User talk:Dormskirk

User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 1 (2007-2011)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 2 (2011-2013)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Crest Nicholson

Dormskirk

Would you like to glance at the new section "Illegal Activity" in Crest Nicholson - it just seems an anti-immigration rave.

Regards

Bebington

Bebington (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point - I have removed quite a bit of unsourced or trivial information. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

FTSE 100 and FT 30

Thankyou I appreciate it! I was going off this page: http://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php - does it matter that it's different? The companies change every day. Is there an official list that includes market cap? Wikidea 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It does make a difference because the list you are using is the FTSE All-Share Index which has a different composition to the FTSE 100 Index. A possible solution is for you to move your table to the FTSE All-Share Index article where it would be more relevant. A better solution might be for you to select those companies that really are FTSE 100 Index (which are identified in your source): in which case you should delete Banco Santander Central Hispano, Virgin Media Inc, DP World Ltd, Yamana Gold Inc, First Quantum Minerals LD, easyJet, London Stock Exchange Group, Signet Jewelers Ltd, Travis Perkins and Mondi. You also need to include John Wood, Kazakhmys and Intu Properties. By the way neither index changes every day - they both have a fixed composition, albeit different, which is reviewed on a quarterly basis. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RMD Kwikform

Hi Dormskirk, During the course of the editing I've been undertaking on Interserve, I've visited the separate article on one of it's subsidiary companies, RMD Kwikform. It's a poor article, lacking citations and seems to need a lot of work to bring it upto scratch. I think I will see what I can do to improve it, but this will take some time. In the meantime I notice that the section entitled 'Formwork and falsework background note's' reads like a bit of an advert and more than that I'm not sure of its value to the article, as there are separate entries on both Formwork and Falsework which should provide the repository for all information on these construction techniques. I was therefore proposing to delete the entire section as I fail to see its value. I know that we are encouraged to 'be bold', but just wanted to sound you out about it first and this prompts a further question. I've imposed upon you quite a lot over the past few weeks, as I find my feet, so are you happy that I continue to sound things out with you? Best wishes (Doggoneone (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC))

I totally agree with your assessment and have deleted the offending section. It still needs a lot of work to properly source the history section. I am not sure that the article should exist at all because it is about a minor division of Interserve. It might be better to convert it into an article on RM Douglas. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dormskirk. You have new messages at Werieth's talk page.
Message added 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Werieth (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently,Assura Group, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Assura Group" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dormskirk. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your good work

I can't tell if you edited out a sentence I wrote, or one I let remain, on the Jeffery Amherst page, but you were right about taking it out.Princetoniac (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure myself but thanks anyway. Dormskirk (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with HSBC

Hi Dormskirk,

Thanks for helping to update the HSBC article. And would you be interested in helping with the money laundering aspect? My goal is just a variety of good sources, straight down the middle neither understating nor overstating. I mean, nothing fancy, but I do think it's an important topic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I am really focussed on updating the financials of all FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 articles at the moment. But Good luck with the what you are proposing. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And good luck with your projects. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Allenby

Will you revert it to my last edit so I can finish the edit I was adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - but please can you add in the correct references? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be finished with my edit in about 10 mins, do me a favour please, the ref is 'Allenby' by Brian Gardner (1965), can you add in the refs as appropriate please as I don't know how to do that bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem: I would be happy to. Please can you let me know the page number or range of pages? Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thx, the Page range is 66-115. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Will insert. Dormskirk (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick (talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dormskirk. You have new messages at Doggoneone's talk page.
Message added 11:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tullow Oil

Hi there,

I work for Tullow Oil in their communications department. I recently made some changes to our wikipedia entry. I did this in a fully transparent manner and cited all of my source material. I was dissapointed to see that almost all of my changes have been reverted with the reason being given as source material not being cited.

These changes were made in order to provide some additional context around certain aspects of the entry and also to update some data which was very out of date.

Obviously I would like to be able to update the page without my changes being reverted - as such I would very much appreciate some guidance as to what was wrong with my last update and what I can change in order for my future changes to be considered appropriate.

I know that my last username went against the username policy and hope that this did not influence the decision to undo the amends as I was not aware of the username policy in advance of my last set of amends. I have changed to a new username accordingly.

Thanks, Lindsay

Hi - I have reverted my own changes so you should be able to see the missing cites now. Basically every paragraph should be cited. Examples of paragraphs missing cites at the end in the history section include the second paragraph, third paragraph, fourth paragraph, fifth paragraph, sixth paragraph, seventh paragraph and tenth paragraph. Please can you insert the missing cites as required by WP:SOURCE: otherwise I will have to change it back to the original version. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. So if I were to redo my changes with additional citations then you would be happy with the entry?

I only ask as there was a considerable volume of change and don't want to have to go through all of that again only for the changes to be undone!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the history and when you say you have reverted your own changes - there seems to have been a 0KB change so not sure it has done what you wanted it to there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake - now corrected. The paragraphs in the history section which needs extra references at the end are paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 18. If you can add the references I would certainly be content. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Greatly appreciated! I'll try and add in all of the missing references today. Thanks, Lindsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References added to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 18 as requested. It would be great if you could check over this for me and let me know if you are happy with the changes now or if any further amends are required. Thanks, Lindsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil (talk • contribs) 11:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks very good. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Very much appreciated. LindsayAtTullowOil (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

About BICC logo

Hi Dormskirk, thanks for your comments,that logo your messenger mentioned was made or embellished by myself, so I admit it perhaps not 100% accurate, but the BICC logo is from a official website: http://www.bicon-uk.com/about-BICON/ At last please excuse my poor English, Best wishes~

Thanks. http://www.bicon-uk.com/about-BICON/ refers to a company called Bicon. Bicon has nothing to do with the former FTSE 100 company British Insulated Callender's Cables: I am afraid that you have confused two different companies. On reading the article it looks as if some employees left British Insulated Callender's Cables to form Bicon and tried to use a similar logo. This is called passing off in British law and is illegal. I think you have may have also got the wrong "NEI" in the case of Northern Engineering Industries. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you have now used a much better NEI logo - well done! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that,haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACTVR (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the BSA logo is now a much better colour too; you just need to sort the colouring on BICC now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

General Thomas Brotherton

His Dormskirk,

Any chance you might help improve this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_William_Brotherton

Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armywriter127 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have improved it a bit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's DISCUSS your revision of some of my semi-automated edits

Hello Dormskirk! I'm curious as to the reasoning behind your reversion of half a dozen of the AWB semi-automated edits that I made yesterday in an attempt to complete the task request WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#KCMG. I'm not emotional about it what-so-ever, just curious as to your reasoning. If there is a valid reason for it, I would like to know before I change any more of the 624 pages on my list to change. Thank you for your time. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was not sure what was wrong with my text in the first place which was as follows: KCMG. When I looked at your edits it seemed to generate (i) a dotted line under KCMG and (ii) a question mark when you hove over it. I am equally curious as to what the dotted line and the question mark was supposed to achieve as the text was correctly linked in the first place. Explanations to help me very welcome. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh... So you didn't follow the link to the discussion in my edit summary... Okay, I am going through and changing all instances of Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George and KCMG to become KCMG which does three things... It is a link that points to Order of St Michael and St George, displays the acronym of KCMG (which is of concern being ambiguous and likely to become a double redirect in the near future which is undesired as a link, but okay as piped text), and finally, the dotted line and question-mark you see when you mouse-over the link should display the popup-text that reads as Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George so that text readers and anyone interested in what the acronym KCMG stands for will be able to see it. The full details are still at WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#KCMG if you are interested in reading them. I hope this helps you understand what the task is that I am working on and encourages you to restore my revision. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had not read the discussion so thanks for pointing me there. I have restored your edits to facilitate discussion. I am still a bit unsure however. Take Allan Everett (admiral) for example. We now have the following decorations after Everett's name: KCMG KCVO CB. One is underlined but not the other two - which looks very perplexing to any reader who has not read the discussion. Are you going to do this with all decorations over time? Dormskirk (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is possible... Perhaps the thing to do is to add a specified request with the other acronyms as a sub-section of the KCMG task on the AWB page... If there are enough of them, I wouldn't be opposed to running it through BRFA... Technical 13 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There plenty of acronyms for decorations: just take Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC, FRS for example. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Peel

Could you help with this page pls? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edward_Peel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonialhistorian49 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Page seems to have been deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Denaro

Thank you for your work on the Arthur Denaro article. I need to correct you on something however. The original (closeup) image, also posted by me, will not be deleted. My ownership of the file has been called into question and I am endeavouring to prove the validity of my copyright, which is why I have posted another image from the same series - to show the similar metadata on the image file. When this matter is resolved it's likely I will restore the original closeup image and move the one with Prince Phillip elsewhere in the article - that's if you don't beat me to it.  :) SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Both images are good. I agree that the best solution is to have the close up in the infobox and the the other one elsewhere in the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Admiral Sir Brian Brown

Feedback - no idea how else to reply to your Bot message

Dear Wiki person, I won't say thanks for your message because I have experienced previous such messages where the Wiki police just discard what I - a naval historian - have spent hours on and it's enough to drive one away from Wiki altogether. If the Gestapo were as conscientious as you people then God knows how Germans would have fared in the late 1930s - they might all have committed suicide as life is too short for pedantry of the level Wiki indulge in. You attest, outrageously, that my source is insufficient. The CV of a 78-year-old knighted full admiral, who is the very essence of modesty, is not good enough for you. His CV is in the form of his career as sent to broadsheet obituary writers and directories and, anyway, I know of his later career personally. You cannot expect me to go through editions of The Times so that I can find appointments from the time of his being promoted Commander. His CV is sufficient for his entry in Debrett's and Who's Who and - when due - the broadsheets, yet it is not good enough for Wiki. Just who do you people think you are? Unlike the dead, with perhaps a biography or obituary to draw on, most of the living will have far fewer, if any, published sources to refer to and quote. And I'd wager it is the living that are of far more interest to others living than are dead folk. Wiki BLPs give a chance to read someone's obituary before they are dead, so to speak, and that is something I applaud Wiki for. It is often so annoying to find out important things about an interesting life only after they are dead. Yet if you carry on with pedantic police work then there's no chance. I am furious. I would contest Wiki's assertion that unpublished sources are the least reliable. They are often the most reliable of course! I have written the Life of Brian pretty well but that seems not to matter. I have questioned Sir Brian about some detail so as to ensure accuracy and I await yet another reply from him. I will try to conform, when I have time - and if I can work out how to do so (your conventions are so complicated that most mortals probably give up - there really is not time to read everything. The main reference for the entry will have to be Who's Who but is that good enough for you? It is, after all, based on Sir Brian's own submission to that tome's editor? I would have replied to your message directly but could find no way of so doing - and Wiki does not make doing the simple things easy or clear. Apologies, to some extent, for the tone of this message but you guys sure know how to puncture enthusiasm, to diminish interest and to annoy those who are producing work that is pretty well 100% accurate, regardless of source! Lestermay (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fisher

Hansard never ever abbreviates substantive titles. Which is why you will find Lord Mandelson thus (not of Foy) whereas Lord carter of Barnes is always just so. See [1] peers are always listed as their title complete. If you don't understand this you really don't know how particular Hansard is about getting titles correct. Quoting newspapers which have no authority over Hansard which does is not helpful. I have rechecked Hansard and Fisher is listed in that form alone (as it always would be no other Lord Fishers existing). David Beamish, the Clerk to the Houses of Parliament runs his own website which confirms exactly that same form as would be expected. He's not going to be wrong. That many other sources get the title wrong is no more as reason for wiki to join the mistake than it was for us to put 'Princess Diana' as her title simple because many (most?) books and newspapers erroneously used that form. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

the article currently describes Fisher as "John Arbuthnot "Jacky" Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone" which is supported by this: London Gazette. Is your point that the London Gazette is wrong and it should really be "John Arbuthnot "Jacky" Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher"? Dormskirk (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm afraid you will find that the LG is not perfect - (it's a newspaper after all albeit an official one). The House of Lords and Hansard have access not only to the letters patent (the legal document) which created the title but to the writs of summons which are issued each parliamentary year a peer is eligible to sit. If the latter was wrong by even a single letter it would create a new peerage. They simple cannot afford to be wrong. Given various sources we have to pick and wikipedia is not a democracy or a popularity contest but about using the best sources to get things right. The House of Lords/ Hansard is unquestionably a better source than any other - well unless we could get a picture of the letters patent that actually created the title I suppose! As you probably don't have access to (paper) Hansard for the period when Fisher sat Lord Fisher's grandson sat up to 1998 so is in the electronic Hansard.[2] It might help to look at Territorial_designation first then you can see the roll of parliament makes a distinction in the oaths list between John Lord Fisher and Lord Stanley of Alderley + Donald Martin Lord Thomas of Gresford immediately below. Or going by the alphabetical list you might note the difference between Fisher, L(ord). and Fisher of Rednal, B(aroness) Essentially its about understanding what the nomen dignitatis actually is. That means the difference between Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone in the County of Norfolk which is fine and Baron Fisher of Kilverstone in the County of Norfolk which is wrong in any context. I hope that explains matter and you might concede the point that the Houses of Parliament are the authority in this matter that the night subs editor of the LG or other newspapers of books can't outrank :-) Garlicplanting (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I must say that, in the context that both are newspapers, I always thought that London Gazette was a more reliable authority than Hansard. I have seen numerous mistakes in both. I am happy to be persuaded - do you have any authoritative third party that confirms that Hansard takes priority over the London Gazette? Best wishes.Dormskirk (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hansard isn't a newspaper. It's the official record (edited for mistakes by both official clerks and members) of the proceedings of each house. Members can make inaccurate statements in their speeches (that's politics) but the listing of their names/titles is a matter for the clerks of the house who have access to the letters patent. I've never seen an error of this kind and doubt you can point to any. I'm wondered what source one could possibly cite for the authority of parliament over a government newspaper. I would have thought it self evident that the house a peer sits in knows what his title is! However trying to be helpful try reading [3] then looking up Fisher [4] Will the Queen and the Registrar of the Peerage do! Garlicplanting (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. You win! - I am persuaded by [5]. Please feel free to make the changes - I won't revert them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. This sort title problem crops up from time to time (often in the same articles!) I'm sure it will again. Then again when even the Official Royal website makes title errors what hope have we ;-) All the best Garlicplanting (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

G4S

Hi. Thanks again for your help on the G4S article. There are a couple of points I wanted to finalise with you:

Infobox

The revenue, operating income and net income should be updated. I recognise your point about the impact of the Olympics on finances, but figures for 2013 should be provided nonetheless. Where would be the best place for me to find these published by a third-party source?

I don't understand your point. The figures that are in the infobox are lifted straight from the profit and loss account on page 15 of the Preliminary results announcement for the year ended 31 December 2012. The year ending 31 December 2013 is not yet complete and we do not include half year results on wikipedia (please look at any other FTSE 100 or FTSE 250 company). Dormskirk (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Operations

You've include a couple of lines from my suggested 'Operations' section on the Talk Page. The information under 'Core Services' and 'Operating Structure' should be in the article despite the fact that information can be found on the company website.
It would be good to hear your thoughts on the above. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now included all your text on core services under "Activities" and most of your text on operating structure under "Operating structure". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Point taken about the infobox figures, we'll look at updating these when good third-party references are available. On a separate point, are you still keen not to include the list of board members under the Operations section? Vivj2012 (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not. A few FTSE 100 / FTSE 250 companies do have such a list of board members but you would be surprised how quckly they get out of date and there are very few of us editors who are constantly editing these corporate articles. G4S is a good example of a company where there have been a lot of board changes recently! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Additional information can be added to the CSR section regarding projects G4S is involved with. I've included the relevant third-party references. Could you review the section below and give me some feedback? I've highlighted existing article content in bold. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

CSR

In 2011, G4S became a signatory to the UN Global Compact, the international standard to promote socially responsible business behaviour including human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. G4S is a founder signatory of the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC), a multi-stakeholder initiative convened by the Swiss government.

G4S was also an active participant in the development of the ICoC and the charter for its oversight mechanism.ICOC Advance

ICoC is already well covered. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In 2012, G4S outlined its key CSR objectives. These included:

• Continue to implement carbon reduction strategies to reduce carbon intensity measured against revenue by at least 13% from 2009 to 2012 (averaging 4.5% pa).
• Systematically measure the carbon emissions of at least 94% of the group.
• Launch and implement the new G4S environmental strategy for 2012 to 2014.
• Develop its measurement of waste and water consumption and introduce targets for reduction.

Eco Desk G4S Company Website

not notable; most companies now have CSR objectives. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In 2013, G4S announced it achieved a 16% reduction in carbon emissions since 2009, largely due to a decrease in energy consumption by employees. Edie Energy

again not notable: most companies are trying to save energy costs. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In 2013, G4S launched a landmark Human Rights Policy, co-authored by Dr Hugo Slim, an internationally recognised human rights expert, aiming to align the company’s practises with ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)’ and to introduce additional global guidelines for areas not currently covered by existing standards. Advance Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

agreed that this is notable - I have added to the article. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In 2011, G4S UK added the world's first fully electric-powered security van to its cash fleet.Click Green In 2012, G4S in the UK was commended for its corporate social responsibility activities by achieving a bronze award by the BITC. It meant that the company demonstrated a clear outline of its mission, values and Corporate Social Responsibility principles, with clear roles and responsibilities being allocated right across its business.IFSEC Global

use of one electric vehicle sounds weak: most companies I know are experimenting with electric or hybrid vehicles. And a bronze award sounds very weak: I keep reading about the companies that have won platinum. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sponsorships

In 2007, G4S began the G4S 4teen, an award-winning[39] programme to support 14 young athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds around the world.[40] Mentored by double Olympic champion Haile Gebreselassie, Five athletes reached the London 2012 Olympic Games including Mariana Pajón who won Gold in the BMX for Colombia.

G4S provided financial, social and logistical support to the athletes.Telegraph Online

Now added. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The athletes included:

• Obinna Metu, Nigeria REF - G4S arranged a for the young Nigerian to train with Usain Bolt In Jamaica
• Mariana Pajon, Colombia Telegraph Online
• Zodwa Maphanga, South Africa Mmegi Online
• Fanuel Kenosi, Botswana
• Pauline Korikwiang, Kenya First Post
• Charly Suarez, Philippines Inquirer Global Nation
• Chatchai Butdee, Thailand Info Etudiants
• Snigda Manda, India
• Mangal Ho, India
• Sharmin Akhtar, Bangladesh
• Sebastian Jahnsen, Peru SR Olympic Sports
• Juan Maegli, Guatemala Ele Spectator
• Margus Hunt, Estonia Margus Hunt Website
• Chien and Chen, Chinese Taipei

G4S has also been one of the main sponsors for the British sailing team.RYA The company was also individual sponsors of 49-ers Stevie Morrison, Ben Rhodes and Nick Dempsey, the UK’s leading windsurfers in the leading up to the Beijing and London Olympic games.Exmouth Journal 24

I think adding such a list is not helpful. It reads as if G4S is trying to re-write the history of its contribution to the Olympic Games. Remember that wiki needs to be an independent voice. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on the points above. With regards to the Sponsorships section, G4S isn't re-writing history about the Olympics, the information about the athletes G4S sponsored is missing from the article. I'm happy to re-write this as a shortened paragraph picking out the most notable athletes if that would be better than a list? Vivj2012 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a concise sentence with some notable names and sources would be fine. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk. See my suggested sentence: G4S provided financial, social and logistical support to a number of athletes taking part in London 2012, including Columbian cyclist and Olympic gold medallist Mariana Pajon, Kenyan long-distance runner Pauline Korikwiang, and Estonian discus thrower and shot-putter Margus Hunt. Telegraph Online Telegraph Online First Post NFL WebsiteThanks Vivj2012 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Johns

After reviewing the article, and making a bit of clean-up, I feel that it is ready for a GA review. What do you think? If you agree, I would happily nominate it. buffbills7701 00:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have to do quite a bit of work on it including expanding the lead but good luck. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wellington edits

If the IP editor who claimed "Wellington never lost a single battle" manages to produce a source, I would suggest it be scrutinised and challenged, rather than accepted without question. My research for the article at Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington identifies at least six defeats; five in the Peninsular War, one in India. Whether he never lost a gun, however, is another question, though I don't see it as a notable point, personally.. losing guns doesn't mean a lot compared with the bigger picture of losing other things during a campaign, and Wiki isn't really the place to "keep score" on how many guns certain commanders lost, as the statistics are going to be far from accurate, in most cases, due to poor records or exaggerated sources, i.e. Napoleon often bloated enemy loses and reduced his own, as a means of propaganda, in his bulletins. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I agree with you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden Parsonage

Hello Dormskirk,

This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to add a slight expansion to your article. I hope you'd like it. I'd appreciate receiving your say on this. Best regards. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC))

I like it a lot. I think you have done a great job of it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

St Paul's Cathedral

The sentence about King William not being comfortable in crowds certainly needed referencing as it was questionable.

On the other hand, deleting this statement was quite unnecessarily nit-picking. Let me put it to you that someone preached at the opening of St Paul's, so who would it have been? And that person preached on a text. And if you were given just one guess, you would be bound to get it right! Here is the deleted statement:

The Right Reverend Henry Compton, Bishop of London, preached the sermon. It was based on the text of Psalm 122, "I was glad when they said unto me: Let us go into the house of the Lord." The first regular service was held on the following Sunday.

Regardless of whether it is properly referenced, there is far less harm in it staying in the article than there is to your deletion of it. Amandajm (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your point is that it was bound to have been the Bishop of London who preached the sermon - and that Psalm 122 is an entirely likely selection for a consecration. On that basis I follow your logic and therefore I don't think we need the template "citation needed". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That you for being gracious! I was rather snappy! Amandajm (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Investec

Hi Dormskirk, I hope you don't mind this message out of the blue but I've noticed you have a keen interest in the Wikipedia article for Investec. I've reviewed the article and identified a few areas that could be improved and wanted to get your thoughts on this.

Firstly, the page seems to describe “Investec” rather than “Investec Bank”. Investec has three main arms to the business: Specialist Banking, Asset Management and Wealth & Investment (please see Investec's website for more details http://www.investec.co.uk). As the current article describes Investec rather than “Investec Bank”, perhaps we should update the title?

The other thing I wanted to run by you involves a bit more work – the main three arms of Investec (Specialist Banking, Asset Management and Wealth & Investment) have their own history, products and business operations. The three are run as separate businesses in their own right despite being owned by Investec. Do you think we should consider creating separate pages for these companies, that way illustrating the background of each arm and their operations? (For example: Wealth Manager: How Investec has changed the face of wealth management)

I’d be happy to make start on these, but as an editor with CIO - in this case representing Investec, I’ll need your help proofing the new articles. Let me know. Many thanks, Kt1502 (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response. I agree with you about moving the article from "Investec Bank" to "Investec" and have now initiated that. I am less sure about separate pages for each of the three arms. Very, very few FTSE 100 companies do this and it would be quite challenging - remember that per WP:SOURCE every fact needs to be independently sourced i.e. it cannot come from company material. It also needs to be balanced to avoid accusations of non-compliance with WP:ADVERT so it would need criticism as well. It is probably better to expand the existing article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Capita

I think i've made a bit of a mess in trying to change the name of the page from Capita group to Capita, hopefully you may be able to fix it, i'm only an amateur, thanksHkong91 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC).

Don't worry. It will get fixed when the move takes place (which should be in the next day or so). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for undoing this edit of mine. I used Visual Editor and it did something quite different to my expectation. I've now done it properly with good old Wiki editing. Shem (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack Cohen (businessman)

Regarding your two reversions at Jack Cohen (businessman), please could you clarify which parts of the information I added is "unsourced material". I had hoped it was clear from the first edit that the information was derived from the article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is already used as a source in the article, but it should have been beyond doubt from my second edit which added numerous citations to that source.

A number of points on your preferred version of the article:

• In my view, the infobox adds nothing of value, includes many daft and empty fields such as "alma_mater" and "salary", and omits a number of details that are already included in the article, but I can live with that if you insist on it being included.

That may be your view but quality articles do have infoboxes and they should be properly completed not deleted.

• "Early Life" and "Private Life" are incorrectly capitalised, and it seems a bit odd to mention his wife in "Early Life" but to leave details of his marriage and family until the last section, particularly when both of his sons-in-law worked for the company.

I do not have strong views on this - details of his marriage could either be covered in the appropriate section of the chronology or in a seperate section.

• The ODNB is already given as a reference for the first sentence in "Early Life" but gives different spellings for the names of his parents to those used in the article (and what is "an Avram Kohen"?)

I agree that incorrect spelling should be corrected.

• The ODNB also includes other details that I added (and explicitly cited as the source in my second edit) such as his school, where he served in the Great War, the death of his mother and remarriage of his father, his colostomy, the takeovers, and Green Shield trading stamps, membership of the Worshipful Company of Carmen. I'm sure much more could be added, but I don't see why you have removed these points twice.

Again I am content for extra material to be added but it should be properly sourced.

• The existing "very well sourced article" does not explicitly note the source of a number of claims that I marked with {{cn}} when I added explicit references to ODNB for all of the material that I added - including the personnel running his market stalls in the 1930; working 7 days a week; racing for pitches; growth of new shopping centres; reluctance to sign contracts; taking of risks; travel to the US in 1932; his view of US supermarkets in the 1930s; opening "one of the first British supermarkets" (presumably Maldon in 1956); and so on.

If you believe some of this material is incorrect then by all means feel free to delete it.

• Links to his sons-in-law would be a useful addition (I am writing an article on Hyman Kreitman but Leslie Porter exists already, and both worked for Jack - in fact, the ODNB biography for Kreitman include a number of details about the expansion of Tesco and Kreitman's boardroom battles with Jack).

Again I am content for extra material to be added but it should be properly sourced.

I unaccountably missed out the word "born" when I edited the first sentence of the first section, but otherwise I am at a loss to see how my changes made an "aweful mess". Please could you explain where I have created a mess. If there are other errors - no doubt there are some - then surely they can be corrected without wholesale reversion. -- Ferma (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the original version all paragraphs of meet the minimum requirement of having a reference at the end of the paragraph. And there are no instances of material marked as needing sources (which often indicates that the material is doubtful). By contrast in your version the 2nd paragraph of the "career" section did not meet that minimum requirement. And your version contains no less than 11 instances of {{cn}}. The related material may not have been added by you but {{cn}} often makes readers believe such facts are doubtful. If you think the material is incorrect then please remove the doubtful material.

That said I can see you are trying to improve the article and I have therefore reverted to your version. I have also removed the unsourced comment at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the "career" section so all paragraphs now meet the minimum requirement. And I removed the {{cn}} tags. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Royal Naval College, Greenwich?

Hi, Dormskirk, and thanks for your input here. Necrothesp's page move, which I agree with, has led me to look into the history of our coverage of the college, and I have tried to make sense of it here. It's rather a sorry tale, so could you possibly keep the page on your watch-list? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Will do. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A big pat on the back for the biographies of the red-linked Presidents. Moonraker (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Greenwich Hospital

NB, In much the same way, LesJ deprived us of the beginnings of an article on Greenwich Hospital. It doesn't seem to have been terribly good one, but it is plainly a notable subject. How do you feel about tackling that? Moonraker (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I will try and give it a go in the next few days. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Original article now restored. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Naval College, Greenwich

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your help HayleySandford (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for your help (again!)

HayleySandford (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Bouygeus

I was not made aware that they walked off the site. I reside in Jamaica part time and was associated with a contractor working directly with Bouygeus. All of Phase 1A and most of Phase 1B was completed by the company before being replaced, by the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsolan22 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks

Yes, CTF is not Combined Task Force unless it is specifically made clear that it is. CTF is a naval acronym actually for the Commander, Task Force, similarly for CTG Commander Task Group, CTU, CTE, etc. I need to thank you for a whole bunch of your excellent edits, by the way.... Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying and a happy new year to you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Dormskirk, as part of AustralianRupert's 2014 New Year Honours List, in recognition of his biography work throughout 2013. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

very many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

History, various sources

Hi Dormskirk, thank you for creation this article. I work for this company and it's history it's a kind of hobby horse for me, I put already a lot of effort in searching for details. (I found also some pictures of Paul Hellermann and other pictures of products from 1939 etc., talked to some colleagues working since 38 years in Germany for this company.) So I thought it will be fun collecting the history, with reliable source in Wikipedia. But its rejected the third time. Probably because of my IP address. So If you want, I can send you my sources I found already, and combined with your Wikipedia expertise you can take the right, most reliable sources. There are some sources you divinity know (finanzen.net: Established in 1930; or wer-zu-wem.de/firma/hellermanntyton Established 1935; insidermedia.com; finanznachrichten.de). And there are some reliable sources, but in German "Was mit Paul Hellermann began...". (what I fond so far: Article in creation HellermannTyton) --Paul HT (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

... and how can a source be added like http://www.unquote.com/unquote/official-record/2296975/doughty-sells-part-of-hellermanntyton-stake? If you search for doughty-sells-part-of-hellermanntyton-stake , the source is accessible, if you click on the link, it does not work. Is this a reliable source? --Paul HT (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks for that. I have added a sentence about the recent sale by Doughty. Dormskirk (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, the article of HellermannTyton, I have worked on, is finally submitted, with some minor change requests (History should be rewritten in pros, not in a timeline). I will call my cousin, she lives in Exeter, UK since few year, she will transform the text passage easily into proper English. So if you think it’s a good idea to merge the articles, just take text passages or merge your text into the Article in creation. I would be happy if my time wasn’t spend for nothing. --Paul HT (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have translated most of your history section into prose and translated most of your operations section into non-technical language and have merged it all into the article I had drafted. I hope you like it. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be delighted to take part in your survey. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to have the questions posted here and reply here, or through email? You can email me at Special:Emailuser/Piotrus or using a disposable service such as Mailinator (I will need to have an email address of yours, even if disposable, to send you the survey questions if you chose email as a way to receive them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the questions posted to my user talk page. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You can see them at meta:Research:Why_editors_reduce_activity#Methods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris Brink

Hi Dormskirk,

Thank you for pointing out the issues with my edit to Chris Brink’s page. I have expanded it slightly, and would appreciate your review and comments on the draft. Many thanks.Lifeupontyne (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi - The version in your sandbox now looks much better: one area for improvement would be to convert the bare urls (see WP:Bare URLs) so that they all look like the first two. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Roger Mitchell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Mitchell 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/Roger Mitchell 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. _nonsense ferret 15:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

3i

Hi Dormskirk,

I work within the Communications team at 3i Group and we have noticed that there are a few out of date statistics within the Wikipedia page. Please would you be able to help with updating some of these factual notes?

I have included the updated information below for the year ended 31 March 2013 along with some links from third party websites which can be cited against these. 1. The AUM figure for the ye 31 March 2013 is GBP12.9 billion, as per: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130516-701200.html 2. The net income (or total return) is £373 million, as per: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130516-701200.html 3. The operating income (or net portfolio return) is £432 million, as per: http://www.investegate.co.uk/3i-group-plc--iii-/rns/results-for-the-year-to-31-march-2013/201305160700128398E/ 4. The number of employees is now 271, as per: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=III.L 5. 3i bought the remainder 50% of Scandlines from Allianz Capital in November 2013, as per: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d61b6dec-1bb3-11e3-94a3-00144feab7de.html

Please do let me know should you need any further information. Many thanks for your help in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latshah (talk • contribs) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Now updated. Dormskirk (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help Dormskirk.

I note that you have chosen to include the 'Profit for the year' metric as the net income figure. The Private Equity industry generally tends to use the total return figure as the chosen metric for net income, which appears as 'Total comprehensive income for the year' within the Statement of comprehensive income. This would be £373m for 3i Group for the year ended 31 March 2013. Would you consider amending this to reflect the industry standard?

Thanks again, Latika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latshah (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As you have already spotted we use 'profit for the year' for net profit: this is to achieve consistency across all industries: I cannot see any reason why we would want to make a special case of the private equity industry. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly does, thank you again for your help.