Talk:JLL (company)

218.186.9.228 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Unassessed

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

User FredK 121.44.x.xxx

(This user deserves one whole section on top of the talk page to discuss his activities)

- FredK, if you are not an admin, your controlling actions are very difficult to understand and justify

- If you are indeed an admin, you've run into trouble. Not only did you not follow several Wikipedia guidelines (like somebody mentioned below), you also apparently did not equip yourself with adequate knowledge on the field you're supposed to cover.

In both scenarios, your comments are a little bit funny, and your contributions add very minimal value at best. In some cases you even downgraded the article, which now looks like nothing but junk to me.

My advice for you: If you're not well-versed in some areas (especially if those areas are supposed to be under your administration), don't pretend to be so. For instance, "bottom line" is not an accounting term. Accountants are usually conservative and wouldn't use such an informal concept. "Bottom line" is usually used by investors and company management. And no, you should not remove Revenue from the company info box. It's still one of the first items (if not the very first item) investors tend to look at.

You have a lot to learn young man. Be humble. Take your time and learn from others. Sitting there all day long writing HelloWorld and looking up IP addresses certainly would not help.

Regards,

--passerby 202.161.45.1 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV content added by Jones Lang Lasalle Marketing staff

Looking at the history of this article, there's been dozens of edits from IP address 210.80.128.183 between 4/3/09 to 5/03/09.
The content being added is just company cool-aid drivel.

It's interesting that an APNIC IP address look up on the offending IP number resolves to:
inetnum: 210.80.128.160 - 210.80.128.191
netname: JONES-AU
descr: UUNET Non-Portable Customer Assignment
descr: JONES LANG LASALLE
descr: 400 George Street
descr: 19 Level
descr: Sydney, ,
descr: AUS
country: AU

Most likely from the PC used by a "National Communications Manger of Marketing" called Tracey.
(only a marketing type would try to anonymously add corporate propaganda into a public wiki that displays their company IP) ;-)

I think this would certainly conflict with Wikipedia's policy of articles being written from a Neutral point of view ?

I'll eventually get around to cleaning up this article later, but for now i'll just add an advert tag.

121.44.3.195 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Fred K[reply]

The above comments did not follow Wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith and the use of positive tone. 210.80.128.183 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "collapse in profit"

The original version of the section on "collapse in profit" was biased, plus the sources were questionable and unauthentic (e.g. one source only makes reference to the UK business rather than the company as a whole, and reads like a blog). The rewritten version with the addition of a competitor was intended to make the section sound more balanced, reflecting the whole industry (e.g. a lot of other financial companies like UBS, Citi, Deutsche Bank... incurred negative profits in the same recession and none of their pages mentioned these declines specifically). It's removed for now. JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for more productive efforts from the above user

(1) I did not refer to PropertyWeek as a blog. I referred to the other source that mentioned widescale layoffs in the UK (which for some reason I could not locate its original version at the moment). The source was questionable and unauthentic.

(2) Again, the whole section on "collapse in profit" is biased. Please refer to wikipedia entries of other financial companies which are also facing pressures from the recession for your information.

(3) The edition on CBRE wikipedia entry was not at all a vandalism. The original entry (a green upward arrow) was used in a completely wrong way. It is not intended to show whether revenue is positive or negative (if it was, it would always be green and upward, there is no negative revenue). It is intended to say whether revenue has increased or decreased compared to previous year. Please refer to Goldman Sachs as an example. In this case, CBRE's revenue dropped from more than $6bn in 2007 to more than $5bn in 2008, which is a decrease.

(4) Please refrain from making vague assumptions (i.e. assuming that editions from employees from the subject company are all biased). Instead, I suggest we stick to logic and common sense. Jones Lang LaSalle receives no material benefit from information on open-source websites such as Wikipedia. Also, see assuming good faith.

(5) I have no idea what masking means. Please do not rely on technical IT tools for making allegations.

(6) Please be cooperative and use a positive tone. Our aim is to improve the article, not to criticize efforts of contributors.

(7) Let's be productive. Please help rephrase any content you deem inappropriate and/or provide specific comments rather than simply undo and delete. JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View

An article that violates the neutral point of view policy is defined as an article that is not written in an objective and unbiased manner. Most of the time, articles that contain only facts (i.e. information about which there is no serious dispute) that are verifiable through a reliable source should qualify as having a neutral point of view. <please help rephrase this part>

At this stage, the Jones Lang LaSalle article appears to be based largely on facts that are third-party verifiable. It appears to have a neutral point of view.

The neutrality caution tag is temporarily removed for now. Feel free to provide reasonable arguments for the check of neutrality. JLL AP (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<to be continued> JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue

Can somebody explain why he/she edited the revenue sign and changed it to a decrease? Show me the data and prove it. Take a look at this for your information: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/financialHighlights?symbol=JLL.N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.128.183 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arrow denotes the direction of 12 month gross profit on company revenue. (There's even a wikipedia article that explains it)
accountants call this "the bottom line" in a company financial statement.
As you can see below from JLL's own reported financial statement to the New York Stock Exchange:
http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ci&q=NYSE:JLL
Gross profit on Revenue year ending Q4/08 was $925.91m, slightly down from $927.90m in Q4/07. (which is actually is not too bad considering the economic conditions in 2008, maybe be the large number of staff layoffs at JLL prevented a worse result. ?
121.44.25.129 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)FredK[reply]
------------------------
As far as I understand , bottom line refers to net income or net profit, not gross profit. There are two things you probably need to provide further explanations: (1) what is this concept "gross profit on revenue"? Perhaps you can provide the link to the "wikipedia article that explains it". (2) Even if there is such a concept (which supposedly deals with profit rather than with revenue as you have pointed out), why is it applied to the Revenue portion while we can always put it in the specific portion for Profit?
My common sense tells me this: as a reader, I will read this similarly to the way I read stock quotes: a green upward arrow put before an indicator tells me that this particular indicator (not another indicator related to it) has declined compared to the previous period.
How the company has avoided the worst results is beyond the scope of the discussion. 218.186.9.228 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

------------------------
Actually, your quite correct Net Income is refered to by accountants as "The Bottom Line" and is a much better measure of company performance. I Think I may add this to the company information box instead. 121.44.136.153 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)FredK[reply]
------------------------
Thanks 218.186.9.228 for pointing this out. I wanted to mention this as wellJLL AP (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to Admins

(1) Work hard. Explain policies in greater details by providing examples and practical applications rather than referring to generic guidelines. Note that an ordinary contributor does not have the time to go through pages of guidelines and policies. Unexplained actions from admins would discourage contributors from contributing.

(2) Be specific. Look into contributors' writings more closely and provide specific comments after making corrections to their writings.

(3) Be positive. Assume good intentions from contributors and use this as a starting point. Do not rely on technical matters (e.g. IP lookups) and make false allegations. JLL AP (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of my further contribution

I certainly was aware of potential conflicts of interest that might arise should I engage in editing Wikipedia pages about Jones Lang LaSalle. (Isn't that what you learn as one of the first rules in CFA?) And I did exercise caution by verifying ALL sources for all pieces of information being put up to the page. Each and every single piece of information that I contributed is third-party verifiable (i.e. from public and reliable sources). Of course some might question the significance and importance of the sources, but I would be happy to dig more into it and provide further info if I was given a chance to do so.

This is my take: Wikipedia after all is a free project which needs support from contributors. Nobody trusts it completely anyway.

As a corporate, Jones Lang LaSalle receives no material benefit from open-source websites such as Wikipedia. In business, people do not open Wikipedia to look for company info. They use paid subscriptions such as Reuters, Bloomberg, OneSource, and the like. Company info written on Wikipedia is for the benefit of the wide public and their general interest/knowledge, and for this benefit, each and every single piece of information need only be factual and third-party verifiable. It is NOT written for the benefit of investors, potential customers, or equity researchers since they supposedly will not use Wikipedia. Even if retail stock traders treat Wikipedia as a source to help them make decisions, well, too bad, that's their mistake. In short, it's totally non-sense to promote any marketing campaign on Wikipedia.

(It is, I think, UNLIKE politics, in which unbiased pieces of information can twist public opinion in a very wide scale, which is why Obama should be forbidden to edit his own Wiki page for instance).

I started out treating this as a weekend and lunchtime hobby. And I enjoyed doing so, it was great. It's certainly good to know that the public gets more general understanding of the company from the article, but I would be foolish to use this as a tool for propaganda.

Now that actions from admins are largely unexplained (e.g. removing some facts contributed by users without adding a decent rationale), I don't feel very encouraged.

And now that I have also seen a lot of cautions from admins about potential conflicts of interest, I probably should simply walk away and withdraw my contributions (which is what I will do). There's nothing to gain and nothing to lose from this anyway. What I'm afraid of is that you won't come across many contributors that contribute their writings from a research point of view, which is what Wikipedia needs.

But I can be wrong. All the best to Wikipedia. I will continue using it as a user (of course during my pastime only, since now I know too well Wikipedia is not for serious work). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLL AP (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) JLL AP (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah u probably should go. This is not a place for u, dont get involved too much. And no, you need not worry. It's Wikipedia anyway. If it's good, good for us! If it's not good, fine, we'll use other stuff then ;)202.161.45.1 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last words

Well, now the last section of the article looks sloppy: the questionable "blog" last time was replaced by two other sources that are luckily more decent but mention nothing about layoffs; the citations are even misplaced and point to the wrong info. JLL AP (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]