this in detail on the talk page, may be you can have a look some time. I'd like to wait with editing the existing version until you give your view so it does not just turn into an editing war again... Hypatia (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Really appreciate it, R111. You may have saved me as an editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No worries. In my experience editing company articles can often be both thankless and pretty painful - there are loads of editors who seem to either add wholly promotional dross or fill up articles with "controversies", and get nasty when challenged, not many actually trying to build quality, neutral articles - it is an area which is in great need of good and fair editors lke yourself. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Mais oui!. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mais oui! (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at SSE plc shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SMS ^Talk 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You know what, I am sick to death of your arid, tedious campaign to remove all mention of the United Kingdom across this project, which frequently also involves disruptive edit warring. If you want to campaign for Scottish indendence, go and work for the SNP. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Making vacuous ad hominem attacks is just digging a bigger hole for yourself. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

No I think that the time has come for your campaiging edits to be discussed again as this is a clear example of using WP to push a political agenda. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I suggest both of you stop edit warring and take the issue to the talk page or try Dispute resolution. --SMS ^Talk 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The issue doesn't relate to simply one article but to the thousands which Mais oui! systematically works through removing references to the UK. I understand that there was an RfC on this at some stage. It is clear another is needed.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You people need to get wider community (especially people with the knowledge of the issue at hand/experts in dispute resolution) to review this issue and achieve a consensus, which will certainly stop this kind of disruption, and anyone causing disruption can then easily be admonished. --SMS ^Talk 15:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:Keith D is an Administrator here at Wikipedia. Observe. Are you goung to make a WP:NPA attack on him too? Good luck with that. Fortunately, Wikipedia is very, very solidly grounded on an official policy called WP:VERIFY. So, your childish attempts to pretend that companies are not headquartered in Scotland, and thus under the jurisdiction of Scots law, will always ultimately fail, as it is elementary for other editors to provide reliable external references to the legal registration of any, and every, company notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Talk about pissing in the wind... --Mais oui! (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I haven't observed their editing over a period of almost two years and don't watch articles they edit. Being an admin or not is irrelvant, if you were an admin your behaviour would still be inappropriate.

You are changing references even where companies are listed on the London Stock Exchange, have the bulk of their activities in England, were formed by equal mergers between companies with their HQ in London and Scotland, and even when they are majority owned by the British state. There is no thought or subtlety to what you are doing, it is pure POV pushing and campaiging. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, I agree with your analysis of Mais oui!'s editing behaviour as disruptive. He moves articles such as Social care in the United Kingdom to Social care in England then goes into a rant about so-called "British nationalists" [43] and then canvases another user to vote stack the requested move discussion [44]. On categories he edit wars in clear defiance of categorisation rules such as here [45] He even goes so far as to create new stub types such as this ignoring the clear instructions at Wikipedia:Stub sorting that new types must be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. He is then able to replace the UK stub with a Scotland stub e.g [46]. But really the most unpleasant part is the false accusations of vandalism [47] and stalking [48] (he should read WP:KETTLE). I definitely agree that this user's conduct is now in urgent need of an RFC. Tim! (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thought you might be interested in Mais oui!’s latest escapade. On the John Logie Baird page there was a dispute over whether to give his nationality as ‘British’ or ‘Scottish’. A compromise was reached to use ‘Scottish-British’. Predictably, Mais oui! refused to accept this and continually edit warred it to ‘Scottish’. He finally recruited an admin, Lectonar, to revert and then lock the page (Pending changes protection) on the grounds of violations of the biographies of living persons policy (the salient point here is that Baird died in 1946). In the meantime, every editor who disagrees with him he accused of sockpuppetry. Flagators (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

On Mr. Laud. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, your work has been good too. Really appalling quality article before the edits of the past week or so, one of the worst I have seen. And I expect that the surge in traffic is going to continue so its important to have something reasonable.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ironic comments by me, really! BLP's are a constant reward/challenge. Can you email me? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

See ANI/BLP [49] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You displayed on the English people talk page, the absurdist tokenism proposal is a recurring problem. Worth putting on a watch list. Cheers! Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm contacting you as you participated in the policy village pump discussion regarding ticker symbols in article leads.

I've posted a section here about next steps to take, specifically examining whether an RFC is needed to reach a clear consensus on this issue. If you have the time and/or inclination to weigh in, please do! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Datang Telecom logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon11, I have recently posted a request on the BP Talk page for editors to review a new draft for the Other countries section under Operations. So far, Beagel has reviewed the draft and I have made some adjustments based on their comments. If you are able to look over the draft, I would appreciate your feedback also. The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo_at_BP/Worldwide_operations and you can see my more detailed explanation of it on the BP Talk page. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Boots logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You sent me a message asking to stop deleting content on this page. The reasons for my having edited this page include: 1)some of the information that has been deleted and reinstated by you is inaccurate. For example, two of GIP's founding investors were Credit Suisse and GE. However the company was never a joint venture. Just one proof point of this statement is that together, the CS and GE capital commitments to GIP totaled less than 18% of the capital in the first fund alone. Further, they did not have control of either management of Board of Director decisions. 2) the information on the portfolio company assets that has been reinstated is dated or incomplete and therefore leaves a net impression of questionable accuracy 3) other information such as the Hong Kong office opening is misleading in that the information does not include that this was a temporary office which has been closed for over three years.

My interest in this GIP page is in providing relevant information and accurate facts. My sources of information are vetted documents and filings. What are your interests and reliable sources of information? I look forward to hearing from you,

J. Cowell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Cowell (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this message. Regarding the Hong Kong office, I agree and have now removed this.

A reliable third party source describes GIP as having been established as a joint venture between GE and Credit Suisse, this would not require them to have been the majority investors in the first fund. "Joint venture" does not have a specific legal meaning in this sense.

Information on major acquisitions seems highly relevant, and is properly cited. If it is incomplete then feel free to add to it. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

After informing, they have replaced it with this: [[50]] Again another error! See now -59.95.19.36 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rangoon, I hope you are well. Since you last helped me with a request for BP, I have been continuing to work on improvements to that article, specifically in the Environmental record section. Most recently, I have made a request for the removal of the Mist mountain project subsection, and I wanted to ask if you would be willing to look at this request. The site the subsection focuses on was not operational when it was owned by BP and it was sold to another company in 2010, so I feel that discussion of it does not merit inclusion in the article. If you are able, please can you share your views about the section on the BP Talk page? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the delay in responding. I have been taking a bit of a break from the BP article but will take a look at this tomorrow. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind rephrasing the last sentence on your entry on the BLP noticeboard so that it doesn't mention the nature of the allegations? JASpencer (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. JASpencer (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply