User talk:Rangoon11/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nomination of List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. mhking (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Please see User talk:Phantomsteve#Oxford Street AFD for the latest on this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for the update, and for taking up the baton on this. There is no doubt in my mind that the lights are more than notable enough for some kind of stand-alone article, and that there is plenty of potential content for such an article. I almost certainly gave the article which I created the wrong title and remit, although I am still left somewhat baffled by the attitudes of some of those in favour of deletion at the AfD. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct attribution when spinning out new articles

Hi Rangoon11. Hope you don't mind a bit of advice on how to attribute the previous edit history when moving text between articles. I'm referring to the two edits you did here and here. What you need to do is mention in the edit summary the old and new articles. This helps ensure correct attribution is possible. See WP:SPLIT for more on this, particularly the procedure section. Please ask me if you have any questions about this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No not at all, thanks for the advice. I understand now that there were quite a few issues with the way in which I broke out the information into a separate article. I confess that I probably gave the new article the wrong name as well! Rangoon11 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

UCLB

Hi Rangoon11

You wrote this about UCLB: "addition of a large quantity of uncited and promotional content and deletion of cited material"

Can you please elaborate? Can you please tell me if you work for Wikipedia..? Danielslyons1 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielslyons1 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for your message. Firstly, no I don't work for Wikipedia, I'm not sure what gave you that idea? Secondly, content in Wikipedia articles generally requires references and citations: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thirdly, Wikipedia articles require a neutral point of view to be maintained: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fourthly, it is important for conflicts of interest to be avoided when editing articles: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
The issue that I have with your attempted edits is primarily that you have inserted a large amount of material to the UCL Business article which is both uncited and to a large extent promotional of the subject.
The UCL Business web site can be used as a source for factual information about UCL Business in its Wikipedia article, but it must be remembered that the Wikipedia article is an encyclopedia entry and that various Wikipedia rules and policies apply to its content. Where information is sourced from that site it should also be cited properly. It is certainly not appropriate to copy whole chunks of text from the UCL Business web site.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Rangoon11

Many thanks for your comments, I will take this into consideration and will review the content.

With kind regards Danielslyons1 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Consenus

Consensus is not when one more person wants something than does not what it. 2.124.101.166 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is when there are only three people in the debate, two of whom hold one view and the third of whom is unable or unwilling to formulate a clear view, or to engage in the debate properly.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

S&T in the UK template

Hi, I noticed that you added this template to the articles on The Lancet and BMJ. I wonder a bit though, do you intend to add this to each and every journal published in the UK? That would be thousands. In addition, almost any scientific journal (including Lancet and BMJ) nowadays is thoroughly international, having people from different countries on their editorial boards, offices in multiple countries, etc. Personally, I'd prefer if you would remove this template from any academic journal articles. You could add it to some academic publishers, but you have the same problem there. Take Blackwell, for example. Even before they were acquired by Wiley, they had a big office in the US near Boston and many journals were published from there, not from their headquarters in Oxford. Publishing nowadays is too international for this kind of templates, I think. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I have now removed The Lancet and BMJ from the template. I should note that I have received similar comments from another editor regarding the inclusion of Nature and the New Scientist.
I do think that a good case can be made for inclusion, on the basis that the journals have their origins and their primary headquarters in the UK, but I also recognise the legitimate concerns regarding the scope of both the activities and contents of the journals, which in effect makes them part of the science sector in essentially every country, not just the UK. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


Audio theatre

Hi, I am a person from Germany. Possibly you can look on the discussion of the article: Audio theatre, because you have made edits in the past on articles which are related with it. with friendly greetings, Soenke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Soenke, thanks for your message. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on audio theatre but am very happy to provide my thoughts. Is the issue that you would like my thoughts on that of whether the articles Audio theatre and Radio drama should be merged, or something else? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the moment I will be a little bit carefull, because somebody means that my doing asking native English speakers on their talk page could be canvassing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soenke_Rahn I see it not so. I looked on the articles round about the topic, and I was amazed that there were not much people active on it still today. I suppose that 95% of the Users which made bigger contributions in this area are not active today. (So a question on such sites will not have realy effects.) But it would be a speculation why it is so. But I will give you a true answer. I come from Germany and it could possible that I will place a Calque into the English language, because I think in the German language. This would be strange. On the other hand I am not a native. I use the English language not like a native it is possible that he will use words like a German also. So I suppose that it is important that native speakers will help to answer the question. It is realy not important for me into which direction you will give your statement. I think that the discussion is realy interesting. I write in the moment a bigger "homework" to the Duden dictionary, so I am very interested in such questions. Thanks, I wish you a happy New Year. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello Rangoon11. I noticed your addition of the new (to me) navbox template that can group several different navboxes into one nice neat one and the Handmade Films article today. This may be one of the best space saving and clutter removing templates that I've seen here at WikiP in a long time. Who knows how long I would have taken to notice it otherwise so my thanks for your edit that made me aware of it. If you had anything to do with its creation than another dozen thanks on top of that. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't claim to have invented that feature, I spotted it in use on another article, but I agree that it is very neat and useful. All the best. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision feedback / request

Hi Rangoon11-- I noticed you've recently done some editing to the articles of a few energy companies. I've proposed a some revisions to the Occidental Petroleum article, and I'm looking for other editors to review them, particularly because I face a COI in editing the article. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated-- another editor has already left his thoughts on the drafts' respective talk pages if you'd like to drop yours in there.

Thanks, --CBuiltother (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message and apologies for not having replied before. Yes I'm very happy to help, I will take a look at this tomorrow. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rangoon11 -- Thanks again for helping. I've proposed another revision to the Occidental article (found here - talk page here). If you have any feedback, I'd certainly welcome it! --CBuiltother (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

LSE Crest

Hello Rangoon11, why did you replace the LSE crest containing the LSE colours with the black and white 'saturated' version? Personally as an LSE alumnus and current PhD student I much prefer the former coloured version of the crest. Lacdeguiers (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it wasn't actually me, it was Mulloom2 who made the switch. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the mix-up. Lacdeguiers (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Companies

I'm curious - you mainly seemed interested in companies up to now - whence comes the sudden deep interest in UK literature? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you see it as a playpen, or are you hoping to add as soon as possible to your growing blocklist? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why someone should feel the need to place such a message on someone's talk page, let alone expect a reply. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I was annoyed. Your edits don't make sense - all you've done is add back in an extremely long sentence and randomly deleted and added authors without explanation. As a result the article is now fully protected, which at least stops more of your foolish edits. You clearly know enough to not just mess about like this. Why are you bothering? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rangoon11. You have new messages at Talk:United Kingdom#Literature.
Message added 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So you do not agree with their being a section for Scottish brands then?

If you do not agree with a category called English brands, you are against the Scottish brands category too, right? Or is that just another example of the bias in the British brands section? Seriously, you people do not have any point. Why is the category English brands invalid whereas Scottish brands is? The Mummy (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Imperial College

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a compact phrase to the first paragraph of the introduction, giving readers an idea of what caliber college this is. Moreover, both my statements were well referenced - it is not a secret that Imperial's alumni consists of Nobel laureates, prime ministers and industry owners. Claiming that Imperial is one of world's top universities is hence well motivated and supported by several league tables (which I referenced). This is not 'peacocking', but orotund branding if you must. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.146.70 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The quality of Imperial (which is exceptionally high) is demonstrated by the facts given in the lede and the rest of the article. Claims such as 'high reputation' are inappropriate peacocking and actually harm the credibility of the article and the facts within it. Imperial's Nobel laureates are already mentioned later in the lede. A cited reference to heads of government after the sentence on Nobel laureates would be perfectly appropriate however, although 'industry owners' is in my view far too vague. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

edit regarding the merger of LSE and TSX

the merger is historic (the combined market cap is 47% higher than the Nasdaq marking the first time in recent history that the 2 biggest exchanges weren't both American) and noone really knows how it will effect the way both exchanges work, they could literally merge. I'm not going to add the infomation back unless you agree not to remove it again. I know I'm not the only person who thinks that, in the TSX article someone else added the info on the merger and I'm sure they're aware that both companies have parents. More reason to add the infomation to the article: one of the key people for the London Stock Exchange will be TSX's ceo who will take the place of president.Grmike (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)grmike

Thanks for your message. I completely agree that the merger is very important for the London Stock Exchange Group, for TSX and for the UK and Canada, but the article in question is London Stock Exchange, the remit of which is to deal with the UK operations rather than the holding comany, which also owns operations such as Borsa Italiana. Where there is a (quite sensible) article separation such as this I do feel it important to not then undermine it by placing Group information in the UK-specific article.
If you add the information back into the lede of London Stock Exchange then I wont remove it again but I do kindly ask you to strongly consider the group/division article split and to place the vast majority of coverage of the merger transaction in the group article only.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand, for now I'll leave it hopefully so that people give more attention to the parent group and go to that article for information to realize that a literal merger of both indices isn't necessarily going to happen. If noone adds information about it within the next week I'll add something but only brief. Thanks for explaining why you removed it.Grmike (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)grmike

Edit warring accusation

It's not an edit war when you revert once. Only if you do it multiple times. Juvarra (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab World protest template

Hey Rangoon. No problem on the reversion. See the talk page. Basically, we have the list of countries. Then we have two categories for political parties and political people, each one of which mushes together main figures from all 10? 12? countries. Since these countries should get their own separate revolution templates once they become big enough, it seems both messy and redundant to have anything but links to the individual country pages in the template. The alternative requires a good deal of formatting know-how that no one seems to have or want to fix, namely, putting sub-sections or columns for every single country within each sub-category. Unless that happens, I don't see what good a random list of names from the Arab world does anyone, since they don't even know which country is associated with which entry. Ocaasi (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I see your point regarding it being unclear which countries the content of the People and Political parties sections relate to. One possible solution, at least in the short term until the template becomes larger and requires a more fundamental restructuring, is to add the applicable country names in bold followed a colon in each of those sections, e.g. Egypt: __ political party{·w}Tunisia: __ political party Rangoon11 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A small problem there is not knowing which names belong to which protest. I think the bigger issue, though, is whether or not there's any point to having a master-template which has comprehensive details for every single one of the countries. Instead, would it not make more sense to have a simple meta-template (listing only the country links), and then individual country-protest templates such as {Template:Egyptian Revolution of 2011} to break out the comprehensive details. Ocaasi (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. It looks better even if I'm not sure it will stay useful as the sections arbitrarily expand. One thing, I'm not sure we need to [wikilink] the countries, since we already have the country-protest links at the top of the template. This reduces confusion since the Egypt/Egypt links point to different places (protests/country), and it also gives more visual contrast between black and blue. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I tend to agree that removing the links to the country articles as you suggest would be simpler, and look better too. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this revert game

Please do not do "blind reverting". Xashaiar (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

London

Gosh that article is slow to save nowadays. I think we've been tripping over one another trying to find a non-BAA source for Heathrow's passenger data. Anyway, all fixed now and thanks for joining in. - Pointillist (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries...WP generally seems to be running very slowly today, and the bigger articles are really painful. Its a bad reminder of the days of dial-up internet! Rangoon11 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk

Hi SilkTork, I would be grateful if you could briefly explain why you have replaced the info box in the above article with a Company template in place of the prior Brewery one, as the Brewery one seemed more appropriate to me. Thanks, and apologies if I've missed something obvious. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a period when editors were using sometimes both brewery and company infoboxes, or articles had either one or the other without consistency, and sometimes an edit war occurred. As the general trend was toward uniformity and consistency across Wikipedia, the Beer WikiProject decided to use the more common company infobox. The company box contains more fields, and the only loss was the list of beers, and lists of beer had also been depreciated within the project. I incorporated some of this was into the Project's guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Guidelines. However, there are still brewery articles which use the old brewery info box, and it is taking time to change them over. I change them when I come upon them. I came upon the Dundalk brewery today in response to the comment on my talkpage just preceding yours. SilkTork *YES! 19:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Rangoon11. You have new messages at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UEL School of Law - discussion going on

Hi, given that you reverted the PROD at University of East London School of Law I thought that you should be made aware that I have started a discussion on the broader issues on this project talk page. Principally, I am querying whether I have correctly understood the guide that I quoted in the PROD. If I have so done then the thing will probably end up at AfD. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of James Lighthill House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Lighthill House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lighthill House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mtking (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramsay Hall deletion page

You may have missed the question I asked on the Ramsay Hall deletion page :

  • what (other then being the meeting place of a English alternative rock band Coldplay, BTW the authors of that entry don't even find that fact noteworthy) makes this building in your opinion worthy of notice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtking (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
A whole combination of factors make the building notable for me. The fact that it was designed by a notable architect. The fact that it is connected with, and essentially inseperable from, another building (the Indian YMCA), which is also important and by another notable architect. The fact that it is the best known hall of residence of a very major university. The fact that a major renovation and extension of the builidng was itself notable, and won an award. The fact that notable people have lived there as students. The fact that it has been the subject of artistic interest and photos of it are in an important collection. The fact that it is located right in the heart of London in an important conservation area. The fact that it is also used as a hostel, and has received considerable third party coverage of this role (upaid for i.e. not advertising).
In my view the citations in the article support this. I am frustrated due to personal reasons not to be able to look for more references from architecture books. I am sure that they exist but are not searchable on google books. However, in my firm view, the current citations are sufficient.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN: 2011 Syrian protests

-- tariqabjotu 16:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Thanks! Rangoon11 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD - UEL School of Law

Hi, no worries about the debate - it's a good thing. But out of interest where are you getting your numbers for its being a large school (UK)? You mentioned this in the earlier discussion and I could not really fathom it. There are ones twice the size (Bristol,. I think, is one) and seem to be at least a good few of the same size. This is not an AfD point - I'm merely curious as to whether there is a source for this type of info as, obviously, it could be a good reference point in future. I won't be using it in the AfD argument nor, obviously, canvassing anyone else to use it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Around 1,000 students sounds quite large to me but I confess that this is purely anecdotal. I will try and find some proper sources and get back to you on this.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I know when I was at Cambridge even my college (the smallest in terms of student numbers, and a history-specialist place rather than law) had about 50-55 law undergrads + some dons & research bods. My college then was 270 undergrads & the university was around 12-14k, so the maths ... But that was then, in my long forgotten youth, and this is now! - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Halls of residence

Hi, thanks for your contributions to discussions on AfDs for halls of residence in London. You may also be interested in contributing to Paul Robeson House (near James Lighthill House) and David Bomberg House, both with cultural associations. Also, you might want to archive your talk page in a separate sub-page and reduce its size. It took quite a while to load for me. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sure will take a look at Paul Robeson House and David Bomberg House. Will also achive this page, I know that its overdue. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DLA Piper

Hi Rangoon11, I'm quite confused about how you deem a link to further information about DLA Piper a spam link? I think it is worth having this re-instated as there is nothing on the page that discusses careers at the company at all.

In my view the content linked to includes nothing factual that isn't on the DLA Piper web site, and is of questionable neutrality, including ludicrous text such as 'General consensus is that you get to work with a very friendly bunch of people' and 'immediate supervisors and managers are fair and congenial'.
Why don't you seek consensus for the addition of the link on the article's Talk page? My own view on this is unlikely to change but other editors may see it differently.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. Will drop it on shortly. In future, if I wish to add a link to a site I deem of interest, I assume it's worth also putting put a discussion in the talk page about my reasons why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.255.33 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel...

How would you feel about a merge of Paul Robeson House (London) to Halls of residence at the University College London. I'm sure it's not your ideal outcome, but it would preserve the information.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson House is a hall of residence of the School of Oriental and African Studies, not UCL. SOAS and UCL are affiliated through the University of London but are separate universities.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page consensus

As you are aware you need to get talk page consensus for adding material to an article - when you added the minor local government award details with your edit of 11:29, 15 March 2011 you did not gain consensus, please do so before re adding it.

Mtking (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely untrue, you do not need to seek consensus before making an addition to an article. And once content in an article has been in for a certain period it becomes part of the 'consensus' stable version. You have just deleted cited and appropriate content.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I should add that I find it amusing that you come here to lecture me - incorrectly - on policy, when your mass AfD binge has been distinctly suspect in terms of protocol.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you will find that there is no consensus for it to be there, thus proving you are wrong. Mtking (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Levitt Bernstein

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Levitt Bernstein. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mtking (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you do some reading on basic Wikipedia policy as your behaviour is getting truly farcical.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is your behaviour that needs to be looked at, as whenever any editor makes an edit to an article you do not like, you undo it with the comment "please get concusses", however when the tables are turned and an edit you make is undone with a similar comment you don't like it. Mtking (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

You have not posted on my Talk page the location of which noticeboard you have made your "complaint". I don't intend to search through the various possible fora for this, and your failure to notify me where you have done this is almost certainly a breach of the procedures of that noticeboard. Unless you indicate which noticeboard you have posted on in the next 24hrs, I will make a report to AN/I. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made a complaint as yet, as could have been discovered in a few seconds by looking at my edit history. I do feel that your behaviour on the United Kingdom talk page has been unnecessarily aggressive but on reflection am not convinced that there is any point attempting to involve others in this. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Then you should post a retraction of your empty "threat" by your post in the article Talk page. DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For information DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

TLT

Hi Rangoon11. This is BDMagic. I've been editing the text about TLT on Wikipedia but have noticed that you've been undoing my edits. I'm new to Wikipedia and would really welcome your feedback as to what I might have been doing wrong. I think maybe my edits have been considered too salesy and not factual enough so I've tried to correct this. However, any help or guidance you could provide would be much appreciated. I want to add info that is helpful to Wikipedia users and within the culture/spirit of Wikipedia.

Also, I think I'm supposed to reference my edits but I'm not sure how to as I know the inforamation because I'm an employee of TLT so I'm unsure what the source would be in this instance? Any help you could give would be very much appreciated - at the moment I feel rather out of my depth using Wikipedia. Thanks, BDMagic BDmagic (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power in the United Kingdom

I believe that I am not being obstructive, just that with such a major revamp (moving sections and images), it is worth getting other editors inputs first, Wikipedia is a collaborative not solo effort. You have made no attempt to justify why you think your edits improve the article. Mtking (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works and not what is required by policy. Although it may be advisable to seek to discuss edits prior to making them if they are of an obviously highly controversial manner and highly likely to be reverted, it is not acutually a requirement even then. To seek consensus prior to making edits would be impractical. Standard process is clear: Wikipedia:Be bold, and if others disagree with the edits they can then easily revert and the issues of disagreement can be discussed on the Talk page.
There are obvious practical reasons for this. Firstly, the easiest way to show others what you intend is to actually make the changes, and they can then do a compare. Secondly, seeking consensus prior to making edits would greatly slow down the process of editing. Thirdly, most edits are not controversial. And fourthly, it is an exceptionally easy and quick process to revert edits. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to want to quote loads of rules and policies but don't seem to want to explain the basic point which is why/how do your edits improve the article. Mtking (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You have clearly reverted just in an attempt to make a WP:POINT (despite actually having an incorrect understanding of policy). At no point have you stated why you feel the edits were not an improvement to the article in question. The edits were of an uncontentious nature: the addition of photos when there were none previously, the correction of content and moving some to a more logical place. The onus is on you to state what was you disagree with about the changes. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You are at it again, avoiding the question by throwing even more rules and policies into the debate before partially addressing my question. My biggest issue was moving of the helpful map from the top of the page, I fist came across the page in the wake of the Japan quake and the map at the top was helpful to me at the start. Mtking (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but I simply don't believe that, it's clear from your whole focus both in this discussion, on the article Talk page and in your edit summaries that your purpose in reverting my edits was to attempt to prove a point about my editing style, and had nothing to do with the edits themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose seeking a Wikipedia:Third opinion on this matter.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Believe what you want, you have made no effort to discuss, you believe that "he who can quote the rules is right" and every other editor must accept your way. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not rearrage/edit this discussion to present a misleading impression of its flow, as you just did. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I did no such thing, what ever went wrong was down to a problem with the website, as when I went to reply I got "edit error" messages  ! Mtking (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

ZTE undue

You removed a mention of controversies from the ZTE page. I don't know if it really is WP:UNDUE to include it, but I reverted your edit because WP:LEAD says that "prominent controversies" should be mentioned in the lead section. Please let me know if you disagree. Fleetham (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

General Electric company template

Just wanted to give props for suitably un-assing the GE template. The February revision was a tragic example. The current template gives a GREAT overview. :) --Joffeloff (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is, as always with Wikipedia, that the more you do the more you realise still needs to be done! Rangoon11 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Cars

As a previous contributor, you might want to have a look at Bristol Cars. Another user, with a long history of contentious edits, has deleted nearly the entire page and replaced it with broken up sections. See Talk:Bristol_Cars#Removal_of_content for what is going on. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So, how come none of the other car company pages are like that?

Take a look at Honda, Ford and Nissan Motors and tell me why General Motors (formally General Motors Company) is an automaker... sounds better, looks better and fits into Wikipedia then General Motors Company is an automaker... --A Second Man in Motion (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure that I entirely follow your comment but regarding my edit, which actually was made purely to tidy a prior one by an IP, I feel that it is best to have some clarification about the distinction between common name (which is also the article title) and official legal name (General Motors Company). There are different ways to do this. If you look at Toyota you will see that it says 'Toyota Motor Corporation... commonly known simply as Toyota'. I would be happy with such an approach on GM as well. I do agree with the IP that the proper legal name should be in the lead however. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Request

A COI editor from Monitor Group has asked for help updating a draft relating to their work with Libya. It's a highly controversial area, and although the user has been extremely polite and transparent, I'd love another set of eyes on the draft and the sources. Talk page, Page section 1, Page section 2, Sources subpage, Related Libya issue main page. If you have the time or interest. Cheers, Ocaasi c 19:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes very happy to help out, I will make time for this tomorrow.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Great...! Ocaasi c 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

IPA

I have a quick Q about the pronunciation on the Roewe page. You changed the IPA (and another pronunciation guide) but I'm wondering what you based your changes on. How did you know that the IPA that you changed was incorrect? Fleetham (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the prior pronounciation was actually for Rover, which is clearly incorrect being neither the Chinese pronounciation of Roewe nor possible using standard English prounciation of words. In the absense of clear third party citations the English pronounciation should in my view simply be given 'as written' i.e. Ro-way. 'Wrong-way' is clearly a nonsense English pronounciation. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I remember reading a blog post that said the pronunciation wasn't as written ("My favorite example is also from the auto industry: Roewe. If you are not already familiar with this car brand and yet still intuitively understand how to pronounce this brand, then you are a very talented individual indeed. I’ve never been able to figure it out."), and transferring from the pinyin chart at that article to IPA gets me "ɻu̯əŋ weɪ̯", "ʐu̯əŋ weɪ̯", "ɻʊŋ weɪ̯", or "ʐʊŋ weɪ̯".
I don't know what the right way to say the name is. But if you're saying Ro-way as "roe way", I do think that's wrong. This WSJ article states, "The company suggests the English pronunciation should be transcribed roo-eevey or roo-ee (ru:ivi or reui, transcribing from the Chinese). The Chinese name for the brand is pronounced rong wei... but sounds similar in English to 'wrong way.'" I don't think we should change the IPA to say "wrong way" but maybe replace what's there with IPA transposed from pinyin? Fleetham (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on your reply, for which thanks, I would be happy for the English pronounciation to be changed to roo-ee from the present ro-way. I'm glad that we agree that 'wrong way' is wrong! Rangoon11 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If you would that would be great. I can try to supply the IPA if you're busy, but I'm not entirely sure how to say "roo-ee". "Roo" as in baby kangaroo and "ee" as in "eelephant"? Fleetham (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping the censorship on the Olswang page. Someone is trying to get rid of a fact that they don't like. Halkyn (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Olswang and claims about Sir Fred Goodwin

I understand your revert of the removal of this section on the grounds that Olswang tried to remove them it themselves, however you inadvertently added back a unsourced claim, as the claim that they obtained the injunction is pure synthesis of the fact that Olswang are or have at some point been Sir Fred’s solicitors and Hemming's claim of existence of a injunction. It also gives undue weight to just one of their clients. Mtking (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rankings of universities in the United States

Excellent call, splitting off this material into its own article. I'd found that article too unwieldy, yet somehow, it had never occurred to me to do what you did. Thanks! HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for introducing me to Graham's pyramid. Any idea why its not discussed in the article? HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Re Graham's pyramid, yes it's good isn't it and so frequently apt to WP (and other) debates and discussions. Like you I actually came across it on another editor's user page and don't know much about the background to it, or why it's not discussed in the Paul Graham article. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Monitor question

Hi there. On Friday I posted a follow-up request with new information about Monitor Group registering with FARA on the Talk page, and since no editor has reviewed it yet, I hope you don't mind me asking here if you would. Secondarily, I wonder if you could change the listing of Mark Fuller, who is currently listed as "Chairman" to "former Chairman" with this resignation letter[1] as the citation. If you are busy, I can ask someone else for assistance. Thank you. CanalPark (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes happy to help, I will take a look at this shortly. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I am looking forward to it and appreciate your help as always. CanalPark (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

EMI question

What exactly do you mean by "per standard" in regards to England vs. United Kingdom? I'm not reverting your revert since it's supposedly based on a basic Wikipedia standard, but I was just curious about this... 67.80.144.146 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is standard to use town/city + sovereign state, look at other articles and this will become clear. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Schillings article

I notice that you have done a lot of work on Law firms of the United Kingdom and Template:Law firms of the United Kingdom, I don't know if you are aware that there is a lot of interest in CTB v News Group Newspapers and 2011 British super-injunction controversy at this time and Schillings, the law firm acting for Ryan Giggs does not have an article, would you be able to write one ? VERTott 10:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Schillings is actually quite a small law firm by UK standards and not currently one of the 100 largest in the country. However, in view of current interest and your request, I will see if I can get together enough coverage to start an article. I may not be able to do this immediately but will certainly do so within the next two or three days. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing Oil & Gas UK

Hi There,

I work for this company and am trying to update the page. You keep removing it all. there is no reason why you should be doing that. I am putting up truthful information as well as relevant links. Can you please stop undoing what i have done it is most irritating.

Please can you refrain i would appreciate it.

Thanks

JAnet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janetlouw23 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Help understanding something

Hi

I noticed you undid this edit as vandalism, can you explain that as I can't see that it was. Mtking (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo was (1) of a building in Birmingham and (2) of a building not even related to any member of the Golden Triangle - it was so utterly irrelevant that I struggle to see that it was added for any reason other than vandalism, or as 'joke' - which amounts to the same thing.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clearing that up. Mtking (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Francis Crick Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Centre_for_Medical_Research_and_Innovation

IT NOW BADLY NEEDS A CHANGE OF NAME PLEASE?

Dear 'Rangoon11', I can find nothing to confirm the involvement of IMPERIAL COLLEGE, LONDON in any of the announcements by the other parties, who shared the same press release. Are they involved or not?

Martin91.110.159.155 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, although the name change has been announced, it has not yet taken effect - it will happen in July - so the article should keep its current title for now. The name change is described in the History section of the article however. Re Imperial, their joining the project is cited within the article if you look at the appropiate footnotes e.g. [2]. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi "Rangoon11", I think your article is great by the way; I was amazed to find it, but I think it is better to move with the spirit of Sir Paul Nurse's announcement last week and call it The Francis Crick Institute, as that is what the project's correct nomenclature now is. Can I ask whether you have a special interest? I do as a U.K. researcher for Robert Olby's magnificent scientific biography: "Francis Crick: Hunter of Life's Secrets", and I know a lot of people who knew Crick personally. I don't doubt that Imperial College will be involved, but they are not mentioned in the formal press releases from the other day. So let's go with the right title now please? (Otherwise no one will ever find it as a bunch of meaningless initials!) Best, Martin 91.110.159.155 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is NO mention of Imperial College, London in the MRC announcement so reference to it has been removed.
91.110.209.33 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Re Imperial, it is true that they weren't a founding member of the UKCMRI, but they joined in April: [3]. Re the name change, I do think that the article title should remain as is until the name of the institute formally changes in July. However to make things easier for readers I will set up a redirect to the article from 'Francis Crick Institute', and include a reference to the new name in the article lead. Re my having a special interest, I'm not connected with the institute but I do have a general interest in London-related WP articles, and in particular London education, healthcare and business related articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft industry of Russia

I called the article Aircraft industry of Russia with purpose: the space industry is very different and there is little overlap. None of the space industry companies have any significant role in aircraft production, and vice versa. The Russian aircraft industry is mainly consolidated to the United Aircraft Corporation, which does not contain any rocket, spacecraft or satellite developers. Furthermore, the history of these two industries is very different, and it's impossible to describe both in the same article. I intend to create Space industry of Russia later as a separate article. I have already started working on it here. Can we move aircraft industry back please? Nanobear (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, I still think that the move is quite valid. The term 'aircraft industry' has been largely replaced in common English with 'aerospace industry', which encompasses all of aircraft, guided missiles, space vehicles, aircraft engines, propulsion units, and related parts. It's also important that readers' get as consistent an experience as possible when reading across articles. However there is no reason why there cannot be a separate article for the Russian space industry - there is more than enough content to justify a separate article - and in fact I strongly support the creation of such an article. Presumably you have nothing against the articles linking to each other? In a technical sense the 'Russian space industry' article will be a break-out article from the 'Russian aerospace industry' article, but that doesn't mean that its length need in any way restricted. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the term "aerospace industry" is more common (at least in many countries). But this article only describes the aircraft sector of Russia's aerospace industry, and I think the title should reflect that - how well it describes the subject is more important than anything else. There should be a separate article for the aircraft industry Aircraft industry of Russia (fixed-wing and rotary aircraft), the space industry (Space industry of Russia; rockets, spacecraft), and the defence industry (Defence industry of Russia; missiles, etc.). Perhaps I should also create a more general article "Aerospace industry of Russia" which has a short section about each of these three industries. But until then, can we move it back please or at least start a move discussion before moving? Nanobear (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
To make it more clear, I propose the following:
I will working on steps 1 and 3 as soon as I have time. Until then, can we move the aircraft article back please? Nanobear (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I support a move back, on the understanding that a new, separate 'Aerospace industry of Russia' article will be created - I do think that this is essential as it is important that WP readers have a consistent experience when reading across articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I will create the new article as soon as possible. Could you move the aircraft article back yourself please? I'd rather not make any reverts, because that always looks bad. Nanobear (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Done.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-government protests in the 21st century, date format

Concerning the following change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAnti-government_protests_in_the_21st_century&action=historysubmit&diff=431635000&oldid=431626846

It is true that those are ongoing protests, just like the protests of the Arab Spring are. So either all ongoing protests are named "-present" or all of them are named "-2011".--JohKar (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the former approach is clearer, or it could be interpreted as meaning that the protest in question ended in 2011, rather than that it is ongoing.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Do you think that ongoing protests which started in 2011 should therefore also be named alike, for example: "Bahraini uprising (present)"?--JohKar (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ford of Britain

Hi, would you please write down on here why you believe you are right. Eddaido (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just don't see how the adoption of the names 'Ford of America' and 'Ford of Germany' in 1960 is relevant to the lead of the Ford of Britain article, it should be in the Ford Motor Company article however. It is also important, per WP:LEDE and standard practice, to give the common name (and article title) at the start of the lead. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Delay because I'm thinking, also about Ford Deutschland, Ford France and Ford of America - which seems to be used only outside USA. Eddaido (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Monitor: another request

Hi again. I have now written a revised version of the Monitor Group Organization section and would like to ask if you would mind reviewing it, as you have been so helpful with previous requests. Looking forward to your input. Thank you. CanalPark (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Offices and Award Cruft

Hi,

Can you explain how a list of cities and flags has any place in an encyclopaedic entry for a law firm ? It is in the corporate brochure not an encyclopaedia.

Secondly the Award Cruft sections are pure promotional, if the awards are notable or are mentioned in the cause of prose then fine, but these are not. Mtking (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Linklaters

For example the awards that you laughing refer to as "cited and appropriate content" are cited to the "awarding body" ALB SE Asia Law, which it self does not have a Wikipedia article, that is how important they are ! The sections are pure promotion and run contra to WP:PROMOTION. Mtking (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The locations of offices are in my view factual, encyclopedic and appropriate. I have nothing against the removal of the flags however, per WP:FLAGS.
For me awards, and award sections, are OK provided that the content is cited. If not I have nothing against removal of content as opposed to the addition of 'citation needed tags'. However I accept that the way that these are given is frequently promotional and the awards should simply be listed, without any narrative or puffery.
I also understand your concerns about COI editing on some of these articles, in my experience law firm articles do suffer more than most from COI editing, something I am no fan of myself and have on numerous occasions reverted the results of. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is it "encyclopedic and appropriate", articles on Banks, for example, don't list locations they have offices, nor do articles on Supermarkets, it is done solely to promote the business and make it look good and for no other obvious reason, that's why it is on the headed paper, corporate brochure, report to stockholders TV and press adverts.
You touch on why only notable awards should be listed, this is an sector that hands out awards like confetti so in the end everyone has them and most of them are meaningless so unless a third party is writing about the awards (in which case they pass WP:GNG and an article can be written about them) then they should not be listed. Mtking (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Retail banks and supermarkets are very different types of businesses, the articles of many shops and banks do list the locations of shops and offices where the number is not impractically high however e.g. House of Fraser, Harvey Nichols and N M Rothschild & Sons. That is completely irrelevant though, it is very standard for the WP articles of law firms to list office locations and this is no more promotional than giving the number of lawyers or the firm turnover. The locations of the offices help the reader to understand the subject better, removing this content would be pure censorship.
I have given my view on awards above. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pages on Law firms. Mtking (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine. The text in the article should go back to the stable, long standing version until the discussion has reached a consensus for removal of the list of offices. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
That would of cause have nothing to do with the fact it is your version of the text, no leave them all as they are for now. Mtking (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Because that is how WP works. I reverted the deletions and at that point the issue should have gone to the talk page. The current version has been imposed through edit warring and has no consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I was not aware of that policy, however given this it looks like consensus is against the listing so point is moot. Mtking (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is only just getting going. And now that you are aware of the policy, please can you reinstate the list of offices. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
No I can't, for two reasons, firstly at this stage it looks like the consensus is going towards removal, and secondly please provide a link to the policy as I can't find it. Mtking (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Next Steps

Following your comments on User Talk:DGG where do you see this going? I have spent the last hour or so looking for third party cometary on their offices and but for something on the spit off to form Kinstellar here I have not found anything. There is also the question of the other articles you listed what do you think about them ? Also have you found any third party cometary on the Awards ? Mtking (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Best to discuss this on the Talk page of the article as regards Linklaters. In my view there is an abundance of third party coverage of that particular firm's various non-London offices and office evolution - and an entire book has been written about the history of the firm: [4] - e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
Let's see what the final conclusion of the discussion is, I don't think its quite finished yet. However if consensus were to be for complete removal of the list of offices from a dedicated section then I may, because in my view Linklaters is a firm of great importance and general interest, re add office information in some other way such as by means of weaving office development into the History section as suggested by DGG. I wont be spending my time doing that in the articles of many if any other law firms however, and certainly in none which are not headquartered in London.
I think we are almost there. Mtking (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Re awards, to be frank I don't that strongly either way. It's not the sort of content that I would spend my time adding to an article. Where awards have been given by publications such as The Lawyer or Legal Week these will be covered in the publications themselves, but probably not elsewhere. Awards given by other organisations may often not appear in publications at all, merely on the web site of the organisation giving them. For me awards are very different to offices. With offices I personally cannot see any issue, nor even any need for third party coverage. That's my view, and also my reading of policy, but I accept others disagree. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree that there is a problem that awards do not always get reported on by other publications, I think a prudent approach is to limit awards to ones given by organisations with a WP article (in the example you give both The Lawyer and Legal week do, all be it not very detailed but judging on the links I have found they could be expanded on and they would appear to meet WP:GNG with room to spare.) or that the awards are reported on by third parties significant to make it likely a WP article could be written on the awards themselves. Mtking (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I notice you are edit warring on Linklaters. In case you are not aware of it, please read WP:3RR, which bans edit warring. —teb728 t c 12:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you and Mtking are edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —teb728 t c 12:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's an interesting idea and I'm happy to help out, although I admit that this isn't a particular area of expertise for me. The most useful role I could play is probably helping with copy editing, polishing existing text etc rather than content creation. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Linklaters

Initial thoughts:

  • Don't edit war. Get consensus either way and bring in more editors if necessary (me!)
  • Promotional lists are a concern. WP:CORPORATE, WP:SPAM, WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI are under constant attack from marketing departments
  • Businesses' websites are reliable primary sources for WP:Verification, however not for WP:WEIGHT. We can trust that information is accurate but not that it is worthy of inclusion.
  • Summary style should be used where possible, mentioning the main offices or awards.
  • Lists should be avoided if possible, as Wikipedia is not a directory or index.
  • Context matters; in this case, readers can access the company's full website through an external link. The article is for encyclopedic content only.
  • Major offices and awards are encyclopedic, minor offices and awards can be left for the reader at the linked website. In general, these can be done not in a list, and without flag graphics.
  • Definitely keep this: Linklaters has 26 offices in 19 countries across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America:[1] I'm on the fence about listing the individual offices. 26 is a lot and in my view may be too many for an encyclopedia. I definitely would not use flags. Instead, maybe just describe some of their growth history (they started here, expanded here, and are opening new offices here...)
  • Add award information not in a list but a paragraph. And only include awards which have been mentioned in independent secondary sources.

That's my first crack at it. Let me know what you think and I'll move it to the page. Note, I haven't read the specifics of the dispute yet. Ocaasi t | c 19:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for such a super quick response! I know that the flags were a problem and am happy for them to go. Re the awards I am fairly neutral although if they can be cited and are presented in a very neutral manner I don't think that they are inherently promotional or inappropriate.
To be honest my main concern, and the reason I have sought new input, is the list of offices. I think that it would set a very poor precedent if it were decided that it went against policy for the office locations (city and country only) to be included (my own reading of applicable policy is that it is quite acceptable content). If this information can't be included, then potentially a vast amount of articles of other commercial organisations are affected, and information that in my view is useful in helping readers to understand the subjects of the articles in question, and is purely factual, will be up for removal. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I should just add that I am happy for the details of locations to go in prose rather than list format, the key point for me is whether the information itself is appropriate or inherently promotional or directory-style. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Rangoon, I am not opposed to details of locations per se, if there is non-primary sourced information about offices then that would be fine in prose format. Mtking (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources are okay for information like this, as sources of information about themselves even with attribution (Linklaters lists its offices in...); although for a long list, it would be more appropriately to summarize the offices in prose. That said, 26 is just about the cusp, and it might be possible to list them all in 2-3 organized sentences about regions. Ocaasi t | c 16:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Maglev (transport) & List of maglev train proposals

I am not going to revert you re-adding of Maglev (transport) in to Template:Emerging technologies, but I based its removal on reading both Maglev (transport) & List of maglev train proposals and could not see any indication of significant research or improvement on the technological aspects of the system for some while, the basic principles have remained the same, perhaps you might have look again. Mtking (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take another look. So far as I am aware the broad under-pinning technology has been known - and capable of demonstration - for many decades and research has been focused on areas such as making commercial services viable, increasing viable speeds for passenger services etc. Importantly however there has so far been no proper intercity service established anywhere, current services such the ones in Shanghai and Japan are effectively glorified demonstrators, with both very short system lengths and (compared to what is possible) low operating speeds. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New College of the Humanities

Hi Rangoon, I liked your comment on talk yesterday: "Edits shouldn't be made purely to make the NCH appear prestigious, nor equally for no purpose other than to make it appear lacking in such." That's exactly the attitude that's needed, so I hope you'll stay involved. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I will certainly keep an eye on the article and try to make more contributions where I feel that I can add something. I admire you working so hard to improve the article of such a controversial topic in the face of considerable head winds, you have more patience than me! Rangoon11 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Persimmon Homes

Hi there - forgive the intrustion.

I'm trying to add a section to the Persimmon plc page about some critisicm they've had - if you'd ever bought a home from them you'd understand.

I think I must have messed up the link though - I'm very new to all this.

Can you please help me post the revisions with the following link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2010/05/new_homes.html

Many thanks

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.143.114 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, I've now been able to access the source page - for some reason the link wouldn't work for me earlier - and think that it just about passes the necessary WP requirement for sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability and particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources). In fact looking at it, despite its name, I'm not sure if its really a blog at all, despite its url. I will not revert again if you readd the content. Please note however that particlar care should be taken to ensure that a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) is maintained when adding highly critical content such as this to an article. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Media

The discussion has been stalled but it regains some steam. Would you mind to comment? There are a couple of ways to proceed forward. Your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for this, I've now added some thoughts at the discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Idea

Basically, here's the idea:

We have many COI editors operating secretly, a few operating openly, and a lot of interest from companies and PR firms about how to edit Wikipedia. Idea: create WikiProject COI to be a meeting place for editors who edit Wikipedia for their work or as their work. It would support best practices like full disclosure, talk page notices, userspace and talkspace drafts, neutral writing, solid sourcing, soliciting comments from uninvolved editors, etc. It could provide userboxes, help guides, user signatures, and perhaps even unofficial certification for above-board COI editors. It could also monitor the articles created or edited by those with a COI and seek to raise their assessment ratings. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 02:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Really innovative idea and I do think that this is potentially a great concept, as many COI editors are experts on the topics concerned and have the potential to add valuable information, but their work does require careful oversight. Two things come to mind though. Firstly, how do you envisage new COI editors being directed to the project? Secondly, does this run the risk of discouraging COI editors from editing other topics and becoming more rounded members of the WP community, by ghettoising them? I should stress that these aren't criticisms, just thoughts, and in theory I am supportive of the creation of such a project. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts. I share the POV that COI editors have a lot to contribute. They do our work! And they often work in areas that are not so well trafficked or interesting. I envision the WikiProject being a gathering place, a standard-setter, and a check and balance on bias and quality issues. The purpose would not be to ghettoise, but to provide support, to welcome these 'outsiders' and show them the ropes, and to let long-term COI editors become models for this area. Like any project, it wouldn't be a requirement or a closed world and we could also encourage editors to branch out and work in other areas, both to become more involved in the community and to help them learn from editing outside of their expertise. The last component would be for folks like us who typically work with COI editors, to keep track of their articles and help raise their quality.
We could also provide a central place for COI edit requests and reviews, and improve COI article ratings through concerted cleanup and monitoring efforts. I think the community is about ready for this, and although it makes the problem much more out in the open, that's generally a good thing considering the number and current isolation (and frankly ignorance of COI editors). It could possibly be integrated with the help desk, the IRC help channel, WikiProject Business, and Articles for Creation. It would generally be a place to point editors with COIs to, where they could ask questions about their articles in a less intolerant environment. That's about as far as I've configured it. If you think it's worth looking into, we could draft a project page in userspace and try and bring on 10-20 editors who would want to seed the project and help out. I know two COI editors who independently follow best practices User:Eclipsed and our friend User:CanalPark. They might be great people to start with (I've contacted them both). Let me know if you have any thoughts. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen after "wholly"

Greetings. Please do not add hyphens after standard adverbs that end in "ly", per WP:HYPHEN, item 3, fourth bullet point. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

LSBF

Hi Rangoon11

Thanks for your helpful revisions on London School of Business wiki page, however, we are not known and do not wish to be known as "The London School of Business & Finance" we are simply London School of Business & Finance. Please could you explain your reasons for revising the text each time I do?

Thank you Bones2608 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What the article actually says is 'the London School of Business & Finance' and 'the LSBF', not 'The London School of Business & Finance' or 'The LSBF', which is gramatically correct and does not suggest that 'The' is part of the formal name. Your other edit to the sentence 'The LSBF's programmes are currently validated by partner institutions' in my view inappropriately downplayed a key fact about the institution.
Please be aware that conflict of interest editing is something which is generally discouraged by Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) and great care and restraint should therefore be exercised by you when editing the LSBF artice. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Contact us". Linklaters LLP. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rangoon11/Archive_2&oldid=1141051919"