Talk:Howdens Joinery

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Woodworking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking articles

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Howdens3 (talk · contribs)

Request for Comments[edit]

The editors here agree that Garyrawlinson54's edits were somewhat disruptive. The editor in question seems to be ignoring the talk page. Considering this, reverting his controversial edits might be appropriate.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't have the time or interest to follow up on this, but it seems to me that this edit and similar earlier edits suppress valuable information on the history of this business. If that history pertains only to one branch of some entity that is now part of a "group", it is still valuable and deserves to be mentioned. I'd like to have input from someone else as to what's appropriate here. Lupo 09:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but for a different reason: the good-faith edits by a less experienced editor removed sourced material and replaced it with unsourced material. A synthesis of the two pieces of information is possible, but only if both pieces of information are backed by sources. I would ~~revert the edit in question and try again~~ contact the editor via his/her talk page to encourage him/her to add sourced material, but also restore the material that was deleted by their good faith edit. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go further and say the new edit has made the article inaccurate. By airbrushing the history before the acquisition it gives a false impression of the true development of the company. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up this article while reviewing the RFC board, and found this older RFC need. I have reviewed the diffs and it does look like substantial information has been removed, however a direct revert does not seem appropriate. I have reached out to the editor who did the majority of the editing, via e-mail, so see what his position is since it doesn't appear that he is contributing on the talk page. It also seems apparent that their is a COI issue here as well. I will report back what is discovered through working with the BOLD editor, and hopefully we can resolve this RFC. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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