Talk:Royaldutchshellplc.com

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Editing by John Donovan

Because of my direct involvement in the website which is the subject of this article, I will give 4 weeks notice here of my proposed changes to the content either to correct existing content or update the article with new information. I will make the changes after the 4 week notice period if no other editor has dealt with the proposed changes. The slimmed down version of the article is undoubtedly much tidier, better written, more professionally presented and is now compliant with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. All due credit to Eustress. It is however in my humble opinion no where near as informative as the [article as it was on 30 April 2009].

No, you are not to take matters into your own hands if no one responds within some arbitrary time frame (four weeks, as you have determined). Per WP:COI, you need to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment if no one responds. —Eustress ^talk 02:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have tried to organize your suggestions below but it's quite difficult. You can't just throw out a bunch of suggestions and expect an editor to read through it all. Please provide a list of bulleted items that editors can respond to individually, in the future. —Eustress ^talk 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1

I propose some minor changes to the current article. I would like to amend the last sentence of the opening paragraph by adding the word "outlet" so that it says: The site has been oft quoted in news sources and is known for its activities as an internet leak outlet and a forum for Shell whistleblowers.

If preferable, "outlet" could be "source".

I propose to amend the following sentences from the second paragraph of "Website background" which currently state: A second writ was issued concerning a Nintendo promotion that ran in 1993.[8]. Shell settled both claims in October 1996.[9] A third law suit was processed in 1999; however, the claimant abandoned the claim.[10]

Proposed:

Two further writs were issued, one concerning a Nintendo game and the other, a promotion called "Now Showing". Shell settled both claims in October 1996. A fourth law suit was processed in 1999. Although a joint press release announced that the claimant had abandoned the claim, according to a magazine article published in February 2007, Shell settled out of court "as part of a "peace treaty".

The verification links would be inserted in the proper fashion.

The Prospect magazine article was written by Derek Brower, senior correspondent of Petroleum Economist. This followed a long interview conducted at our home where he looked at many documents to verify our account of events. Johnadonovan (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2

Proposed further corrections 23 June 2009:

I propose to correct the grammar in this sentence by deleting the word "are": It avoids being an illegal cybersquatter as long as it is non-commercial, active, and no attempt are made to sell the domain name, as determined by WIPO proceedings.

The sentence below relating to Sakhalin-II contains incorrect information. I supplied the information to the Russian government, not Shell. I have not got a clue about the reference to an article published on October 18, 2006.:

On October 18, 2006, the site published an article stating that Shell had for some time been supplying information to the Russian government relating to Sakhalin II.[18] The Russian energy company Gazprom subsequently obtained a 50% stake in the Sakhalin-II project.[19]

Proposed revision:

Oleg Mitvol, the so-called "Kremlin attack dog", confirmed that he received insider evidence about the Sakhalin-II project from John Donovan of the website royaldutchshellplc.com. The Russian energy company Gazprom subsequently obtained a 50% stake in the Sakhalin-II project.[19]

I will provide verification links to the agreed format confirming the cited information.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/oct/04/russia.oilandpetrol

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8209

http://www.shellnews.net/images/Mitvol.pdf

That ends proposed corrections. Johnadonovan (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3

I missed some incorrect information in the first paragraph. It currently says:

royaldutchshellplc.com is a Royal Dutch Shell gripe site operated by Alfred and John Donovan, who engaged in several marketing campaigns with Shell during the 1980s.

I propose the following:

royaldutchshellplc.com is a Royal Dutch Shell gripe site operated by Alfred and John Donovan, who engaged in several marketing campaigns with Shell during the 1980s and early 1990s, ending with a Star Trek themed promotion in 1991. Johnadonovan (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Star Trek info is superfluous and just self-promoting. The current text is accurate and sufficient. —Eustress ^talk 01:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Eustress, the current information is inaccurate. The Star Trek information proves that this is this case. Why do you want to have inaccurate information in an online encyclopaedia? Neither is it self-promoting. That allegation is entirely without foundation. Both my father and I are long retired. We are not involved in any commercial activity of any kind and therefore have no commercial activity to promote. The link is purely for verification purposes. No one is forced to use it or read any of the information in the article. Even though now gutted of a considerable amount of content, some of which I intend to put forward again here in a briefer form with acceptable links, the article still provides important evidence of the impact a low cost gripe site can have on a major company. The activity is entirely lawful and has been praised by independent parties such as the One World Trust, a charitable organisation linked to the UN and the Houses of Parliament. That was some of the information removed by you. I have no idea why you are so intent in censoring the content as you have done, also removing content which had verification links which fully meet Wikipedia standards e.g. the information about Shell employee safety issues. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will agree to add "and early 1990s", but I still feel the Star Trek bit is superfluous and self-promoting. —Eustress ^talk 23:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request edit

I thought it had been agreed after a referral to the COI notice board that I would give four weeks notice here on proposed changes to the article and that if no one objected, I would then make the changes. The editor known as Eustress has prescribed otherwise. He appears from his editing record to have a special interest in articles relating to Shell. My background is open and declared. I have always added content in my own name. I would be grateful if an editor would consider {{Request edit}} the proposed items 1, 2 and 3 above and either add the content or authorise me to do so installing verification links in the format already set. Johnadonovan (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Eustress, I have checked out the "request for comment" page. Use of the facility seems inappropriate and a waste of time when the only text dispute is between two people over eight words. Please end the relevant sentence as you suggest with "and early 1990s". I would then put a verification link on those three words, not adding a single extra word to the text. That seems to be a reasonable compromise bearing in mind as you have stated or implied, we seem to be the only two people interested in the editing of this article. Johnadonovan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)