User talk:RobRum

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, RobRum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Zenith Staybrite logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Zenith Staybrite logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Zenith Staybrite for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zenith Staybrite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenith Staybrite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Anglian Water: Inaccurate/inappropriate edit summaries; removal of referenced content

This edit summary states "Citations for "serial offender" comment were unverifiable." These citations are:

• Houlder, Vanessa (31 July 2003). "Anti-pollution agency dishes more dirt on big business". Financial Times (London). p. 5. ProQuest document ID 249522665.
• Freeman, James (31 July 2003). "Tough pollution fines fail to curb repeat offenders". The Herald (Glasgow). p. 7. ProQuest document ID 332927929.
• Swinford, Steven (18 October 2009). "Fines fail to stop river polluters: Campaigners warn water firms are untouched by 'meaningless' sanctions". Sunday Times (London). p. 8. ProQuest document ID 316421404.

Presumably, you claim they are "unverifiable" simply because you personally could not click on them and read them online? Per Wp:Verifiability: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries, or in off-line sources" (my emphasis.) If you see a reference from a book that you don't own, do you consider that "unverifiable" also? Just this once, I will quote to you the relevant phrases from the cited articles:

• "Some of the supposed champions of corporate social responsibility are repeat offenders when it comes to pollution, the Environment Agency reported yesterday: United Utilities, Anglian Water Services, Thames Water Utilities, BP Oil, TotalFinaElf and Tesco were ranked among the worst polluters for the second year running."
• "The Environment Agency said yesterday that although there were more prosecutions taken against corporate polluters, 20% were repeat offenders who had failed to learn from previous convictions[...] Significant repeat offenders in 2002 include United Utilities (£327,500), Anglian Water Services Ltd (£285,000), Thames Water Utilities Ltd (£135,000), BP Oil Ltd (£60,000), TotalFinaElf (£54,000), 3C Waste Ltd (£17,000) and Tesco Stores Ltd (£10,000). All were top offenders in 2001 too."
• "Water companies and factories are threatening to undo two decades of work to clean Britain's rivers by continuing to spew out sewage and chemicals. They are largely responsible for 1,500 serious pollution offences in the past five years, killing hundreds of thousands of fish and destroying wildlife habitats and ecosystems.[...] Anglian Water is also a repeat offender, having been fined a total of £328,405 for 20 incidents of water pollution."

In future, I suggest you WP:AGF and visit your public library if you don't have the book/microfilm/publication/journal on your desk in front of you. I have reverted your edit. Keri (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Adding: Taking into consideration that which I now know, I cannot help myself but be slightly concerned that you may have a conflict of interest regarding Anglian Water's internet profile. I will take this opportunity to remind you that where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. When someone is being compensated, the integrity of the work, including the likelihood the content remains neutral toward those who are doing the compensating, is reasonably considered to be compromised. Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Keri (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Further Search Marketing

Hello, RobRum. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Further Search Marketing, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Keri (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Acteon Group Ltd

Hello, RobRum. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Acteon Group Ltd, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Keri (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Project Dawnstar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Project Dawnstar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Dawnstar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seattle (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Acteon Group logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Acteon Group logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)