User talk:Kelapstick

Let sleeping pugs lie.

Signpost inquiry

Kelpstick, I've emailed you via the Spanish WP, since I've run over my daily limit here. Tony (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony1, I had to fish the emai out of junk. Which doesn't usually happen for Wikipedia email for me. I'll have a look, but I just got internet access back, been in the jungle for a couple days. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 09:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're ok and out of the jungle, Kelapstick. A reminder that we'll need your response, if you're participating, within about eight hours. Tony (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in the jungle, I just happened to get internet yesterday. I don't think I'll have time. In reality I'm probably to late now. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 07:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Kinross Gold

I don't know if Kinross Gold is still on your watch list but it has undergone a large amount of edits by User:WSDavitt. The article now includes statements like "Kinross is on the verge of insolvency", "Continuing Kinross' practice of overpaying for assets", "Due Diligence Was Grossly Inadequate", "Shareholders Were Misled About the Value of Assets Being Acquired", "Unreliable Estimates of Proven and Probable Reserves ", and so on, mostlty unreferenced. To me there seems to be an agenda there by the editor in question. What do you think? Calistemon (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A look at the history tempts me to revert the article to this version from 13 October 2014, the last one before this edit spurt starting on 16 August 2015.Calistemon (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:WSDavitt The information is based on the publicly available documents from Kinross Gold's public securities filings and newspaper reports. Nothing controversial. —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I am at a loss. Calistemon, I just did a mass revert. I recall that Prof Wong had a coi as well. But I may be misremembering. Revet back to where you think is best of you like. I've been in Indonesia for the last week and I'm not sure when I will get back to a proper computer to write a good message, would you be able to handle that? There may be some merit in some of the sources, but I'm not able to check each one individually at the moment.

WSDavitt if you think that dumping corporate corporate earnings under the heading "Unreliable Estimates of Proven and Probable Reserves - 6.0 Million Ounce Adjustment - 2010 to 2014" is in any way meeting our neutral point of view policy, you are grossly mistaken. --05:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)~

I will try to keep an eye on it but I think your revert was appropriate given the amount of weasel words were in the article at the time. WSDavitt, please have a read of WP:WEASEL, it will explain why phrases like "Kinross is on the verge of insolvency" are inappropriate unless supported by a reliable source. You might find out more about reliable sources at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Most of your references were from Kinross Gold itself, a primary source, which should be used with caution according to WP:WPNOTRS. Calistemon (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm WSDavitt. Thank you for your feedback. Regarding Kinross Gold and the section "Tasiast Acquisition - One of the Largest Securities and Accounting Frauds in Canadian History" referenced to this the better references are the Canadian court decisions dealing with this issue. See Bayens v Kinross - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc6864/2013onsc6864.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGYmF5ZW5zAAAAAAE&resultIndex=7 and https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2014/2014onca901/2014onca901.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGYmF5ZW5zAAAAAAE&resultIndex=9. These cases were referenced in the article (but have being deleted). Please note the cases in Canada and the US were settled and tens of millions dollars were paid out by Kinross. Kinross has not offered any meaningful explanation for the $8 billion of losses incurred during the 3 or 4 years after the Tasiast acquisition.

Hi, it's WSDavitt Thank you for your comments. Regarding the 6.0 million ounce decrease in reported gold reserves at Paracatu, the amount of reserves are reported in the Annual Reports published by Kinross. This isn't a controversial issue. Is your preference to describe this a "significant changes" in the reported reserves rather than "unreliable"? I am interested in your comments and would like the deleted content in the article restored. The Kinross story related to Tasiast is a very interesting story including a class action lawsuit, bribery allegations, etc. My post notes the inconsistencies in statements made by Kinross at various points in time. (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it's WSDavitt Regarding Kinross' financial position I note that the credit rating for Kinross was downgraded earlier this year. The Ba1 rating is non-investment grade. This supports the statement that Kinross has insolvency concerns. In addition, the gold price has decreased significantly. See https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Downgrades-Kinross-to-Ba1-Outlook-Negative--PR_320647 WSDavitt (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)WSDavitt

The source you list for this does not state in any form that "Kinross is on the verge of insolvency", its a conclusion you have drawn which contravence WP:WEASEL ("Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."). As a matter of fact, the source states "Kinross has very good liquidity", which completely contradicts your claim rather then support it. Calistemon (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Db

Hi Kelapstick. Please reduce the protection on Template:Db (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from indefinite TE to indefinite semi/sysop to bring the protection in line with the other db templates. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 12:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OpenPAT

Hello Kelapstick. I agree with you that the "Vandalism" section should be on the talk page. Thanks for pointing that out. I also agree the page should be protected because of edits today. However, what does that mean for updates? does that mean we have to go through you to for example update the project status section if it changes? User talk:Npcomp 07:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)