User talk:Kateshortforbob/Archives2013/May

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kate (or whoever) Just responding to the alternating insertion and deletion of a list of umbrella companies. I strongly believe that the list should stay, but there should be a massive disclaimer and warning about the list, including a statement along the lines of "none of the providers listed receive any validation whatsoever by being included, not even to their existence". You're likely to be aware that the whole topic of umbrella companies (in the UK at least) is quite a contentious area. It's under continual scrutiny by HMRC, including the targeting of specific service providers. Within the industry itself, and even among some respected suppliers, there does not appear to be a consensus about what constitutes best practice, let alone compliance. I fully understand why some would not want the list included because of concerns about commercialisation but, if trying to investigate this subject, such a list is extremely helpful.

As an aside, the whole article needs a major editorial overhaul. Some of the remarks seem plain wrong to me, such as stating that the choice or use of an umbrella company has no impact on the contractor.

Thanks for your attention. Best regards FazerJett (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Jonathan