Hello CBuiltother, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! [CharlieEchoTango] 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked (and unblocked)
Hi CBuiltother. You were blocked (and then unblocked) because another editor on your company's IP has been causing trouble. Thank you for following policy with regard to COI, and I hope you continue to make good contributions to the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't comment on the socking issue, but even if there was multiple account use, CBuilt was extremely professional and edited in line with best COI practices. Sorry I didn't get involved during the SPI investigation; I'm a bit unfamiliar there. Ocaasi (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Elen-- I'm glad this got resolved, even before I had a chance to respond. I appreciate the positive feedback from both you and Ocaasi! --CBuiltother (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey CBuilt, I checked the diff of your new edits and you have done a nice job of adding references, details, and updates. Looks good to me.
One note, yearly updates at some point should be condensed into summary form, but for now standout years especially deserve mention.
Two note, actually. The website: http://www.energyme.com/energy/2011/20110000021.htm is really a press release feeder. ("Information supplied by companies or PR agencies who are responsible for content. Send press releases in Word format to firstname.lastname@example.org"). That means the information should be treated as a primary source--in other words we can trust that the company said it and believes it to be true, but we can't confirm its importance. In those situations it's best to a) look for the same information published in a true independent, secondary source b) attribute the information to the company ("In a press release, Oxy stated...")
- Hi Ocaasi, thanks for taking a look at this! I have gone ahead and implemented the revision after replacing the energyme.com post with the following Bloomberg piece: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/abu-dhabi-says-occidental-s-shah-gas-terms-differ-from-conoco-s.html.
- Also, I'm sorry to ask, but while I'm somewhat familiar withe WP:Summary_Style, I was hoping you could clarify for me what you meant in your first note on the revisions. Thanks again! CBuiltother (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey CBuilt. Yeah, I've been away for a while. Looks like the Oxy article has become a bit of a hot area :). I'd be happy to help you and Cowboy find consensus. I'll certainly attest to the fact that you've been following best practices here and have standing to assist on the article. I also appreciate you remaining civil with Cowboy who came at you with a bit of aggression. It appears that he is adding information which is generally critical of the company. This information has a place in the article if it is well sourced and neutrally phrased, two benchmarks I don't think he has met with all of his contributions. I'd like to review the pieces and then look at each one individually. We'd all be best to avoid the ole pro-corporate/anti-corporate rhetoric; as you know the great thing about WP is it doesn't matter--just the facts (including facts about published opinions). Anyway, I'm keeping and eye on the page and just need to get my head around exactly what the contested information is and whether there are disagreements besides Cowboy's additions. Please continue to respond as you have while we iron out the details. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 03:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've left messages on Cowboy's page and on the occidental talk page. So far I see two sections, one on executive compensation and one on a tax shelter. Are there any others. The issue of executive compensation and public perception of it is significant, but I don't care for the way it's currently drafted. In addition to being too long, it seems to be advocating a point in Wikipedia's voice--namely that Oxy hates it workers while it loves its executives. Anyway, while we go forward, please read this article in full and see if you think it has anything of worth to add: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQgudxxo2XFQ Ocaasi t | c 06:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Ocaasi, thanks for the time you’re putting into this. I agree with you on all points, and don’t mean to challenge the general substance of the content, but am mainly concerned about the weight given to some of the topics and tone of the language. In addition to the two sections you mentioned (History and Irani tax shelter) I also had minor concerns with the tone of some of the language in the latter part of the Libya section, but not the overall content.
- As for the executive compensation and tax shelter discussion, I agree with John that the Irani tax shelter material is appropriate for the Ray Irani article, but not the Occidental Petroleum article. My thoughts on executive compensation were basically that the current material is disproportionate in its coverage of that issue compared to the rest of the content in the section discussing the company’s overall history. Again, I am not opposed to a more detailed discussion of these compensation issues on the Ray Irani article.
Just wanted to drop by and thank you for your work on the Occidental Petroleum article. If only everyone with a conflict of interest stated it, and edited as responsibly as you. The article's a lot better than it was a couple of years ago (this edit summary summarizes how I felt about it in 2009). As an aside, I work in the industry but have no relationship with Oxy; I write a lot of the oil and gas field articles, but always tread carefully where I would have a COI (basically I haven't written that stuff). I saw your post on ANI but did not want to intervene as an administrator, since I've edited the article. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Antandrus, thanks for your feedback, time, and work on the Oxy article. It is truly appreciated. Let me know if you're ever looking for help or feedback on another project. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cowboy128 Cowboy128 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added my vote to the Consensus section. Thanks for your time and help on this issue. - CBuiltother (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Consol Energy lede section
Formal mediation has been requested
Feedback for Consol Article
Hi. When you recently edited Consol Energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second Amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.