Talk:Sol Trujillo

Telstra vs gov.au

The majority of the information on Solomon Trujillo's page appears to be about fights with the Australian Government on behalf of Telstra. I don't think this belongs here. Maybe a separate page could be started discussing the disagreements between Telstra and the Government, but this is more related to Telstra than Mr. Trujillo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.144.21 (talk • contribs) on 2006-06-29t01:10:19z

FTTN

I don't know that FTTN is necessarily "vital infrastructure". Desirable, yes, vital, not yet. The text makes it look like Sol is putting the brakes on extensions to the power grid or irrigation projects. Thedangerouskitchen 12:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

telecommunications are vital infrastructure, you've heard the rumours about the info superhighway, knowledge workers and the like. well, they are all true. without major imporvements, we will become technological have nots, and the nation will suffer. brad 16.05.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.32.187 (talk • contribs) on 2007-05-16t06:10:21z

Suffer, yes, but nobody will die. Vital infrastructure stops people from dying. Now, if we were at a point where fibre was required for calls to emergency services, I would say that FTTN was vital. That isn't the case yet. If FTTN is vital infrastructure, what do you call the PSTN?Thedangerouskitchen 13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

nobody dies if we don't irrigate, yet you say that is vital. brad 3/07/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.38.109 (talk • contribs) on 2007-07-03t05:01:51z

There'd be plenty of dead crops. Nonetheless, nobody is dying because FTTN isn't here yet. Maybe in 10 years it will be vital. Now, it isn't. Important, yes. Desirable, yes. Vital, no. Thedangerouskitchen 11:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative bias of the biography

This bio shows a clear negative bias to the point that it could be libellous. For instance, mentionning that he is the "least Admired CEO" on the very first paragraph stains everything else. (I've removed that line). CEO aren't hired to be "admired". It is also not a reflection on his life or career, at least not to the point that it should be one of the first statement about the man.

The rest of the article reads similarly. He was not charged with any impropriety with the Qwest scandal (Nacchio was) but the article hints at it. I don't see any fact that points that he was responsible for the demise of Graviton although again the article hints at it. Graviton was funded by the the government (CIA) and many projects were affected by the September 11 attacks.

The rest of the article reads the same and is in serious need of some NPV cleanup. Until then, I will try to tone down the text.

--Bernardd 06:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would also ask all Whirlpool users to keep their ideologies to themselves when editing this article. Orbitalwow 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oh come on, if its true, its true. as far as i can tell, the telstra stuff is. sol is controversial. he has done a lot of controversial stuff. those are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.32.187 (talk • contribs) on 2007-05-16t06:06:42z

If they're not well-referenced and from reliable sources, these "facts" don't belong on Wikipedia. cojoco (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy

content ripped from http://www.answers.com/topic/solomon-trujillo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.196.136 (talk)

Not really - that is a (legal under the GFDL) copy of this article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Bias - Limited Citations.

This biography is pathetic, I came here to view a biography not a page filled with abysmal libel and obvious bias.

Either an admin needs to lock this page or somebody without bias please clean it up and add the relevant citations. --MoneyForNothing 15:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Has it not now gone the other way? Somebody complained to the Foundation, and now the article has been totally whitewashed? That's how it looks anyway. --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that this is true. http://www.itwire.com/content/view/18746/1095/ But this is par for the course here. Proxy User (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please. I've been watching this page all day as well as the newspaper reports, and have been biting my tongue. Let me just say that the oversighted edits referred to in the letter and in the newspaper had nothing to do with Mr. Trujillo's business or political affairs whatsoever. It was more of a blatant and highly personalized attack upon his character. Oversight policy and privacy policy means I cannot say more than that, and cannot divulge the contents, which I saw and personally removed. The Telegraph article is more accurate when they refer to "highly defamatory, false and offensive personal comments" - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the cached version ITWire mentions doesn't cover the oversighted content. According to the letter on ChillingEffects.org, the lawyers contacted the WMF on March 7. The logs for this article imply that the content in question was also removed on March 7. According to this talk page, though, the Telstra public affairs office came through on April 12, and ITWire came through on April 23. Google updates its Wikipedia article caches regularly, and the oversighted content would not have remained there when either ITWire or Ms. Dunning visited.

I didn't see the exact content that Alison saw, but I saw the March 7 content before it was oversighted, and I'll confirm that it had absolutely nothing to do with Trujillo's career, Telstra, US WEST, Australian politics, US politics, Australia in general, or the US in general. If you want unsavory content on those things, then you can still see that in the article history. - Jredmond (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm that the March 7 content, which was removed, was the same as the comments I removed the other day - Alison ^❤ 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Updating this page

I'm Tarnya Dunning and I work in Telstra's public affairs office [1]. I'm here to contribute information that will improve the quality of Telstra-related pages.

I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them.

My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in editing directly any Telstra-related page. Instead, I would volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.

If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [2], or e-mail me at t.dunning@team.telstra.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnya Dunning (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a smart way to engage Wikipedia users without directly editing the text. Smart move. WallyBalloo (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Walter Jennings (www.WallyDownUndy.com)

Still a little bit creepy! I don't know what was removed but I think it would be important to mention the controversial tactic Sol took during the last federal election... 203.206.162.25 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the 'history' page for the article, and check the articles on and before April 11th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.33.248 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Press reports are wildly inaccurate

The press is suggesting that Mr. Trujillo must have done something to get Wikipedia to take down legitimate criticism of him. This is absolutely false. Mr. Trujillo's attorneys made a serious of justified complaints about an IP number inserting vicious libel against him, complaints which we dealt with appropriately and effectively. There has been absolutely no effort by those attorneys to remove legitimate criticism; indeed, nothing of the sort was even discussed.

It is sad to see a media so irresponsible as to make it seem that Wikipedia would cave to a few lawyers letters objecting to legitimate criticism. It is even sadder to see Mr. Trujillo attacked by that same irresponsible media for something that he did not do.

This article should be a good article. It should detail Mr. Trujillo's career in a neutral and responsible fashion. It should contain both accomplishments and appropriate mention of legitimate criticism. The libel, which was disgusting lies put forward by an anonymous ip number who I hope Mr. Trujillo tracks down and punishes for their attacks, had nothing to do with his business work but was just a juvenile insult.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, go figure, it was from an Australian internet address (current ISP). SChalice

Can I also point out that the recent edits that I removed were removed by me in my capacity as a member of the Wikipedia editing community. I had been informed of some severe, intensely personalized and potentially libelous insertions by an anon editor. This came through the usual oversight channels and I took the decision as an oversighter, to permanently remove the comments. These were in no way related to any political or business issues with Mr. Trujillo. They are not available in the edit history, so all the other critical commentary is still available to anyone, for review. I took the decision to remove them myself, as I would if I found that kind of unsubstantiated, vicious attack on any other biographical article. I'd also like to say that I know that the comments directly relate to the letter recently published on ChillingEffects - Alison ^❤ 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

HE WHO HIDES THE TRUTH HAVE BUT TO LOOK AT THEIR OWN HISTORY AND TRUTH TO SEE THAT THE TRUTH MUST BE MADE FREE. --- by all means edit this page BUT IF SOME ONE is pressuring wikipedia to remove things that are not so nice, which are strongly suggested by media and are actual "facts" - then these "facts" should NOT BE REMOVED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmoodb (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even "facts" need be represented neutrally, without inappropriate weight, be presented in a manner which complies with both the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy, and be carefully considered before being included. Adding a list of otherwise-unrelated "controversies" thrown together as a list written in an accusatory tone, that comprises >50% of the article, is not this - I would call it more of a "hatchet job". I am seriously looking forward to this so people with what appear to be agendas can be banned from adding content which does not comply with our basic policies and principles. Daniel (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel. you miss the whole point. Wales did state the way it should be done. I agree with him. This article should be a good article. It should detail Mr. Trujillo's career in a neutral and responsible fashion. It should contain both accomplishments and appropriate mention of legitimate criticism. However, I differ in the view that those criticisms should be removed I think they should be reworded. Perhaps the ones which have references and facts should be left so that we have a balanced article(if they are presented properly). Since, when did an encyclopedia only include the good bits ? Dbmoodb (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply stating everything that can be referenced does not make a balanced article. Please read WP:UNDUE. In this version, almost as much content is devoted to the Wikipedia controversy as the entire career section. That is not NPOV. Mr.Z-man 14:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, the Wikipedia controversy should only take up a line or two of the article, it is not that important in the wider perspective. D.M.N. (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. We don't need to (and shouldn't) document every last controversy a person has gotten into; better to focus on highly notable incidents or cases reported in independent secondary sources. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A public successful business figure should have a decent article about both their achievements and their failures. The current article justifies the complete lack of failures by saying the article is so short that it looks bad to put an extra (referenced) section in. Is that really the message you want to send to people? We avoid legal issues by trimming details until the controversy goes away, upon which time expansions to his achievements will inevitably be made anyway. Ansell 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that the bit i just restored -- just about the wikipedia incident is acceptable (perahps in a slim downed version ?) ? Dbmoodb (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the Wikipedia "incident" is probably the least relevant controversy. It makes little sense (what "above language?"), seems very self-serving, and is very recentist. It has far less real-world importance than the other controversies. Mr.Z-man 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it again, per the lack of consensus to restore. Daniel (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the WP:Office decide. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How long are they going to take to decide? I don't see it as constructive to have the article permanently protected even if they are afraid of lawsuits. Why is this person so special in effect is what I am wanting to know? He has an extensive public record, of which only his job switches are detailed here, without any reference to why any of them occured even. There are reliable sources detailing reasons for each job switch and what his actions were as an executive on each of the companies. At least put a notice up on the page saying it is protected because the wikipedia office employees are looking into what information the person desires in their profile or something better than just saying it is protected. Ansell 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

comeing up on a year probably. And people are noticeing.Geni 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

APC mag article on whitewashing of this article

Article here (click). Inappropriate to include in the article, but some wikipedians might find it interesting. --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an opportune time for this stub to be expanded

Now that Mr Trujillo has finally left Australia, can we look forward to some interesting reading, from both sides? Ombudswiki (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a section adding the current 'racists' controversy is due? Re check [Racists, Backward; Sol's parting shot] Information was widely reported and has certainly stirred a public debate. I wanted to add it today but the page is restricted. Also Rudd's rather racists comments and the many politically incorrect cartoons should also be included. Chuckarg33 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, he was given the top job in one of the largest and most visible companies in Australia. Yeah, he's suffered like Mandela. If anyone has been insulted, it's the Mexicans. --Surturz (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see some editor(s) have reinstated the 'racist controversy'. I fail to see how this is anything except a media beat up. It is pretty clear that Trujillo never suffered any serious racism (getting paid $30M to run a company into the ground is hardly suffering racism). Trujillo's comment was simply immature slander from a sad failure. It's hardly encyclopedic, and should be removed. --Surturz (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ACCC vilification.. Graeme Samuel website

I doubt this trivia is even worth including in the article. The phrase "Trujillo is remembered in Australia for the vilification of ACCC chairman, Graeme Samuel" is particularly inappropriate because Trujillo is remembered in Australia for being the being the CEO of Telstra, not for commissioning that website. --Surturz (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I'd agree with that. Philwalker87 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as it exemplifies the tactics of Telstra under Trujillo. Ozdaren (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this new "controversy" addition is not written in a way that satisfies WP:NPOV as it provides just one comment and one opinion with the sole intention of sliming Sol. For it to stay it would at least (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) need a contrary opinion on the website. I also think we need to see proof Sol himself was personally involved in the website and if in fact this needs to be in the Telstra article. Philwalker87 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, if you can find other view points then include them. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. So far there seems to be no conflict. Ozdaren (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will move the section here in the meantime until we can find some balance. Philwalker87 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

During Trojillo's tenure Telstra created a website saying 'time to go Graeme' in order to pressure ACCC chairman, Graeme Samuel. Peter Costello, former federal treasurer, stated that he had 'never seen such vilification of a statutory officer'.

I've undone this as there is no need to put it here unless a consensus is reached. Ozdaren (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No per WP:BLP, you have already agreed that this section lacks proper balance, we will get the wording right here on the talkpage before placing it back in the article. Philwalker87 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. Where are the multiple or conflicting perspectives?? The comments are very relevant and are not derogatory (they are not my comments and are properly cited). Your language and tone on my talk page is highly inflammatory. Do not take this to a personal level. One of the tenets of W/P you cite is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. But you seemingly fail to grasp the meaning of it. Here is a but a part of it "Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." Descending into personal attacks is not part of this. Ozdaren (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if anything I said offended you. However we must find common ground on this issue you have reverted two different editors to force into this article. So;

• A) Do you accept that expressing a single solitary point of view (i.e. that of Peter Costello) and no alternate view pushes the WP:WEIGHT of the article into violation of WP:BLP.
• B) Since Peter Costello's viewpoint is not the only POV and obviously not a "fact" should we not try to expand and balance the section here on the talkpage first before inserting into the article?

This questions of course do not address a more fundamental question, i.e. How involved is Trujillo in this website and is this not better served in the Telstra article. Philwalker87 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I gotta say, after a mild perusal of the the Graeme Samuels/Sol Trujillo relationship see here for instance, no one seems to be talking about it enough to justify inclusion of Peter Costello's opinion into this article per WP:N. I agree with Surturz, (another editor besides myself who has removed the section), that is trivial to the BLP, especially if the read the thing in one go. Philwalker87 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually he didn't remove that section, he commented on it on the talk page. So far it has been your edits that have removed it. Rather than discussing this here and attempting to create a consensus born of negotiation and compromise, you seem willing to fan the flames of an edit war, and before your later more conciliatory language, make inflammatory comments. Costello is a major public figure in Australia. Are you suggesting Costello is a liar? What is the counter argument to his point? Do you have a citation for it? I prefer you keep your comments on this talk page. Ozdaren (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I can butt in for a moment, the source says, "It tried to intimidate and bully the regulator. At one point it set up a website to attack the ACCC chairman, Graeme Samuel, which launched a campaign called "time to go Graeme". I have never seen such vilification of a statutory officer." The last statement has probably been represented correctly in Ozdaren's edit, but the website, that needs an independent source. One wouldn't want to call anyone a liar here, but neither should one accept facts blindly (and state them in a way that suggests they are independently verified facts) from an opinion piece. I agree with the removal, especially considering the strict policy of WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your view point, thank you for adding your opinion. Ozdaren (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ozdaren you are correct in pointing out that Surturz only suggested removing the passage and did not actually remove it, I apologise for the mistake. However you are wrong to say I am the only editor to remove it as this edit by MikeCraig proves. I notice you did not address any of my points so far in the disscussion however I will do you the coutesy of addressing yours. I do not think Costello per se is a liar but in this case an "exaggerator". I provided evidence of counter opinions here they are again however I guess you didn't get around to following the link. Philwalker87 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one to give up with out a dig? You seem to like to have a go at people. Try being conciliatory and not express remarks at people. As the Greeks say: "You catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar" PS Perhaps you should look at Drmies' comments and contrast them with your own (just remember vinegar and honey...) Ozdaren (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References

GFC

I notice that the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 (GFC) and being disqualified for submitting a non-compliant bid to the National Broadband Network are listed as reasons for the massive decline in the share price of Telstra. The citations for this don't seem to mention anything about the GFC. Can anyone find a reference for this? Ozdaren (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I put that sentence in. It is quite possibly WP:OR.. This ref almost contradicts the assertion. --Surturz (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. That very much seems like speculation to me. I think that it should be removed. - 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All major companies were affected by the GFC, a quick rudimentary Google search yeilds, this, this, and this. Philwalker87 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you quote the bit that says the Telstra share price was affected by the GFC? This ref you supplied says that Telstra should *not* have been affected by the GFC:

Notwithstanding the global financial crisis enveloping sharemarkets in the past 18 months, Telstra’s position as the monopoly provider of foxed line telecommunications services should have placed it in a unique defensive position. (By comparison, other dominant telecommunications companies outperformed Telstra in recent years —  US-based AT&T’s share price is steady since July 2006, while Singapore Telecommunications is up by 45% over the same period).[3]

Crikey is not necessarily a WP:RS though. I had a quick look the other day at the chart and AFAICT Telstra's price didn't dip in September 2008 --Surturz (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the 5y share price chart again at ninemsn - if you chart it against the ASX200 (sorry I can seem to get a link better than this, you'll need to select 5y and compare against the index yourself), is pretty clear that Telstra's share price didn't drop until they were excluded from the NBN tender in December. See also this ref. I am now inclined to agree with Ozdaren that the GFC did not contribute to Telstra's share price drop - Trujillo can take full credit. --Surturz (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference I added into the article says it best;

It may have been different if Telstra hadn’t been shut out of the national broadband network (NBN) tender, although that apparently wouldn’t have coloured Winn’s decision. It may also have been different if the global financial crisis and sharemarket meltdown hadn’t wiped out the value of his scrip-based incentives.

Remember the economy is the culmination of thousands of personal decisions made every day by millions of people, even governments can't really control it, (they can only put sand into the machinery). To place the fluctuations of Telstra's share price squarely on the shoulders of Trujillo "alone" defies reason. Philwalker87 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the TLS price charts? I agree that "common sense" would say that the GFC affected the TLS share price, which is why I put that in the article originally. However, User:Ozdaren has, quite rightly, insisted on WP:V rather than "common sense". The quotation you provide only mentions the effect of the GFC on Trujillo's "scrip based incentives", not the TLS share price directly. The other references, however, indicate that TLS' share price should not have been adversely affected by the GFC since it held a monopoly and was thus a 'defensive' stock - ie. some investors would have parked their money in TLS as part of the 'flight to quality'. The GFC mainly hit financial stocks, and stocks exposed to the financial meltdown (e.g. highly leveraged companies). AFAICT Telstra was neither. Is it WP:UNDUE to mention the fall in TLS' share price due to the NBN exclusion without including a mention of the GFC? I don't think so. There is ample WP:RS to support the conclusion that the NBN tender exclusion (and Trujillo's leadership, for that matter) had a major negative impact on the TLS share price. References to support the conclusion that the GFC had a similar effect, however, are simply not there. --Surturz (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I stated above these references come from a quick rudimentary search of google using selective terms like "share" and the only "global financial crisis" in quotes. from these three,

JPMorgan has warned that Telstra will not be immune to a slowdown, citing the discretionary nature of customers replacing mobile phones as a factor.

JPMorgan disputes your assertion that Telstra being a monopoly is immune from the financial downturn. There are many reference citing "all" and "every" company suffering from the GFC and Telstra is included in these companies. The effects of the GFC may need to commented on per WP:WEIGHT however I must admit this is like fighting for the proverbial "sky is blue". Philwalker87 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that would be unwise, given the C&D Wikimedia received in 2008 regarding the article: [4] -Etoile ✩ (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

where are the links/sources to this comment

“On 'The Chaser's War on Everything', the Chasers ridiculed Trujillo as there was dispute at the time over his capability as a CEO. This remains an unclear issue, as the latest reports from Telstra indicate no improvement since Trujillo's induction as CEO, and some have dismissed the Chaser skit as a racial slur.

there are no links to this paragraph or any sources/refrences i suggest it be cleaned up and the source to these comments found as there are no links to these claims

– —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.129.71 (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing Section

I worked in the software of the profitable !nterprise division of USWest - it is almost unbelievable that there is no section on the sale of USWest - one of the "Baby Bells" to pip-squeak fraudster Qwest. Just compare the net worth of Qwest at that time to the annual pre-tax profits of USwest. And the sale of my shares at $3.10 meant my option at $37.oo had been worth what ? And what did Sol walk away with before his moving on to his next tow disasters? How many millions? Yet never an investigation of that sale? Note: the previous sale effort had been to what fraudulent Atlantic underwater cable firm? Last traded at what - 0.50$ - weeks after Sol tried to swap shares at 50.00 USD ? G. Robert Shiplett 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sol Trujillo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303150239/http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0%2C23636%2C22220936-462%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0%2C23636%2C22220936-462%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)