(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
User talk:Dormskirk - Wikipedia Jump to content

User talk:Dormskirk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hz1234 (talk | contribs) at 15:59, 22 January 2010 (→YAS HOTEL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sir Thomas Cochrane

Hello,

As you are interested in British admirals have you ever heard of Thomas Cochrane. He was Rear-Admiral of the Fleet but commanded 4 other navies.

Hope you find this interesting.

DAFMM.

P. S. I didn't know where to put it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.201.240 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I know is Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald Dormskirk (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature Flags

Hello. Its come to my attention that you oppose the deletion of the flags placed next to many names of military figures. I have noticed that it is you who has put this flags in and believe that you are becoming emotional about there deletion. You seem to be the sole donater to these pages and i ask you to let others have a go and let them improve wikipedia. (Electrobe 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am honoured that you feel that I am the sole donator to these pages...to be fair others have contributed as well and I would like there to be a proper discussion Dormskirk 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this will satisfy that aspect of the issue:- Flag Icon Discussion. Hopefully Electrobe will now revert his changes to the articles he deleted the images from? I have already reverted the ones to the Richard Dannatt and Peter Inge, Baron Inge articles, which are on my watchlist. Richard Harvey 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also hope he will. I think there is a clear consensus that the alliegance and service / branch flags should stay even if some people do not like the ones for places of birth & death. Thanks for your help and support. Dormskirk 12:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Alam Palace

Hello. I noticed you recently removed an unreferenced tag I placed on Al Alam Palace. I believe this was unnecessary, since the articles does not properly cite its references, as requested in WP:CITE. Please do not remove tags without solving the problem, since this is considered vandalism. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now inserted a reference. Two people (including yourself) have now threatened to delete this harmless article for one reason or another. Will you now remove the tag? Dormskirk 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a reply to your comment above. Thank you for inserting a reference. You may now remove the tag. However, I noticed you also removed the stub tag. I believe it is should still be classified as a stub, according to Wikipedia:Stubs. If you can find proof in the provided link that it is, in fact, not a stub, I will happily remove the stub tag. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm sorry if my actions caused you any trouble, but I don't remember requesting that the article be deleted. I may be a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionist, but I know a good article with great potential when I see it. Please continue your excellent editing work. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP:FLAGCRUFT

Please have a look at this page before putting flags in infoboxes, thanks. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Seymour Conway

Please check the date of his entrance to the military, which you've accidentally inserted as the anachronistic 1937. Choess 22:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this error out: I have checked with Heathcote and the date should be 1737 Dormskirk 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erhard Milch

Thanks for the good work on the infobox for Milch. I'm not sure how to manage this, but I'm troubled that the fact that Milch was a convicted war criminal is somehow slipping away in this article. You'd never know about it unless you read to the bitter end. Do you think the "laterwork" section of the infobox might be used to indicate this?Easchiff 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion: I will insert something. Dormskirk 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The addition to the infobox seems fair to me.Easchiff 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Leighton Holdings

A tag has been placed on Leighton Holdings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   jj137 (Talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

If you read the CSD box, you will see: It is an article about a company or corporation that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. That is the reason I gave it. Simply, it does not assert the significance it has to get its own article. It does not matter whether it is the only major construction company in the world that doesn't have an article or not.   jj137 (Talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If I say it is notable because it is Australia's largest contractor (which is true) would that meet your point? Dormskirk (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. If I were you, I would go ahead and cite that on the article so it doesn't get deleted.   jj137 (Talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have now stated this in the first line. Please could you now remove the request for speedy deletion? Dormskirk (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I also marked it with a stub tag, by the way.   jj137 (Talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons in infoboxes

Hello, Dormkirk. I have opened a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flag_icons. Please feel free to add your thoughts there. Best wishes, Kablammo 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for this useful initiative. I have added my comments Dormskirk 15:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk: Congratulations to both you and Electrobe for your willingness to discuss, collaborate, and compromise on this question. Regards, Kablammo 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem Dormskirk 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Leighton

Thanks for putting a reference in the Thai_Leighton article, unfortunately the reference cites a claim from the corporate website of the parent company. Although I have no problem, I think some editiors here would have the "wobbles" with a corporate reference. A good example where this is the case is the Voith article. I suggest you find an independent reference and use that. Using independent references reduces the likelyhood of another editor disputing your edit. Regards Surfing bird (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not know enough about the company to find an independent reference - I would suggest a corporate reference is better than a completely unsourced comment as existed previously Dormskirk 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of William Cooper (accountant)

A tag has been placed on William Cooper (accountant) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the founder of PriceWaterhouseCoopers and must be the most famous accountant in the world. Have you any suggestions how I should establish his notability more clearly? Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any non-wiki article that describes why he is famous? Is there any books or articles he has published, but not self-published? Put a hang on tag on the page, explain that he is, indeed, notable, and why he is notableand put the above in a reference section. That way, the article may or may not be deleted. --Kannie | talk 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he is notable because he founded the world's largest firm of accountants - I will make that clear if it is not already clear Dormskirk (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Boy Categories

Why are you moving categories into See also? This is unhelpful and totally exceptional. Categories belong with categories - if you want to create new pages for old boys please do so. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean...please can you explain. My objective was simply to ensure that readers of articles about individual schools become aware that there is a category of old boys from that school. Dormskirk (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I realise you are creating new category links rather than moving existing ones which is obviously a good thing - but I would still expect to look for categories in the category list rather than linked mid article. Some schools have specific lists of old boys as separate pages which is what I meant by creating additional pages, but this is rather overkill for most schools. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no problem - I now see your point. But the trouble with putting Category:Old Felstedians into the category list for Felsted College is that Felsted College will itself appear as an old boy in the Category:Old Felstedians Dormskirk (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think thats a problem - it seems to happen with most cats. I dont know what Wiki policy is (nor do I worry much) but I think there is a bit of a down on "S a"s - but up to you really (its easier to stick just the cat in). RegardsMotmit (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I don't have strong views either...I am happy to go with your format Dormskirk (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - I seem to be having another go. You have added the FT 30 template back to Bass. This just links in 30 articles that may be interesting in FT30 terms, but have absolutely no relevence whatsoever for Bass. I did add a specific link from Bass to the FT30 article where the links can be followed. As I make much use of "related changes", templates like this reduce the usefulness and raise the question "What is the value of the link". Not objecting in principle - a template of 30 Burton breweries might be useful. Sorry and regards Motmit (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I do not have strong views. I am content for you to remove the template from the Bass article if you would prefer Dormskirk (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinchin Johnson & Associates

of course, it just didnt look the notable when i first saw it. ninety:one 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Hi, I saw that you deleted twice the name of Paul Bernardo from the list of notable workers or former workers of Pricewaterhouse. You explained it as vandalism... but Paul Bernardo, famous canadian criminal, was an employee of Pricewaterhouse, so I just can't see where's the problem. Everybody can add in the articles a piece of what he knows about the subject, so why not put this name? it's not a statement about the firm, it is a FACT, so according to Wikipedia's policy it is hard to erase my entry as it is genuine and proved...

Thanks

Joe Dietrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.46.228.75 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that this is a fact. But I consider that this fact is not relevent to an understanding of the firm's business. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EY

Absolutely no problem, if it migrates to other pages as a result, just drop me a note, or leave one at WP:RFPP if I'm inactive. It was a flagrant breach of WP:BLP which cannot be tolerated. Thanks for bringing it to people's attention. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content that was sourced

Hi, this a friendly note to let you know that when you removed content ("remove unsourced statement"), the statement was in fact sourced by the link, near the end of the article, to the Health and Safety Executive website. I restored the statement, but made the source more obvious by using an inline citation. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree this is properly sourced now. Thanks for letting me know Dormskirk (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated. Gr1st (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trenchard

Thanks the barnstar. As you noticed I've been working on the Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard article as and when I get chance. I am hopeing to get it up to featured article quality but it needs more work. If you want to lend and hand at any stage, then that would be great. Greenshed (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Many thanks for the offer - But I am not convinced that I am as much of an expert on his life as you clearly are! Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 888 Holdings

FYI, the move you did to 888 Holdings caused more harm than good. I almost needed to delete the original article to get the redirect out of the history!

Long story short, I completely deleted 888 Holdings, since nothing was there but redirects. I then had to undo the redirect you had created at the old title, restore the changes you made at 888 Holdings, and then revert to the last good version.

It would have been easier to not have done the copy-and-paste move and waited for an admin to delete 888 Holdings and then do a proper move - which would have required no page history merging. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Noted. But many thanks for your help anyway. Dormskirk (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did it!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For a sterling effort creating the many, many, many missing articles on FTSE 250 Index companies. Take a bow! Gr1st (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capita - Contracts

Deletion of list would appear to be a rather blunt way of solving the list tag. Is the info available in an easily accessible form elseware via an external link ? . The information contained in the section IMO serves a purpose as readers are probably not aware of the diverse range of services that Capita are are involved with. Are they all actually in the main body of text. ? if not the list should be converted to prose (which i had previously commented on the unsuitability of in some cases) or left as a list (possibly formatted as twin columns to reduce space) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but on the Balfour Beatty article for instance we do not list all their current contracts. Also there is no way of checking the accuracy of the list provided and wiki is supposed to be properly sourced. I will try and draft a sentence that picks up some of the big names Dormskirk (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had another look at it and slightly expanded the paragraph at the start of operations section but I now think that the original list was inaccurate - Capita have lost the Connexions Card contract and I think they have lost several other contracts in the wake of the Aldridge saga - but I don't know which ones Dormskirk (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if uncertain about minor ones, main point was/is people are aware of some but others have not made the news. Agree that not the place for listing all contracts firms have, as firms like BB have so many and just significant, and mainly past ones are of note, especially if the building or structure has its own article to link to. That also why i put comment about subsidiaries on talk page as firms evolve there mergers and acquisitions (and demegers etc) need to be clearly shown as otherwise its not a true picture (i.e massive growth in T/O that's really down to mergers). A lot of History is missing on companies, probably partially due to referencing and citing as fact either putting people off or being edited out as un-sourced, also the issue of company article being subject to the PR/vested interests POV, as they often appear on 1st page of a search on the web. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Wimpey - Customer Experiences

Hi, I accept the statement about poor workmanship and customer service may breach WP:NPOV but I'm not convinced the links to the external sites do. The standards of workmanship provided by Wimpey on some of it's sites is poor, these websites are evidence of this. A lot of people who buy houses with these problems find it difficult/impossible to get problems resolved once again the experience's detailed on these websites are evidence of this. The only so-called "independent" source of information on the quality of Wimpey homes is NHBC but they will never release statistics on the issues they have had to deal with and I would put a big question mark over how independent/neutral they are.

Would you prefer a statement such as: "Several of George Wimpey's customers have developed websites detailing the experience they have had with the George Wimpey homes. These sites are listed below" Bigkevgray (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your introductory sentence is a good start. However you also need to ensure that your selection of websites gives a balanced view - this might be done by adding some links that provide evidence of satisfied customers. Also you might consider a reference to those Wimpey employees who are genuinely trying to improve standards of workmanship Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that can you find any large company that does not have some some dissatisfied customers, any way ?. Other than any court cases not really relavent, as Wikipedia is not a news service, same as pro company PR/adverts are against the guidelines. A balanced comment may be reasonable, but loads of Forum links start to get out of hand and generally fail ext links criteria. But True "NHBC" are not independent as they work for the builders, but there PR gives the impression that they are "Independent".(added comment here as discussion being held here rather than at article talk)- BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your contribution: I agree that link spam is unhelpful Dormskirk (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK flag Icon in Info boxes

I note you have had issues with flag removal in other articles, and I seen several of the UK Co articles were they had been removed (by an IP editor), with UK being added after England in the Info box. As you are one of the main editors of UK Companies from what I seen. I woundered what the current policy on them is, I reinserted them in the co-op + Tesco, then noting above discussion (top of page) wondered whats current thinking on them, as most of the few USA article Ive seen had them.BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment about my being one of the 'main editors' on UK companies. I don't think there is a clear policy for UK companies. For military biographies a view was reached that flags for places of birth and death are unacceptable but flags for countries of allegience are fine...there is no clear equivalent for UK companies. From a brief look at Dow Jones Industrial Average companies there is no clear policy for US companies either Dormskirk (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I Not bother about it then as IP User now removing them thinks policy section on decoration means not they are not suitable to use. I would content thats a miss interpretation of policy. But I'll leave them to it as not worth it then if policy not clear. On international companies its clear indication of origin., but the other editor things otherwise. Id replaced them on several articles as it looked like vandalism originally as no rational give. Then a Named user reverted with coment about WP:Flags which is being repeated by IP editor. Not getting into a revert battle, Thats why I asked you for opinion. So I Pass then, plenty of other articles.
Is there a UK group (Project) for companies, as a lot of the smaller old cos will be non notable to most of the world. I'm currently looking at Derbyshire, Yorkshire & Sheffield ones, Had a look at some of the construction companies. If there isnt one do you think there should be to look after UK companies. -
I am not aware of any project group for UK companies: best of luck with your work on Derbyshire, Yorkshire & Sheffield companies Dormskirk (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC

You might want to take a look at HSBC as a string of IP edits to the info box has resulted in several non displaying section/headings. Not sure how to unravel as several edits back. Other edits removed referenced criticisms. Not sure if a GF edit or POV manipulation as string of IP edits with no summarries. (As you updated loads of FTSE info boxes and are more familiar with format you can probably make more sense of it than me)- BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems to be OK now. Dormskirk (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Dock

Alrite mate,

I see you keep suggesting that Tarmac was responsible for the renovation of the Albert Dock but every source I have states that it was Arrowcroft plc who ran the project in collaboration with the Merseyside Development Corporation (as Albert Dock Company Ltd) and British Waterways. Tarmac may well have been involved, but that would have been as a subcontracted firm and thus they were not responsible for the redevelopment. We can't list every subcontracted firm because they'll be too many so I would suggest the best place for that information is in the Tarmac article itself.

If you still feel that Tarmac should be mentioned then please find a neutral source (i.e. not a tarmac book or website) that specifically credits them. Thanks --Daviessimo (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the project myself. Arrowcroft plc were the developer. Tarmac Construction was not a subcontracter: they were the main contractor. On the basis you are suggesting in every article you would only mention the developer whereas it is of course the main contractor that actually delivers the project. Please look at articles about bridges etc. Dormskirk (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then it can be put in however it needs wording such that Tarmac is known as the contractor and not the developer. I'll be re-writing that section soon so if you want to whack back in the point I'll reword it when I redo the section --Daviessimo (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kier Group

Dear Dormskirk,

I've just added another three paras to Kier's history (and there will be plenty more to come). But I did it while facing an editing conflict page (which has only ever happened to me once before). I had a look at your last edit but could not detect any changes. So if my latest up;oad changes anything you just did, then it is unintentional. --JHB (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one reference knowledge and facts that reside in one's brain (i.e. memory) through having worked in Kier's head office for years? I thought about a website called www.bloomfieldshead - but I guess Wiki wouldn't accept that. For example, Lotz & Kier comes straight out of my memory, because I saw the orders (loads of them) in an old file. I have no way of referencing that to any bibliography. All I have currently is Kier's 'Blue Book' 1955 edition, and I will be adding that as reference in part - but only in part. For the rest, people have to talk to me in person. The same goes for Trafalgar House. --JHB (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with you referencing to Kier's 'Blue Book' 1955 Edition: I am sure it is an authorative source. For the rest you do need to be careful not to use wiki for 'original research'. Your work on Trafalgar House achieves the balance very well Dormskirk (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raised in Parliament

If you want a chuckle, see my edit this evening on 'BT Tower'. The issue created a lot of laughs within the industry forty-five years ago. The things they expected a Government minister to have responsibility for. --JHB (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. In the case of the Ryugyong Hotel Project the crane was left on the roof and Government ministers there do not seem to mind! Dormskirk (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Paul Bernardo from PricewaterhouseCoopers

Why are you removing Paul Bernardo from the Notable current and former employees section?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the short answer is that it breaches Wikipedia:Coatrack which I recommend you read: but I also don't understand how it helps the reader improve his / her understanding of the firm being described Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read Wikipedia:Coatrack and I don't see how it is relevant. Are you suggesting that the PWC article is a cover for the subject of Paul Bernardo? What bias are you suggesting?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am merely suggesting that you have some interest in getting Paul Bernado into the article (after all you have tried several times) when it adds nothing to an understanding of the firm Dormskirk (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is Notable current and former employees not Notable current and former employees who add to an understanding of the firm.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that you now accept that your edit is irrelevant to the article - which is about the firm? Dormskirk (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Bernardo is both notable and a former employee and therefore belongs in that section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please can I suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Coatrack: some of us are trying to improve articles in a constructive way Dormskirk (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this to the article talk page Talk:PricewaterhouseCoopers#Paul_Bernardo_in_Notable_current_and_former_employees.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of MEPC plc

A tag has been placed on MEPC plc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. NeutralHomer • Talk • February 21, 2009 @ 20:01 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add some extra references and some more information to the page (including the infobox), sure I would reconsider. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 21, 2009 @ 20:06

I have recended the template after seeing the extra work you put into it. Thanks for adding to the page. You might get an admin looking over the page just to check on it, but since I recended the template, the page should be safe. Good work! Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 21, 2009 @ 20:25

Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation

You have done a good edit on this, inclduign dealing with most of my typos. For any other year, I would agree that "Companies established in 1720" (which you deleted) was too specific, but I would suggest that we need a category to distinguish the more ancient commercial companies from the mass incorporated under the Companies Acts. In view of the lack of incorporations (other than of canal and railway companies), how about "Joint Stock Companies established before 1750". Any ideas? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I deleted the cat simply because very few categories for companies that old have been created by other wiki editors. There would be some logic to have a category for companies established before the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 but I suppose that would mean a number of categories would need deleting. Perhaps it is just simplest to have a category for each year a company was established regardless of under which act the company was established. I now added the category back into the article and also ensured that category exists Dormskirk (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyds TSB

I saw you removed the old figures from the Lloyds TSB article. Why shouldn't you enter the new ones in stead? Debresser (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Lloyds TSB is now a subsidiary and it would not be normal to insert figures for subsidiaries (they are not normally published). I have inserted them in the Lloyds Banking Group article (in respect of which we can expect to see published figures in the future) Dormskirk (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed the references to the other material? It now appears as though this is an advertisement for this bank. In the interests of transparency, will you please indicate whether you are employed by Lloyds TSB?Maxpax (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the material because they refer to other companies and are therefore not relavant to the article. I am happy to advise you that I do not work for Lloyds: I do not even work in that sector and merely try to improve all FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 articles. Perhaps you would like to disclose who you work for given your string of critical edits against this company? Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have no connections with the financial sector whatsoever either, however, I am conscious that large financial corporations do gain free advertising through wikipedia, and Lloyds TSB seems particularly guilty of this. I have removed the references to other companies (I accept they are not related to the substance of this article), but I believe it is acceptable for the references to the critical articles to remain as these help to present a fuller picture of how large corporations may operate. I would be happy to add critical material to other pages concerning financial corporations as appropriate, rather than to give the impression I am targeting a particular corporation.Maxpax (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we all try and follow the wiki principle of seeking a neutral position rather than adding solely critical material. Certainly external links are to be discouraged Dormskirk (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds eminently sensible.Maxpax (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyds TSB Foundation

I've added some information about Lloyds TSB's charitable work, in the interests of a more balanced appreciation.Maxpax (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Dormskirk (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dixons (DSGi)

I have done a fairly drastic edit on this-- have not changed content much (deleted some corporate waffle, that's all) just rearranged it into sections and stuff. You may want to take a look cos I am sure it is not perfect. Took me quite a while-- I think a lot of it must have been done by someone in PR at Dixons and it was just full of guff.

SimonTrew (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much improved to me - well done. The only comment I would make for further improvement is that the preference in wiki artcles is for prose rather than lists so I would translate the lists you have got for 1990's onwards into prose - it may be just a matter of dropping the bullet points Dormskirk (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Edward Reid

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Edward Reid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable executive.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MBisanz talk 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Just FYI - I moved Leonard Fairclough (businessman) to Leonard Fairclough per WP:NCP. Regards.    7   talk | Δでるた |   07:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fine. Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lewis Hammerson

This person is not notable. Google him, and you get about 2,000 results. I think this meets csd. AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, google is not the sole criteria for notability. The issue is that he founded Britain's largest property company. Dormskirk (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Look at the tag and near the bottom you'll see: Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An admin will make that decision. AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bass

Thanks for the appreciation. Though I knew there was stuff at History Online, I had to poke about for it - it seems I did not create weblinks to the pages when I referenced them before. Someone is bound to pick up on the capital B for brewer so I have set up a lower case link. I note you also developed A de L Long which was a bit of a surprise connection for an oarsman. All this work on pioneering businesspeople is really good stuff. Regards Motmit (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Woodrow

Hello. Taylor Woodrow's uk arm was sold off - all UK housebuilding operations which were part of Taylor Woodrow were transferred to Bryant Homes. So although only the UK construction arm was sold off, the use fo the name taylor Woodrow in the UK was also sold off. Clover345 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it was the legal entity formerly known as Taylor Woodrow plc which is now Taylor Wimpey plc. In any case the Vinci transaction is well documented in the Taylor Woodrow Construction article. Dormskirk (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Taylor Wimpey plc" was formed by the merger of "Taylor Woodrow plc" and "George Wimpey plc". After the merger, "Taylor Woodrow Holdings Limited" was an operating company of "Taylor Wimpey plc" and was involved in housebuilding aond construction activities. Since the acquisition of the UK construction arm by VINCI plc, the name "Taylor Woodrow" is no longer used in the UK and all housebuilding activities, which are still part of "Taylor Wimpey plc", which traded under the name "Taylor Woodrow" now trade under the name "Bryant Homes". Clover345 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you say is correct but the article on Taylor Wimpey is essentially about the listed company that merged with George Wimpey. It makes little sense to say that entity is now a construction business when there is a separate article on Taylor Woodrow Construction - it would be better to expand the latter article if you want to. Dormskirk (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be 2 articles on Taylor Woodrow - Taylor Woodrow and Taylor Woodrow Construction. Clover345 (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The one on Taylor Woodrow is really all about the housing business and the the one on Taylor Woodrow Construction is all about the construction business. Dormskirk (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Taylor Woodrow no longer exists in the UK as a housing business should the articles either be merged or changed to reflect that? Alternatively could the article be moved to Bryant Homes which currently redirects to Taylor Woodrow? Clover345 (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally one article but an editor decided to move the construction material to Taylor Woodrow Construction. You could move the Taylor Woodrow housing material to Bryant Homes but that is quite drastic and it stops any other editor who might be interested in writing the history of Bryant Homes itself (no such article exists) from doing so. I have added a banner at the top of the Taylor Woodrow article which is intended to deal with this. Dormskirk (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on the companies house website shows that "Taylor Woorow Holdings Limited" was dissolved. See http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ad3da9db0de93697c90d817dbe3a7547/companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1245445599#result. Clover345 (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does not appear to be on the list although I suppose it could have had a further name change. If it has been dissolved clearly the legal entity itself cannot have passed to Vinci. Dormskirk (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any references on what happened so I guess the articles will have to be left for the time being. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Best of luck with your work. Dormskirk (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alyle.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Alyle.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
further details now inserted Dormskirk (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Fare

Hi,

Just to let you know that I uploaded another version of the Fine Fare logo on top of your copy. No stepping on toes intended, honest!

If it was a normal image, I'd have chosen a different filename, but both were "fair use" and served identical purposes, so aside from the fact it made sense, the lower resolution version probably would have been deleted anyway (we're not supposed to have more fair use pics than necessary).

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logo you have uploaded is far better than mine: well done! Dormskirk (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nom

Hi. I've nominated Robin Hoare, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Jujutacular talkcontribs 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that Dormskirk (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Fisher

Could I ask you to revisit the move discussion, some pertinent points have surfaced regarding the initial move proposition Thanks, regards, Woody (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have now indicated support for John Arbuthnot Fisher Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, would it be possible to strike your earlier support? Regards, Woody (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robin Hoare

Updated DYK query On September 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robin Hoare, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust

Hi there, I work for Baillie Gifford and we created the entry for Scottish Mortgage. The majority of the content was taken from a book written by a former employee and I was wondering why you have edited it so heavily? If you could let me know. Thanks (BGsdc (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. I edited it because the text that had been inserted had neither been wikified (all the links inserted to other articles) or the references inserted (each statement should be individually referenced back to the relevant page in the book). In principle there is no reason why you cannot use the book to which you refer as the source but you must wikify and reference the text. You should also avoid advertising e.g. "the Company has cut its dividend only once". Finally timelines are to be avoided - it is much better to write an encyclopaedic article in proper prose. Dormskirk (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't jsut remove deadlinks, either tag them with {{deadlink}} to give others the chance to find an alternative, or look for archvied copies. A relevant archived copy for all UK government websites (including MOD) can almost always be found at the UK Government Web Archive - work is also underway which will mean that shortly any government page, rather than generating a 404 error once it's gone, will automatically redirect users to the archive. David Underdown (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. Thanks for the suggestion. Dormskirk (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kier Group

I work for Kier Group and have noticed that you have made several alterations to the Kier Group wikipedia page over the past year. Kier Group recently changed its logo and, although very similar, it no longer features the word 'Group' (The company is still called Kier Group but as part of a rebranding exercise, the logo just reads Kier). As a beginner to Wikipedia I am a bit green and don't feel comfortable attempting to update the image but wondered of this is something you could do as a previous contributor? --Kat thorpe (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. now done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your services

We don't have a British Army barnstar, but you deserve this barnstar for all your hard and apparently unappreciated work on stubbing out British senior officers. Very helpful.

File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG The World War Barnstar
To Dormskirk, for his hard work in creating articles on British senior officers who often served during the Second World War Skinny87 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny beat me to it! Meant to say well done on creating an article on Ivor Thomas when I saw you'd wikilinked him yesterday. Nice that someone's finally done it, now I can embellish it with Arnhem stuff (I know nothing else about him!). Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very many thanks to both of you Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Army flag

As I understand it, the idea of a flag for teh army is pretty recent (though I ahven't been able to pin down an exact date for its introduction). Generally flags etc are not sued on articles unless they were in use at the tiem relevant to the article, so teh British Army flag shouldn't be added to infoboxes willy-nilly. David Underdown (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Point taken. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governors of Gibraltar

Hi Dormskirk. Many thanks for your ongoing work on the Governors of Gibraltar, it's much appreciated! Would you be interested on working on any other articles on the military history of Gibraltar? Regards, --Gibmetal 77talk 16:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I think it will take me some time to complete the clean up of the older articles but I will bear in mind. Thanks again. Dormskirk (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just give me a shout if you decide to take it up : ) --Gibmetal 77talk 12:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your hard work on these articles! You may also be interested in the following articles:
You may also find some military history-related articles in this list of proposed articles that you may wish to create or even propose some yourself. Best regards, --Gibmetal 77talk 18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for that Dormskirk (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Deal

Not a lot I'm afraid. It would appear he died late in 1758/early 1759, as this http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=3556225 is probably his will. I'll be able to look at that (for free) the week after next when I'm back in the office, which may shed some light on relatives - probably won't be easy to read though, may even still be in Latin at that date. David Underdown (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Many thanks. This is very helpful. Dormskirk (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern College

Hi Dormskirk! The Old Malvernians/alumnae section that you contributed to in Malvern College finally got so long that it had to be split off into a separate list page. In doing so, it's been found that for many of those noble people there is no actual proof that they ever went to the school. However, they probably did, and the entries were made in good faith. Nevertheless, the rules require everything in the encyclopedia to be verifiably sourced. It would be great therefore, if you could take a look at the list and help out if you can with providing some references. The people all have their own Wiki articles, but it is no guarantee that the mentions of Malvern College (if any) are correctly cited. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell

What I've covered is fairly comprehensive, but I ran out of steam rather just as he was about to get involved in the Boer War. I've also been unable to track down a copy of ‘Divisional Commander in France: General Sir David Campbell GCB’, Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, 118 (2) (April 1988), pp. ??, by Donald Cook which look sas if it would be very useful. A section on Malta is quite a challenge too - it was a very interesting time in the island's history that he was governor to say the least! David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I think the article would benefit enormously from all the work you have already done Dormskirk (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YAS HOTEL

Dormskirk, I am witting you in regards to the YAS Hotel page. I believe you are out of line on this one, the information provided gives clear unbiased information. other projects list principals as well as the philosophy behind the project as well as consultants involved. This page highlights all the people involved in the project down to the food vendors, it is a complete list and yet you remove the content. How in your mind is this post blatant advertising? the page talks about a built project and the gives the information that describes the art, culture, history, construction, and people/teams involved. It seems that asymptote is one of the only teams that cares enough to list their specific team. The beauty of wikipedia is that the other firms can come along and add there team members as they see fit, yet they choose not too, as of now. As for the sourcing while there could be more and should be more sources, the ones listed already show enough proof of the article's validity.

the only question I truly have is how we can resolve this issue. what do you need to see in order for you to be happy with the content? Your post in insufficient in comparison to mine, especially for an architectural connesuir like myself. People should and want to know who was in charge of the fire saftey, landscape, architectural, and every other facet of the design and you have basically said no to that. let's fix this problem.

yours truly hz

Hz1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I am happy to debate this with you but first please take a look at Burj Al Arab or Burj Khalifa. Both these articles have been prepared in a way that does comply with Wikipedia policies. If you are in any doubt please read Wikipedia:About. The basic rule is that any information needs to be fully sourced from independent sources and advertising is to be avoided. Feel free to expand the article but, please, follow wikipedia guidance. Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know I updated the post with proper citations. I didn't know any other way for you to be able to review my changes with out posting it to the web, but if citation was the problem, it should be clear now. I still don't understand your advertising comments. Asymptote designed it and needs to talk about the project in order for readers to understand. this project is fantastic and people want to know more about what went into it, is that advertising? I didn't see that as a part of the rules. Hz1234 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Advertisements and you will understand the rules. Listing all the members of staff involved in the project from Asymtote clearly is advertising for Asymtote. Please do not unilaterally amend articles when discussion is ongoing. That is also unacceptable. By the way, can you not find some good sources other than Asymtote e.g. local newspapers? Dormskirk (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the amending, I told you I didn't know how to do it otherwise, which is why i stated that. as for the sources, I attached citations from very popular and legitimate architectural publications as well citations from the source itself. I tried to show the double citation for true authentication. when it comes to the advertising I am still not clear about your policy. that page is very hard to decipher and the way i see it, still, it is not advertising. It is a list of the teams involved.

for example, hey friend who designed the lighting on the grid shell?... I know lets look it up in the encyclopedia (Wikipedia) oh we can't its advertising and thats not allowed. that conversation doesn't seem to be logical. It should go like this the answer is ARUP Lighting it says so on Wikipedia.

advertising yes by the strictest definition, but is it actually advertising no. it is simply listing the factual information about the project that the wiki community desires. Do you just have a problem with the laundry list of consultants? if it was in a body of text would it be acceptable? I don't have time to write an essay listing in full prose that massive list. Instead I made a down and dirty list of consultants.

on your advertising page it states that distractions are not wanted and are not ideal.I believe the organized and properly cited and linked list of consultants is something that the page and viewers would value. give me a specific quote that bans lists of people involved in the project. also did i mention this is officially cited on multiple sources so the consultant list is accurate and legitimate

Hz1234 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you may not feel you have time to write an essay but I am afraid that is what Wikipedia is about - if you want really good examples about how to do it correctly please follow Burj Al Arab or Burj Khalifa. Those of us who have been writing for wikipedia for years take pride in the quality of our articles - we do not simply prepare a "down and dirty list". But please do not just advertise company or staff names. Dormskirk (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, well it seems that you have decided your position. How do I take this to a higher level? because the list is organized, linked, cited, and factual. I just can't see how by putting it in essay form the information will change from advertising to completely fine...SAME INFORMATION! Could you please forward this to a higher power. It is obvious where you stand and it is not the answer I want to hear and that I believe should be correct. Who do I need to talk to?

Thank you for the discussion

HZ

Edit: you are an admin correct or am i just assuming this? Hz1234 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dormskirk&oldid=339361221"