Talk:Westminster Group

General talk

Please note the issues with this page have now been resolved by myself and EVB-WIKI. I trust this meets wikipedia's satisfaction and quality that readers come to expect. Please get back in touch if not. Otherwise, please can this delete template be removed now? Thanks. Mcneillg 17:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(I have permission from the copyright author to place this information on Wikipedia. I shall be in the process of emailing this over. Please contact me through my account for any other questions.)

I have contacted westminster who are in the process or sending an email to you granting permission of the reproduction of the content of the questioned page. Please contact either of us before taking any action on this page!

Mcneillg 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mcneillg 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) At which point will this article be approved and have the copyright violation (which is now rectified) removed? Also, will this junky communication on the talk page be removed? Many thanks.

An administrator will get to it anytime now. I believe they do the uncontested deletes first and allow time for the contested ones to be worked on. In my experience, this is usually resolved within 24 hours. --Evb-wiki 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Talk" pages help provide the history of the article and should not be deleted. Wikipedia's policy is to archive discussions that are out of date, rather than remove the discussion. There is no need to be concerned though, the comments on this page are pretty common for new articles, and most editors know to take note of the date stamps and timeline of the comments. --Evb-wiki 19:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Evb-wiki! I see you've been helping no end which I am very grateful! What kind of article makes it to the featured content front page? Is it something particularly exciting/informative/educational? Many thanks again for all the assistance to make this a worth-while page. Mcneillg 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Featured article. --Evb-wiki 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads like spam

Greetings. Your article appears to be wikispam, i.e., an advertisement masquerading as an article. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted.

When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view and adding context, e.g., historical relevance or community recognition. Please provide sources to establish the subject's notability. Of course, the need for sources goes beyond notability. Information added to an article must be verifiable, and facts included must be attributed to a reliable source. Please also see Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. Thanks.

--Evb-wiki 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I invite anyone who wishes to 're-write' the article to not make it sound like 'wikispam'.

All references and comments relating to the article is verifiable by looking directly at their site, looking at recent press in all mainstream newspapers etc. Please review the evidence linked to satisfy any doubts.

I have no re-worded the page in my own words. I hope this now meets approval. If it does not please come back to me why and I shall work with you to ensure it does not violate any policies.

Okay. I've pulled the news articles down as refs. and reorganized it a little. It still needs quite a bit of work. Please see the Wikipedia manual on style. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've also re-worded a few sections and placed more information (of my own words) in the document. There are plenty of other stories out there supporting various paragraphs but wasn't sure how many to place!

I was also thinking of internally linking various sections to other wikipedia articles so if you/anyone else sees a section that could have further explanation please feel free to expand.

Mcneillg 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)With reference to obtaining permission from Westminster Group Plc relating to direct duplication of copyrighted material; whilst I have managed to obtain an email in writing giving me permission to copy their information page and another page, they said that they were looking into the implications of the GFDL license and were unable to send immediate confirmation to Wikipedia. However, now that the page has been re-written in my own wording may I assume the Wikipedia foundation are happy with the article now and that it is no longer in violation? It's also been tidied up to which I am very grateful for the support - I am sure this will be very valuable page to those readers interested in Sir Malcolm and those who follow interest in security and the company. Please get back to me with further input if required! ... I now have much reading to do on Manual of Style etc. Thanks for welcoming me on-board Evb-wiki!

Start

I'm starting to fix it up.Wipsenade (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

speedy removed, but .. .

I've removed the delete tag, as the article is significantly improved. There's still a good deal of self-praise to remove: I suggest taking a look at every adjective and seeing if its necessary. Probably the article is still too close to the web site; a slight paraphrase is not sufficient. Try rewriting the first paragraph from scratch, without looking at the previous text or the web. WP would be much happier with the release. We might even think a picture appropriate under the same conditions. DGG 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. Anybody who would like to assist me on this task please let me know - I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, and whilst I am working on other articles I need someone with a little more experience for this one! Many thanks. Mcneillg 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorces

Hang on, I'll try to source it out.Wipsenade (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Westminster Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810023021/http://www.wg-plc.com/index.shtml to http://www.wg-plc.com/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130112425/http://www.wg-plc.com/media/video/ to http://www.wg-plc.com/media/video/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)