User talk:Rangoon11

This is Rangoon11's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

A message on behalf of Andrew Large:

Dear Rangoon11,

I wanted to get in contact to discuss potential improvements to the British Poultry Council article on Wikipedia. It has been a while since the article has been updated and there are a number of inaccuracies that need to be corrected. The article would also benefit from the inclusion of additional information about the organisation and its activities.

As you’ve already helped to improve the article and have experience in maintaining similar content, I wanted to see whether this is something you could help with? If so, I’d be grateful if we could start a dialogue to address the points that I have raised.

Kind regards,

Andrew Large
Chief Executive
British Poultry Council

Thanks Vjemmett (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know your thoughts on the above. Thanks Vjemmett (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for the WP:99% guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting this up and running. I will have a think and put my thoughts on the project talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. My best regret for the recent events. I would like to invite you back to Talk:Columbo.
2. I'd stayed away for couple days to avoid the fight, and when I got back, I heard that Djathinkimacowboy got block. However, I'd asked the admin to unblock him, and give him a chance to learn how to co-work with others.

ThanksB3430715 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i actually made a similar article of the iq list copying an older version of the original article feel free to editing and using it--Shokioto22 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Intelligence_Quotient[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Nice to know my contributions are appreciated. Regards, Steve. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. BaboneCar (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your reverting the change I made from United Kingdom to England in the infobox. I know that a hospital is not a town, but surely the constituent country is even more relevant in the case of a hospital, as the United Kingdom health system is now devolved to, and administered by, the constituent countries. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish health systems are all administered by their regional governments, and the United Kingdom government only administers the system in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely standard in WP articles for companies and organisations to have town/city + sovereign state given for location. The internal structure of the NHS is of no relevance to this and the location information is not there to convey a subliminal message to readers about a separate topic, but to tell them where the organisation is located. We would not omit "United States" from articles on US medical organisations just because healthcare there is organised primarily at a state level, ditto with Chinese organisations where healthcare may be organised on a province or city basis. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make some correction as well as contribution for Infosys. And for Reliance Industries please confirm whether its a "conglomerate" or "Oil & Gas" company since bulk of there revenue comes from oil and gas sector, before taking any decision consult other editors.Thanks--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Infosys isn't an article that I have done much work on in the past but I am happy to help out with it.

Re Reliance Industries I think that it could accurately be described as either a conglomerate or an oil and gas company. As you say oil and gas (and connected petrochemical activities) are the core and by far the largest part of its activities. However it is also highly diversified in other wholly unconnected areas, and those other areas are receiving a fairly high share of its current investments. Personally I would still on balance call it an 'oil and gas company' although I can see this changing in the future. It is worth noting that it is in the 'Oil & Gas Producers' sector of the London Stock Exchange and in its profile Reuters emphasises its oil and gas activities ([1]). Searches on Google show lots of relevant results for both 'Reliance Industries conglomerate' and 'Reliance Industries oil and gas' (a very crude test I know, particularly as the diversification is fairly recent in the lifetime of the company) but the oil and gas references are more numerous. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Infosys try to contribute Wipro, Tata Group or Larsen & Toubro articles too. See List of companies of India.

Secondly about RIL, what should we do ? On one hand bulk of its revenue comes from oil & gas while on other hand it made substantial investments in telecom, retail or financial services sector. But, one thing is very clear its increasingly getting diversified in coming years. So lets keep "conglomerate", even though its an oil & gas company. What do you think ? I'm basically confused.

Another article Fiat, basically fiat is an Auto maker but it also has a big presence in media sector. Shouldn't it be termed as "conglomerate" what you think ?--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would still describe Reliance as an 'oil and gas company', but mention its other activities early in the lead. However I don't think that to call it a 'conglomerate' would actually be incorrect. I am happy with either approach but my preference is for 'oil and gas company'.

Re Fiat, I think that this should definitely be described as an automaker or automotive manufacturing company. That is the overwhelming majority of the company's activities, that is where the overwhelming majority of its current investments are going, it is what the company is known for, and it has in recent years sold off/demerged most of its non-automotive activities. The media activities are now very non-core and a historical quirk.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had correct the "Fiat" article pls check if you want to add something. As far as RIL is concern I'm keeping "conglomerate". Since the owner of the company is busy investing in other businesses.

Another similar problem I'm facing with Larsen & Toubro, company's core business is construction & engineering (bulk of their revenue comes from these two sectors) but it too is investing heavily in other businesses as well. What should I do?--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larsen & Toubro I would describe as conglomerate. It has activities in a diverse range of areas including IT services, construction and financial services and it seems that third party sources either describe it as an "engineering conglomerate" or a "conglomerate". Since we are able to describe its activities in greater detail in the lead and the rest of the article than is generally possible in, for example, a newspaper article on the company, and since "engineering conglomerate" is a rather meaningless description, I think "is a conglomerate company" is best for the first sentence. BTW I do fully intend to work on some of the India-based company articles mentioned above, but can't promise that this will be immediately. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for your valuable suggestions. About India-based company articles you can contribute at any time. There is no hurry.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm User:ThunderingTyphoons! and am relatively new to editing wikipedia, so I apologise if I'm putting this message in the wrong place. In case you didn't notice, I left a message on the talk page of London (infobox image section) over a month ago, which was largely directed at you. It's about the main infobox image of the page. Kind regards and good evening, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your message. I'm really sorry that I missed your message on the London talk page, I will reply to it there shortly. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem at all, we've all got lives beyond Wikipedia and there's no obligation to respond! Thanks, though! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, and I think like you strongly believe a table should be included for the aeroplanes in which IAG owns. On the talk page, it appears to be 2 against, and me and you for in the discussion summary with limited discussion over reasons for/against. Would you consider adding at the bottom a bit about your arguments again, it seems a bit 50:50 at the moment. Considering the planes are by far the most important thing that IAG has, to me it would make sense to have a clear table showing what it owns. I think for Iberia and British Airways, they are perhaps more like brand names as opposed to separate companies since the merger, and would be sensible to be put together in one placeNBNK1 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi and thanks for the message. I will add my thoughts again at the article talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pity you abandoned Columbo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.155.156 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't abandoned it completely, I've just taken a bit of a Columbo holiday.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand not wanting the list to go on and on forever but seeing as how I didn't even add Tom Hiddleston, I simply moved his named to be alphabetized, I don't see why it is a problem now when it wasn't a problem then when the original person added his name? xpinkxcasualtyx 20:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really make much difference as the IP added the name only a few hours earlier. Have you had any thoughts about what I said on your talk page? Rangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On who to delete to allow him to be on there? I don't know, that's up to you. I don't see it as a big deal, if you want to keep him off of the list, that's fine, I don't want to have a debate over it, I just thought he deserved to be on there, that's all. And yes I'm completely aware there is a separate alumni page, but I figured he could been on the main RADA page too. That's all. xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I am going to put Hiddleston in in place of Sean Bean. Let's see if anyone else disagrees with this. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I appreciate your understanding and solution. Sorry to have caused such a ruckus ;) Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rangoon11, I am a BP employee and new to the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you’ve made some recent improvements to the BP article. There are a number of inaccuracies in the article, and I’d like to further improve the quality of it. Out of respect for guidelines on conflict of interest and the importance of a neutral point of view, I do not want to make any direct edits to the BP article. I do have some small, specific changes that I’d like to suggest soon, and was hoping you might be interested in helping make them. Please let me know if you think you can be of assistance. I’ll let you know when I propose my suggestions. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thank you for your reply on my Talk page. As I mentioned last week, I'm interested in making improvements to the BP article and I have now added a request to the article's discussion page pointing out some of the current inaccuracies in the introduction and infobox. If you are still able to, can you assist with these updates? Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rangoon, don't want you to feel like I'm hassling you but I did as you suggested and submitted some images for discussion on Talk:London. It would be nice to have your input, as other users' interest has so far been nil :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will take a look and post my thoughts there later today.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there's an obvious DYK hook there, I don't know if there's enough reliably sourceable content out there to get the article up to the required size (1500 characters of prose) - at the moment it's only 703 characters. Maybe if there are any news stories floating around with some substantive content on how she trained him or something....?

Apologies for accusing (even if only obliquely)of being foreign, BTW ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about 1,500 words of prose, I think we would struggle to get it up to that at the moment without padding. Re the other, no worries at all :-).Rangoon11 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal of the UKPower template from the relevant articles, as the other template is far too big to be of any use. The point of nav box templates is to help peple navigate between relevant articles, and the Energy in the UK one fails miserably at this due to its size and difficulty of navigation. More specialised templates like UK Power are far more actual use. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 04:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with your having created that template of course ;-) Energy in the UK is highly integrated and almost all the companies which supply electricity also supply gas, many of the companies which supply electricity also generate it, National Grid operates networks for both electricity and gas, Centrica also operates gas fields etc. The single Energy in the United Kingdom template also links to a large number of other cross-cutting topics such as government and regulation, energy conservation, electricity in the UK, renewable energy etc. Since the template is collapsible and uses a show/hide feature navigation is simple. The alternative is having a large number of separate templates which overlap.

There is absolutely no benefit to having two templates which contain exactly the same links. This is pure duplication. What is your proposed solution as the present situation is not acceptable. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do not remove the sourced info they are obviously supporting the charity AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please don't go to another editor's talk page to tell them what to do or not to do. 2. The content is trivial, undue and looks decidely spammy. Its inclusion has been reverted for good reason. Please do not re-add the content, seek consensus for the addition of this dubious content on the article Talk page. 3. In view of your very large amount of editing on One Direction-related articles, much of which looks pretty promotional, you are looking increasingly like you have a conflict of interest. Is that the case?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't mean to tell you what to do, if your saying i'm interested in the band yes if you stalk my contributions you can see i'm a fan (so?) , isn't promotional a good thing, why can't it be added that they aided the charity AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with being a fan or editing a lot on a narrow range of topics. However it is not really on to be editing on a large scale just in order to make a specific group look good, particularly if those edits involve the addition of unsuitable content.

The point here is that a great many individuals, companies, artists and "celebrities" have been involved in work for the Great Ormond Street charity. However only involvements with the charity which are significant in its overall history should be added to the WP article for the hospital. If a band has done a single specifically for the charity, then that should certainly be included. If a major football club has made the charity its charity of the season then that is probably significant enough for addition. Merely selling a small number of VIP tickets for a tour with proceeds going to the charity is not in my view significant enough for inclusion. Has this involvement received coverage in the media? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rangoon11, thank you for your help with the BP article. As you suggested, I have now added the details of other inaccurate information in the article's introductions to the Talk page there. I am not sure if you have the article on your Watchlist and wanted to let you know that I have added these suggestions, so that you can help if you are able. Thanks again. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for this. I will take a look shortly. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC

Thank you again for your help, Rangoon11. I wanted to let you know in case you have not seen, I have added a new suggestion to the BP Talk page, concerning the Deepwater Horizon section. I will be away on vacation for several days, starting from tomorrow, but if you can help with this please reply on the Talk page there and I will reply when I am able. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the article for wembly hosting the 2013 uefa champions league final, it says london, England. Why should the g5 grouping which can only have English universities be different? thanks if you explain the difference. In fact the premier league also has a welsh team, g5 can only ever be English, so it doesn't make much sence.

Hi there, it looks like we have differing opinions on POV. I hope we can hash things out on the discussion page instead of engaging in an edit war. Could you explain why mentioning BP's investments in green energy while omitting mention of its investments in oil and gas is considered by you to be a neutral stance? Also why you feel the statement about BP's environmental problems and it's investment in green energy should remain one paragraph rather than two. How are they related? Thank you in advance. petrarchan47^Tc 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing that you come to my talk page saying that you wish to avoid an edit war when having been reverted for good reasons you simply made exactly the same edits again. I am therefore stuggling to summon any enthusiasm to discuss this with you.

Creating a separate fifth paragraph which merely states 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' is about as blatant an example of POV pushing as I can imagine. I will reply in more detail on the article talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rangoon11, thanks for your recent help with the BP article. I noticed that you had responded to an editor on the Talk page there last week. Did you see my message there about the Deepwater Horizon section? Please take a look if you're able to help update the tense of this section. But if you are too busy, I understand, and I can seek others to help as well. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did notice and have been meaning to deal with it. Will do so later today, thanks for the prompt.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why? You're considering my cleanup as "vandalism" and undoing it. That's unfair. I'm very annoyed at that. Goodbye, unionist vandal. Velociraptor888 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is nothing more than blatant POV pushing and has no place in this project. Your edit summaries and general behaviour are also an embarrassment. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about your edit here. While I understand that the "fields" is not strictly needed, having two other sections right next to each other looks a little odd, doesn't it? One has to examine the more of the template to tell exactly what is the difference between "other" and "other". Tideflat (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is logical to me in view of the use of sub groups and personally I prefer to keep things simple in these situations, especially when space (width wise) is at a premium. I acknowledge it's a subjective point of course. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, though in this case the extra word doesn't take up any extra space, as the word "communications" makes the column wider than the phrase "Other fields". (On my screen at least) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs)

True. I still think that the extra word is unnecessary however, sub group titles should not unnecessarily duplicate the parent group title, and this seems perfectly clear to me.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Sony be called a conglomerate or consumer electronics company what you think?--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 05:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer 'an electronics and media company'. The label 'conglomerate' really doesn't convey any information to readers and in this case is unnecessary. Although sometimes a company is so diverse that it is unavoidable (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway or Tata Group) most companies have if not one core activity then only two or three and in that case I feel they should be listed. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm converting sony into electronics & media company. Please tell me what should I mention in the "products" section. Or should I just link to "Business units" section.

Tell should Noble Group be called a conglomerate or commodities company?

Please do contribute on these articles:

• List of companies by revenue
• List of corporations by market capitalization
• List of largest employers
• List of the largest software companies
• Semiconductor sales leaders by year

Thanks!--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies I have been a bit pressed for time the last couple of days and will be for the next couple, but I will get back to you re Sony and Noble ASAP, and will also try and take a look at the list articles at some point.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for ur reply. I tried to change sony from conglomerate to electronics but other editors simply refused that idea, you can try at least once. Tell me about ur view on Noble Group.

Perhaps Sony could be described as an 'electronics, media and financial services company'. Personally I think that 'conglomerate' in this case is wrong as the company has clear core activities and is well known for them. It is far more often described in the media as an "electronics" or "electronics and media" company than a conglomerate.

The products and services sections of the infobox look pretty good though.

Noble - having read their website, the activites are very diverse and I would personally describe this as a conglomerate.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to change Sony's industry section from conglomerate to electronics, but other editors are not willing to buy that argument. Thanks for you view on Noble Group.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2ndly check Online service provider, I tried to change the title to Internet industry, however it had been reverted. Do you think that it can be put at the industry section of the Internet companies.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 14:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online service provider is an awful article and a closely related although narrower topic, but trying to convince others to agree to a move and radical overhaul of the article will be a lot harder than simply starting a clean sheet article titled 'Internet industry'. I would strongly support the creation of such an article although am too busy to do it myself at the moment.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten all of this and will try to look at it all later today.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May you're right, it would better to create a new Internet industry section article.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "BP". Thank you.

	The Original Barnstar
	Recently you said "I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks." You are getting one anyway. Here is your medal. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's kind, much appreciated.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your G6 speedy request for this redirect because it wasn't clear. What did you mean? Please go back and re-tag it with a clearer rationale. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rangoon11: You might like to help me keep an eye on RPS Group. An editor, who is probably a company employee, keeps inserting large chunks of unwikified text. Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, happy to help, I have now done a bit of tidying there. Will jump in if the COI editor comes back.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please research first. PwC is not a global firm. PwC is the brand under which the global network of firms operates. The "global" piece is actually a company.

I work for PwC and we are extraordinarily careful never to say the "global firm".

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about-pwc

"PwC" is the brand under which member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL) operate and provide services. Together, these firms form the PwC network. Each firm in the network is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind them in any way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopeajj (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'firm' does not have a legal definition, it is widely and generally used to mean simply an organisation which provides professional services. The internal legal structure is not relevant to this. Equally many major law firms are comprised of separate legal entities in separate jurisdictions. All major accountancy firms are. This does not mean that they are not called 'firms' overall.

And indeed a quick search on Google, either Google books or Google news or just the main search, reveals a vast number of highly reliable third party sources which describe PwC overall as a firm. What PwC chooses to describe itself as in its literature is not relevant to this. No doubt PwC is being careful to emphasise the separate legal nature of the entities which comprise the overall firm for regulatory and legal reasons. What is patently clear however is that PwC is much more than a brand or a mere franchise.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not patently clear. At the start of the article, it should be clear what the legal structure is. Look at Deloitte. The other Big 4 pages do use firm; however, they do not call them "international firms". Why would you be wrong when you can easily provide readers the correct structure: a network of independent firms. I've used a reference above. If you cannot find a reference of PwC calling itself an international firm, my revision should stand. Yours is editorial.

You also contradict yourself. If "firm" has no legal definition or implication, why are the Big 4 so worried about being specific about not being a "global firm"? Coopeajj (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia is based primarily, in fact overwhelmingly, on what reliable third party sources say. And third party sources are almost always preferred to sources from the subject of the article itself. A massive number of third party sources describe PwC, as a whole, as a firm. And this is unsurprising, because PwC perfectly fits the common useage of the word "firm". However I will acknowledge that there is a case for adding more information about PwC's legal structure in the lead (it is already included in the body of the article) and I will aim to do this (you are welcome to add it yourself of course).Rangoon11 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Opel Antara GTC where the troubled one is trying to create a separate article. Given that the concept is already mentioned at Opel Antara I think it best to concentrate any further sourced info on the concept within the latter article. I don't want to go 3RR so would appreciate your input. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes in full agreement with you. I will revert if they try again. I have actually suggested on Mr.choppers' talk page that we take this editor to ANI on ground of lack of competence, as their editing is now wasting a substantial amount of time on clean up.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you recently reverted an edit of mine to the Chery page stating it "removed factual info". The only info I'm aware my edit removed was a mention in the lead that the company was the 4th largest Chinese automaker, which I know to be false. Please let me know if I inadvertently removed other info. Fleetham (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very large number of changes within a single edit. As a general point this is not a good idea as it makes it far more likely that the edit will be reverted.

I have a few issues with the changes which were made:

1. I dont agree with the addition of 'Unlike any other state-owned Chinese car maker, Chery has been embroiled in allegations of intellectual property theft.', in a three-line lead this is highly undue and somewhat hysterical.
2. Important and relevant details about the JV with Jaguar Land Rover, and a relevant cite, were removed.
3. I do not like edits which state 'It may have', if something is speculation it should not be included, if it is fact then it should be stated as such.
4. Details were removed about R&D investment which were cited and relevant.
5. 'most-productive' means something quite different from total output, productivity concerns output per employee or per capital employed. I am also resistant to removing the production data from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, which is a highly reliable and respected source. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those other issues aside, please take a look at these two sources to see that Chery is far from being the 4th largest Chinese automaker: news piece, translated CAAM statistics for 2010. If you would like me to address the other issues, please let me know. Fleetham (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with calculating production data for Chinese companies is whether, and how (i.e. proportionate to shareholding or total), the production of joint ventures is included. I can fully accept that there are therefore multiple different potential rankings by size of production. However I do think that the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers data has validity. It is also good to try to maintain consistency across the project. A better approach may be to state in the lead something like 'Chery is *th or *th largest China-based automaker by 20** unit production, depending upon how the production of joint ventures is accounted for', and then dealing with this in more detail in the Sales section. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that Chery is an outlier among Chinese car makers on two counts; it currently lacks a JV with a famous name foreign automaker (soon to be rectified perhaps), and it has stolen Western IP, something that is typical of smaller, privately owned Chinese automakers--not the state-run Goliaths. Your statistic reflects the first, and I feel both are of equal relevance/weight. You've stated that you don't want to include the IP theft, but I have a hard time understanding your stance. Fleetham (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP claims seem to primarily concern a single model, the Chery QQ. In the context of the topic as a whole, and in view of the fact that the lead is currently just two lines long, I think that mention in the lead would be undue. If the lead were greatly expanded then I may support a brief mention.

For me the most interesting things about Chery are its export success, the relatively high quality of its products compared to other Chinese branded cars, and its extensive overseas production. The Qoros JV is also pretty novel as it is with a company which does not make cars and is aiming to build premium cars for western markets. Of course none of these features are currently in the lead. The lead generally needs a lot of development, but I don't think that the addition of a line on IP theft would at this point be a step forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. But I'm not sure how you arrived at the opinion that Chery cars are of a higher quality than others. And as for export success, it is remarkable that by their own count near-as-makes-no-difference 30% of units made were exported in 2010. I think that an updated lead should mention everything you stated except high quality because I don't know where that comes from as well as some note on the upcoming JV(s) with JLR and Subaru. My personal feeling is that Chery is a bit of a laggard, has had only one successful model (the QQ), that the Qoros thing is born out of desperation and the Chinese state's insistence on EVs more than good business sense, and that Chery doesn't have good future prospects. Clinching a JV deal would really brighten things up. Fleetham (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if you'd like to write the expanded lead, I'll go about re-adding the unobjectionable bits of my last edit soon. Fleetham (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why your recent edits to Chery have removed mention of the failed effort to establish a JV with Subaru. Care to explain? Fleetham (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having discussed this article above you simply went back to the article and made pretty much exactly the same edits again, including ones specifically referred to above. I therefore question the utility of discussing this article with you. What is the point if you then just return to article and make the changes again?

The specific point on the Subaru JV, I am happy to include in the main text although for me this is undue for the lead.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have the same problem with one another. Let's make an agreement and stick to it! Instead of making WP:BOLD edits, let's discuss prior to editing. I think that way we can both sign on to inclusion/deletion of content and not have a silly edit war. For example, issues I have with your most recent edits and would like to discuss comprise: the fact that you state Chery is a multinational company, that you removed the mention of IP theft allegations from the lead agreed to prior, and that you added that GM a joint venture partner of "Chery and SAIC". Fleetham (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, more complaints: can you please make an effort to make not a flurry of edits but a single one instead? Sorry for all the complaining, but I find this interaction frustrating. Fleetham (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've also supported the statement that "Chery's main manufacturing location is in Anhui" with a source that simply states, "a factory in Anhui". I understand your dislike for vagueness, but please don't translate that into posting incorrect information. Fleetham (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it incorrect? If it's wrong, it should be removed, if it's right then it should be stated as fact. A citation can always be found. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the specific points: happy for mention of Subaru in text, but not in lead; Chery is clearly multinational according to the Operations and Sales sections of the article; I am happy for a brief mention of IP issues once the lead is longer, it is still short for that however; the Chery and SAIC JV point was a mistake, now fixed.

We can discuss the article together before making changes, but I find that this slows things down massively, greatly increases the quantity of work, and often actually produces worse results. One person can make bold additions or changes, and then others can polish them or build on them. I guess the question is what do you have planned for the article? Personally I would like to see the lead further expanded and improved, more pictures added, a separate section for joint ventures created, the electric vehicles content brought together with other products and services, and the Motorsport section expanded and the text generally polished.

Multiple edits are better than a large number of changes made in a single edit as it is then possible to revert parts of the changes more easily. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IDK what the definition of "multinational" is but the title appears self-serving, so I believe it fails WP:SELFPUB. I doubt that a company with no overseas production bases can be considered "multinational". (And Chery has none; those overseas factories are owned by others.) I'll go ahead and make changes, and see what you make of them, as you, understandably, don't want to discuss changes prior to editing. Fleetham (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chery is investing half a billion dollars in Turkey on a new engine factory and assembly plant, its vehicles are produced in 17 countries and sold in many more. You say it doesn't own the overseas assmebly plants. Im not certain if this is true for every single one, but in any case it is very closely involved in those operations by necessity. They are producing Chery vehicles which are marketed as Cherys. Chery also operates marketing and distribution activities on a multinational basis. This is much more than a China based company just selling in China or exporting from China.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to see what, exactly, you object to in the following prior to posting it:

In 2012 Chery again sought to partner with a foreign automaker, something it had previously tried in 2007. While a proposed joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover is awaitingstill under consideration,^[1] a tie-up with Subaru was canceled due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. ^[2] If the joint venture comes to fruition, Chery and UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China, the establishment of a R&D facility and a new brand name, and the sale of vehicles produced by the company.^[1] The proposed joint venture has yet to receive the go-ahead from the government,^[1] which has recently "been stringent in screening foreign automakers setting up production units".^[2] Fleetham (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to eat but will respond this specific point in about 30 mins.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? I'm not sure if you're stuck on too negative a POV or removal of details. This addresses the former, as I don't see much reason to mention the possibility of a new marque or an R&D site:

In 2012 Chery again sought to partner with a foreign automaker, something it had previously tried in 2007. While a proposed joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover is still under consideration as of March 2012,^[1] a tie-up with Subaru was canceled due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. ^[2] If the Jaguar Land Rover deal receives the go-ahead from the government, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China.^[1] Fleetham (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current text regarding the JLR joint venture is neater. There is no reason to state more than once that the JLR JV is awaiting regulatory approval, and that type of editing also creates more unnecessary work once the venture is approved, particularly when it is woven into the text in that way. There is no need to repeat about prior JV discussions in 2007 when these are described just a few lines higher up in the section. The Subaru discussions can be placed in a separate sentence. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's no reason to state more than once that it's pending approval. Why adding an introductory sentence "because the info's already been stated" is something I don't understand. I don't understand your core dislike about the paragraph, is it that it makes it seem as if the JV will not go through? Fleetham (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that the present wording is better, for the reasons just stated. If this was a book and the 2007 discussions were a few pages earlier then yes referring to it again would make sense, however here it is just a few lines higher up. And yes there is no need to keep repeating about approval being pending. Once is enough. There is also need to keep repeating that Chery has had prior attempted JVs which, for various reasons, never got started. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be a reason to remove cited material. See WP:OWNERSHIP. In regards to your most recent revert, I would like some clarification: 1) Do you think a company calling itself "multinational" passes WP:SELFPUB? Why? 2) Are you still agreeable to including a mention in the lead about IP theft? 3) Why did you re-include a statement that is not supported by its given citation? Again, say we should discuss prior to editing, as I don't see how that's "more work". It seems that agreeing to things first would be a better solution, don't you think? Fleetham (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding the reference to Subaru at the same time as making other contested changes, and weaving the Subaru reference unnecessarily into the text. Add some text about Subaru in a single edit without making other contested changed and it wont be reverted.

I don't care what Chery calls itself, my personal analysis is that, based upon the content in the article, 'multinational' is an accurate description of the company.

As I have said multiple times, in principle I have nothing against a small reference to IP issues in the lead, but not at present whilst the lead is still small.

What sort of changes do have in mind for the article? It would be helpful to know that in order to work out how best to work together on the article going forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's work things out before we post, and that way we'll end up with a page we're agreeable to.

Points to discuss:

Lead mention of IP theft

Will be added when lead is expanded - AGREED BUT A SMALL MENTION, NO MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE, AND TOWARDS THE END OF THE LEAD

Referring to the company as "multinational"

I think it fails WP:SELFPUB, you think it's an "accurate description" - MERELY A SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE

Wikipedia says a "multinational corporation" is "a corporation enterprise that manages production or delivers services in more than one country." Investopedia says it's, "A corporation that has its facilities and other assets in at least one country other than its home country." As Chery does not have facilities or assets outside of China (although many small factories owned by others produce its products from knock-down kits), I believe Chery fails these definitions. Do you have an issue with the definitions or does Chery, in fact, have overseas assets I'm unaware of?

Recent JV activity

Is this an acceptable paragraph?

At the start of the decade, Chery sought a tie-up with Subaru, but this was canceled in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval.^[2]

Currently, the company is in the midst of negotiating a joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover. If this deal receives the go-ahead from the government, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China.^[1] Fleetham (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer

"In 20**, Chery and the Japanese automaker Subaru agreed to form a joint venture, the primary activity of which would have been the production of Subaru-branded vehicles in China. The proposed venture was abandoned in 2012 due to difficulty in obtaining regulatory approval from Chinese authorities.^[2] In March 2012, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility, the creation of a new automobile marque, and sales of vehicles produced by the company.^[3][4] The joint venture is awaiting regulatory approval."

Note that Chery and JLR have reached agreement, the issue at this point is regulatory approval. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with that is that it makes it appear as if the JLR JV is going ahead, while I'm of the opinion it's no sure thing. Can you address my concern? Fleetham (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the wording 'The joint venture is awaiting regulatory approval.'. This seems more than adequate to me, to emphasise it any more strongly would be to suggest that approval is unlikely to be granted. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the current environment, with a slowing economy that makes the Chinese government wary of overcapacity, a recent failure to gain approval for a outwardly similar JV, more than a footnote is warranted. Several news articles play up the fact that regulatory hurdles might kill the project: article, WSJ article. This recent Xinhua article quotes a JLR exec. saying the JV is on track, however. Why not make the regulatory hurdle bit into an entire sentence that details why it's more likely to be a more of a stumbling block than you might think? Fleetham (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that the wording "Chery and JLG agree to JV" makes it appear as if it's their decision, not the Chinese state's. What about "have proposed", "have plans to establish", or "may enter into" a JV? Fleetham (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chery and JLR have agreed between themselves, they are corporate entities, we do not need to state who ultimately controls the companies in this context. JLR and Chery have agreed to set up a JV. Period. For the JV to begin activities, the permission of the Chinese authorities will be required and that is currently pending. We can place a little more emphasis on the point that the permission of the Chinese authorities is required for the JV to begin activities if you wish.

Your links above, the first is dead and the second requires a subscription. Speculation on whether the JV will gain approval is in any case crystal balling which is deprecated in WP. Just becase other proposed Chery JVs did not gain permission does not mean that this one will not. It would also be something of a snub to both the UK and India were it refused. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can't view the links doesn't make what they say less valid. I just can't understand why it's so difficult to get you to see the validity of what I have to say. Fleetham (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first link: Reuters article. Fleetham (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP has its own approach and future speculation is generally deprecated. General comments on the approvals process also belong somewhere like the Automotive industry in the People's Republic of China article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why it's important to state that this plan may not see fruition. To do otherwise would contravene WP rules, no? Fleetham (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already states that, by saying that approval is pending. Commentary on the likelihood of approval being granted is what you appear to be seeking. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it's important to ensure the prose doesn't misinform the reader as to the likelihood that it will be approved. I feel that the wording "Chery and JLG agree to JV" makes it appear as if it's their decision, not the Chinese state's. What about "have proposed", "have plans to establish", or "may enter into" a JV? Fleetham (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have agreed. That is a plain fact. Why not add greater emphasis by changing the following sentence to 'In order for the joint venture to be formally established and begin operations the approval of the Chinese authorities is required; as of July 2012 this is pending.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that would be good, but I still take issue with the "agreed" bit. When I first read that, not knowing what I do now, I imagined that it meant the JV was a go. If you insist on that word I would prefer something along the lines of "While Chery and JLR have agreed to this JV, the Chinese government has not." I just want to ensure that the take away is that the JV is very much a future possibility, not a certainty, and when I read what you added, I imagined the latter. Fleetham (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that is what is stated in my proposed text. To state "the Chinese government has not" is to suggest that permission has been refused. It hasn't been, and whether it will be or not is pure speculation and inappropriate for WP. There has been no indication as regards this specific JV that permission is likely to be refused, it is pure supposition based on indirect factors. Personally I would be amazed if permission were refused, although I do recognise the wider context. However the point is, to go beyond stating that permission is required and is currently pending is to enter into the realms of pure speculation.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave the entire thing out until a decision have been reached? I think the speculation argument dictates either that or balanced content. I just would like it to be clear that, while the two companies involved have agreed, that does not mean the thing will go forward. Fleetham (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is purely factual, highly significant and relevant and can be cited using high quality sources. I am struggling to understand your issue with the formulation which I have suggested above, and which would make even clearer that permission is required before the JV will commence. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your solution is probably fine. It's just that literally half of the Reuters article, and the WSJ one as well (which I can't access now and the version I can get through a database is different), was dedicated to the fact that regulatory hurdles are higher now than ever before.

Anyway, how's this? I'm not sure where the Subaru sentence should go--one-sentence paragraphs are fine by me, but I don't know how you feel about them:

During 2011 Chery sought a tie-up with Subaru, but this was canceled in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval.^[2]

As of July 2012, Chery is on track to consummate a joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover.(that Xinhua citation with the JLR exec quote) Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker plan to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China, but the government must first sign off on the deal.^[1]

After having taken a look at WP:FUTURE, my interpretation is that until this thing is finished one way or another, it shouldn't be included as that policy states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I think I've provided evidence that speaks to the fact that this latter criterion is something this JV fails. Fleetham (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement has happened, it is a fact and has been reported on. The only element of speculation concerns whether approval will be given. However the agreement itself is highly notable for inclusion and has received wide coverage in third-party sources.

This text is in my view more precise, the dates are important:

"In 2011, Chery and the Japanese automaker Subaru agreed to form a joint venture, the primary activity of which would have been the production of Subaru-branded vehicles in China. The proposed venture was abandoned in 2012 due to difficulty in obtaining regulatory approval from Chinese authorities.[2] In March 2012, Chery and the British luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture the activities of which are intended to include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility and the creation of a new automobile marque.[3][4] The joint venture must receive approval from Chinese regulators before proceeding, which as of July 2012 is pending." Rangoon11 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's the best argument, but I think that mentioning an event that did occur which is wholly part of and subsidiary to an event that has yet to occur can still be considered to fall afoul of WP:FUTURE. And maybe you should read rules before quoting them; my referenced speculation about the likelihood is totally fine per WP:FUTURE, which states, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." While your above suggested paragraph makes it clear that the JV has yet to happen, which goes some way to placating my concerns, I'd still be happier without the word "agree". In this context "agree" really means "want" not "intend" because the two don't intend to go ahead without approval. Hopefully you can be sympathetic in regards to that that distinction. What about the following? Controversial words in bold

In 2011 Chery and Subaru sought to form a joint venture company in China, but the Japanese car maker abandoned the plan in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. Chery is currently exploring a tie-up with Jaguar Land Rover. As of March 2012, Chery and the British luxury automaker want to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the China-based project, which will include the manufacture of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles in China. The joint venture must receive the go-ahead from Chinese regulators before proceeding and, according to Jaguar Land Rover, is on track for approval as of July 2012. A sentence expressing the fact that approval may not be given, however. The establishment of a research and development facility and the creation of a new automobile marque, two other parts of the planned project, were stipulated by the Chinese government. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your The Guardian citation is a deadlink. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this conversation would best have belonged on the Chery talkpage, but no matter. I definitely do not think that this sentence is needed: "A sentence expressing the fact that approval may not be given, however" Pending means pending, no need to qualify it further.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have to agree. Why in (insert deity)'s name is a discussion regarding consensus in an article being held on a user talkpage ... it takes more than 2 to determine consensus. Nothing on this page can be considered as valid consensus for anything in the article ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I'm quite happy for the above to be copied over to the article talk page. Sometimes what one thought might be a brief exchange of opinions can quickly grow however. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetham - are you happy for the above thread to be copied over to the article talk page, and for the discussion to then continue there?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I have had multiple bad interactions with Mr. Choppers and don't care to continue this or any discussion with him. Copy this to the article's talk if you want, but count me out of any discussion with Mr. Choppers. Fleetham (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in order to obtain WP:CONSENSUS, you have to interact with anyone who wishes to take part in such a discussion on the article talkpage, period. Now it appears that having this side discussion here was an attempt to circumvent the consensus process ... is "I can't do consensus" really the message you're trying to send? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not jump to conclusions. I don't want to take part in a discussion with a person because of WP:no personal attacks. And I am engaged in a discussion on a talk page. How do these two events become "an attempt to circumvent the consensus process"? Anyway, I'm quite adamant that I will have no further interaction with Mr. Choppers, so if that means I can't take part in a discussion to reach consensus, so be it. You can easily reach a consensus without me. Fleetham (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do this? Chongming is the most outlying administration of Shanghai, and for that reason, it is more logical to list the districts first. GotR ^Talk 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply to maintain alphabetical order.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. In my view, that isn't a sufficient reason to break the District-County conformity with the other 3 municipality templates, nor is it user-friendly. GotR ^Talk 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the template is alpha order, and the districts appear immediately below. Personally I can't see what the issue is. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it breaks conformity with the 3 other municipality templates, and moreover, all provincial templates list the districts, which form the core of a city's metro area, first. GotR ^Talk 20:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those other municipality templates are not in alpha order throughout. And the templates don't appear together. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been consistently working against consensus at GlaxoSmithKline, taking a very pro-industry stance, and it has been suggested on the Talk page that you may be doing "PR work" for multinational pharmaceutical companies. So I would like to respectfully ask if you have any WP:Conflict of interest to declare. Johnfos (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That posting isn't really worthy of a response but I will give one anyhow.

No I don't. I edit whichever pages I am interested in and feel need work and wherever I feel my knowledge base best fits. And I take the stance which I feel is fair and true and best for WP. But actually it would be very nice if I were being paid by GSK, or anyone else, to edit their page.

Since you have come here asking a question which is in neither respectful nor assuming of good faith, I will ask the same back. You have been consistently trying to emphasise "controversies" in the GSK article, taking an aggressively anti-business stance (which is a common thread throughout your editing), being obstructive to efforts to make wholly reasonable additions to the lead, and showing zero interest in the majority of the topic. Do you have any conflict of interest to declare?

And I will make a more general point. You obviously like using WP as a platform to promote your various causes on nuclear power, renewable energy, anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals, crime etc. Perhaps you should reflect that such content which you seek to add, will actually carry far more weight for readers if it is found within otherwise high quality and balanced articles with high quality and balanced leads. I understand that you have no interest in GSK as a topic beyond its "controversies". Perhaps you could show a bit more respect to those who actually do view the topic as a whole, and have a knowledge of it as a whole. Anyone who is objective who currently comes to the GSK article sees a slanted, undue lead with no mention of many hugely important aspects of GSK as an overall topic, yet a heavy emphasis on a single very recent "controversy". The credibility of everything else in the article, especially all of the "controversies" content, is damaged in their eyes as a result. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note - When I read your question again, I understand that you are talking specifically about the lead section. The way it is structured currently looks good (looking at the series of mergers). If you incorporate my earlier thoughts - the lead could be made bit more concise with cross references to the predecessor company pages. A lead interesting enough ( with some info missing) which prompt us to navigate to the connected pages - to understand and cover the multiple key aspects. Jean Julius Vernal 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon! Missed you at Wikimania :(

I think that a summary of the controversies of the article does belong in the lead. WP:LEAD encourages the introduction to reflect the content of the article, and since the controversies take up roughly 1/3 of the body, the lead should give them at least a sentence if not a paragraph. I think the ideal type of statement would be something like : GSK has been involved in a number of high profile controversies over their drugs. Notable ones included X, Y, Z, and A--which included a record-breaking 3 billion dollar settlement. That's my honest opinion on this one, at least at first glance. So, I think you may be slightly under-representing the controversies in the lead at present. Let me know what you think! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been to great to go but sadly couldn't make the trip this time. Hopefully next time!

Thanks for your frank and honest comments on GSK. There are essentially two main points here. One is whether controversies should be included in the lead, and if so which and at what length.

The second is the extent to which the lead should be expanded with details of other aspects of GSK which are currently not mentioned, for example its acquistions, key pharmaceutical products and the ViiV joint venture.

Personally I can accept some brief mention of controversies within a decent sized lead which also covers the rest of the topic properly.

At present the two sentences on a single recent controversy in the context of a lead which does not even mention ViiV or major acquisitions is for me very undue, and verging on attack content.

If you could put some thought on the article talk page then that would be great as the discussion is a little deadlocked at present. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rangoon11, I'm confused about Commodity trading company. If you see those company articles most of the sources say they are food processing other source say they are commodities trading company which one is true. I for instance changed many of those company "industry section" to food processing, source taken from here Forbes Global 2000. Do you think they are correct? and what do you think about commodities trading. Please let me know quickly. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that some companies essentially just trade food products, some essentially just process it, and some do both (as always there will be many cases which are not completely clear cut). For example, Glencore essentially just trades food, whilst Tate & Lyle essentially just produces it (and distributes and markets it - but this is a distinct activity from trading), and Cargill does both on a large scale.

The same can be said of other commodities. For example, Glencore both trades and produces mining products (it owns a significant number of mines, although the majority of what it trades is produced by others), whilst Ashanti Goldfields is essentially just a producer.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Rangoon11 below there are list of food processing and commodities trading company, please mention below with good research which one is what? Because I will put that in the "industry section" of those companies. And if you know any other company of these types please let me know. Thnaks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Vitol /
2. Glencore International AG /
3. Trafigura /
4. Cargill /
5. Archer Daniels Midland /
6. Gunvor (company) /
7. Mercuria Energy Group /
8. Noble Group /
9. Louis Dreyfus Group /
10. Bunge Limited /
11. Wilmar International /
12. Olam International /

Hi, I will try and get back to you on this in the next few days.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How shall it take to asses these companies? Its been almost 1 or 2 weak.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies yes I do intend to look at this. Is there any particular deadline?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My-dear friend there is no particular deadline since it was posted so long I thought may be you were not interested in the subject. I desperately need your help to resolve this problems since many information about these companies are incorrect and am not sure what exact some of those companies really are ?-Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom#Hatnote. Your input is welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for collaborating with me on the Chery page. The current lead is much better than the one I had up there, and that's really due to your sustained effort to improve it! Fleetham (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, and for your participation too. We got there in the end! Yes I think that the new lead is a big step forward for the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you removed the template stating it as trivial, when the template isn't trivial. It is part of a contest that is very notable, and London is notable for having played the role of host city to the well-known event a number of times. Having the template adds additional notable facts to the general reader viewing the article. Something which they may not have known if it isn't included. After all an encyclopaedia is about providing notable information that is relevant to its subject. All of the articles for host cities hold these templates purely for the fact the contest is notable, so why should one article be treated differently? Wesley Mouse 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wholly trivial competition in the context of London which has had zero impact on London's history and development and played zero role in its notability. There are a large number of templates which *could* be added to this article but the line has to be drawn somewhere to avoid bloat. Please take it to the article talk page if you disagree.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree, as you are clearly wrong here. The competition is not trivial. The competition is watched by over 125 million viewers worldwide. The contest has been around since 1956. London has played host to the contest 4 times. Each time the contest is held in a host city it attracts tourism and those tourists contribute to the city's economy. Making it very notable indeed. The article should also have a WikiProject banner on its talk page, which appears to have been removed too. Wesley Mouse 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you should have actually taken it to the talk page before rereverting it again, that move goes against BRD. Wesley Mouse 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is something of a "joke" in the UK and has played an infinitesimal part in the story of London. Inclusion of a template would be undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be undue in your opinion. But articles are written and include details based on facts and notability regardless of whether you personally think it is "undue" or a "joke". I am British I know the British public treat the contest as a little bit of a joke. But facts are facts, a notable event was hosted 4 times in the city - making it due weight that its content should be included within the article. An article is suppose to be neutral regardless - omitting the facts that London hosted the contest isn't sticking to neutralness. Anyhow, I have opened a discussion, something which you should have really started as part of WP:BRD before rereverting. Wesley Mouse 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You boldly added - perfectly right - I reverted, and then... you boldly added again. Sorry but I can't agree with that analysis but good that a discussion is now up and running, I have added some thoughts there. The thing to understand is that the article simply cannot have every possible template added. It already has 12, which is arguably too many as it is. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that templates alone can also be placed into a template? Thus allowing them to be grouped together into relevant topics. Take Düsseldorf for example. That has loads of individual templates, but they have been grouped into one template to store them away. Wesley Mouse 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Düsseldorf has six templates, London already has 12. And do you really think Düsseldorf and London are comparable? The only place I can see which is comparable is New York. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to this is seriously jeopardising the chances of this article at FAC. You may want to Fleming to be sub-standard: I do not. Two FAC reviewers have requested the removal and I am certain others will follow. If you leave the RfC in during the FAC process there is a danger that a) the article will be accused of being unstable; and b) the reviewers will lose any sympathy they have with the process and give a blank oppose. That is not something I want to see happen after a considerable about of time and effort has been spent by a number of people to get it in with a chance. Articles do not have to have infoboxes and summarising the life of an individual into 9 or 10 points merely panders to the lazy and feckless who cannot be bothered to read the lead section alone. Please remove the RfC: if you want to make a comment, do so at the FAC where better and more experienced editors than I will be able to have their say. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole effort to remove the infobox from Ian Fleming, which has been a part of the article for a number of years, has a bad smell around it. The canvassing has been blatantly cynical, and there is an effort to create a wholly false sense of urgency by conflating the issue with a FAC. Which is of course wholly erroneous anyhow as the vast majority of FA biography articles have an infobox.

The issue of the infobox requires proper discussion. Even more so in view of what I have discovered about canvassing efforts and the parallel effort to remove the infobox from Peter Sellers, again with the same editors involved.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you said on the other page. I seriously hope that what I think are your rather selfish actions have not damaged the chances of this article at FAC. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No what is selfish is trying to remove an integral, long standing and wholly standard part of an article in an underhand manner. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underhand? How dare you accuse me of such a thing. I have worked hard to get this article to something that is under serious consideration for FA status and I am following that process carefully and taking on board the comments of the wider community to try and improve it further. Your single point in this seems only to try and undermine that position and go against the FAC process to ensure that a sub-standard article is retained. I ecpect a withdrawal and an apology for accusing me of being underhand when it is the FA reviewers who have requested this in the first place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for this tedious back and forth. The canvassing has been blatantly underhand and yet you have been defending it, therefore associating yourself with it. Now please desist from posting anymore here and please let's keep the discussion on the article talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect an apology and a withdrawl. Nothing less. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You come to my talk page, accuse me of being selfish and of wanting the article to be sub standard. And then demand an apoology because I take issue with underhand canvassing efforts which you have associated yourself with by defending. For real?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I'm still waiting. Could you point out where I have been underhand? If you can't then withdrawn and apologise here and on the Fleming talk page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please stop posting on my talk page if you have nothing interesting to say. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you take a step back, look at what I have done, look seriously if you think I have done anything underhand and then do it all over again. As I have already asked: what have I done that is underhand? Is this additional bluster because you know that I have done nothing underhand? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall stating that you did the canvassing. You have however been defending it. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I have said numerous times above, I have done nothing underhand and I expect an apology. What I have done is to say that bringing a conversation to the attention of other editors is entirely acceptable and is also not underhand. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing only editors who one knows from prior discussions do not like infoboxes is underhand. That you cannot see this is troubling. Cassianto has also been posting messages stating that the issue was one of the addition of an infobox rather than the removal of a very long standing one. And has been stating that I am a drive by editor. I will judge you on the company you keep and the actions which you defend. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will await your apology—probably vainly, as think you have talked yourself into a corner over this. Only time will tell whether your actions today and your stance over this has not damaged the chance of this article going through to become an FA: I can only hope they have not, but I fear that you have damaged its chances. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the article achieve FA, and generally appreciate your commitment both to the article and to all things James Bond related where you have done good work. However I see no reason why the inclusion of the infobox should in any way preclude FA being achieved, when well over 99% of all FA biography articles have an infobox. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon, I come here with an olive branch. I admit that my "canvassing" was wrong as, at the time I wasn't aware of such a policy. I have now been introduced to it via a private email and have digested it at my leisure. I would like to therefore apologise for this unintentional breach. However, I make no apologies for my stance on the infobox dispute and my opinions are very much current. I hope we can all soon put this one to bed. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you acknowledging that the canvassing was wrong (something Schrodinger has failed to do) and the apology.

The problem which I have is that the discussion which has taken place today at the article talk page is in my view irretrievably tainted, and new posters are still adding comments based on the canvass, such as the "contribution" which Wetman just made.

I would like to have a proper and fair discusssion on the matter. I appreciate the commitment of yourself and Schrodinger to the article, but I ask that you also appreciate that others who may not have edited the article so much in recent months still have a strong interest in the topic.

We have a clear difference of opinion on the merits of infoboxes in biography articles, but we do at least share a desire for the article to be as good as possible, and to achieve FA, of that I am in no doubt.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please remove the Fleming signature? It is a non-free image and will count against the article at FAC. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]