Talk:Accenture/Archive 1

IPO
The IPO section is completely incorrect. I do not know how to add the references to the article, but here they are. I also removed the day's low comment as the day's low was the IPO. Also, the nearly 1.7 billion gained was in the first day, not the first week. http://investor.accenture.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=129731&p=irol-faq http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DD173AF93AA25754C0A9679C8B63 http://money.cnn.com/2001/07/19/deals/accenture/index.htm DJMoney

William D. Green
The CEO of Accenture links back to Accenture and not to a page about himself. Consider removing it.

Spamming/advertising
I suggest a standard penalty for spamming: for every attempt that is made to insert commercially motivated spam, we deviate one notch from NPOV and add more and more uncomplimentary information about the company and its directors, origins, behaviour, and what's more we add it to the Disinfopedia as well where expert dirt-diggers will no doubt add to what we can find. So repeated attempts to spam the Wikipedia with advertising will result in the article being a total trash job on the company, which presented in "neutral" context will carry even more weight. It should be easy to find volunteers to carry out this strategy. EofT 17:29, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps also, we should make it a standard that one new clearly *not* NPOV link is permitted to something on the list of ethics topics, like say "evil", as in my example here, for each spam attempt. So the present article is down one, since a new spam attempt was made. Anyone care to do the honours? I suggest fraud as an obvious link considering Accenture's role in Y2K scams, and how they were kneedeep in the projects that say Enron claimed were worth so much money. EofT

- I've deleted "with a small portion of business (under 5% last reported) in management consulting with the Strategy and Business Architecture division." Someone can put it back if they provide a reference to the 5% figure - otherwise, I'm not sure it should be in the article. Alexd 18:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- The source of this is an Accenture employee presentation during which people in the audience how much work is Business strategy. I am looking through an SEC report to verify this. If you insist on removing unattributed facts from this article, I suggest you also find the other 50,000 present on Wikipedia. :) User:Namlemez

ok thanks learned a lot...

---

Is the "Business Capability Specification" section really useful here?

- It seems a very detailed and narrow piece of information, in what is a high-level article

- It seems to imply that this is produced for all engagements, which is obviously wrong

- Also specific reference to "consultants and analysts" seems wrong to me. I would prefer just "consultants" (as a generic term), but could just about accept "Analysts and Consultants" (refering to specific grades)

Overall, I just think the description is loose and misleadingly specific. Anyone care to defend it, or can I delete it? User:Hielant

Internally Accenture utilizes both of the terms (analysts and consultants) depending on where you are within the company. Trapped at ACN

I updated the "controversy" to move it towards a NPoV. There was also some content that wasn't third person. I fixed that as well. I wonder if we should create a new heading for the controversy. Ziroby 21:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

UnitedHealth Group
Update 10/18/06: This IP Address, 198.203.175.175, is a web proxy for UnitedHealth Group (Stock symbol UNH) and as such represents over 70,000 potential users. 198.203.175.175 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Note from another user at this IP (see above): Accenture has a very large presense at UnitedHealth Group and it (the latest vandalism) could be an actual Accenture employee or someone else that deals with accenture.

Untitled
automation test ... the have a revert robots.... hey this could be fun. Flatglass 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The figure in excess of £0097,000 BILLION in sales seems like a gross error to me. Conside removing it.

84.233.227.59 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Rashid Mansoor

Fair use rationale for Image:Andersen ConsultingLogo.jpg
Image:Andersen ConsultingLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JoeGlickauf.jpg
Image:JoeGlickauf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AndersenConsultingLogo.gif
Image:AndersenConsultingLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were not a bot you might realise that the rationale for using the image is that Anderson Consulting as rights holder used their logo in the advertisment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1 link not working
The link to Accenture Locations->Chicago (Item 1 on References list) is not working. Consider removing the ref link in infobox.

Pizzadeliveryboy 06:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Accenture logo.png
Image:Accenture logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Extensive deletions - early hours of July 4th
On July 4, 2009 a great deal of information, more than a third of the article, was removed by this edit. Most of the section "Tax haven headquarters" was removed, as well as all of sections "Movement of jobs outside the U.S." and "Loss of sensitive data". Most (but not all) of the information removed was uncited.

Thus far, no one seems to have noticed the extent of what was removed, or attempted to rescue any of it by finding citations. I came to this article tracking a broken section-name link to the deleted "Loss of sensitive data", my own interest. I'll try to restore and cite as much that section as I can. Anyone interesting in restoring the other deleted sections, which do seem of encyclopedic interest, might want to get involved. --CliffC (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have now added citations to and restored the "Loss of sensitive data" section that was removed July 4. Rather than have the content unavailable to readers while someone finds time to cite them, I've tagged the other two removed sections "references needed" and restored them as they were July 4.  --CliffC (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing criticism
I removed the following, for reasons stated in the edit summary. Normal outsourcing isn't a notable inclusion for a company's encyclopedia article.


 * Accenture has been criticized repeatedly by Lou Dobbs during his tenure at CNN and others for moving many jobs outside the U.S., resulting in loss of work and employment for some U.S. citizens. This is because Accenture utilizes a network of Global Delivery Centres around the world (seven in Europe, seven in Southeast Asia, seven in North America, and one in Africa on the island-nation of Mauritius ) to reduce cost and increase profit margin in outsourcing deals such as software development, application maintenance, and call center support. Its technology services competitors such as IBM also heavily leverage this model and face similar criticism.— DMCer  ™  22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Loss of sensitive data section
Someone who is familiar with the case should probably rewrite this. The whole section only says that Accenture was involved, not how. The first time I read it I was like "what the hell is that doing here", since the only thing the section explains is the type of data lost and that the tape was lost by an intern employed by the state of ohio. Without further research I didn't understand it at all, only after following some of the linked articles I guess that the intern was assigned to the project with an Accenture consultant as a supervisor who instructed him to do so, but it's still guessing. --170.252.248.203 (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem to give a lot of undue weight to a relatively minor incident. Feel free to trim it down to a small paragraph of relevant information. There's no need for it to be as long as it is, since you're correct that it fails to even clearly state what role the firm played in the incident. I looked around a little bit (I'm not familiar with the case), and the fact that I can't find a lot of specific references to what exactly the firm did seems to indicate the article is giving undue weight to this.— DMCer  ™  18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've balanced the article. It was clear from the sources I researched that Accenture had nothing to do with the issue, and allowing the intern to take the data to/from work was plainly a bad decision on his OMB manager's part. I may use the chunk of removed text to create a new article documenting the incident. I'm pasting it below.— DMCer ™  23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In September 2007, Accenture was implicated in a high-profile case of loss of sensitive data (sometimes referred to as a "data spill") on individual American citizens. Consulting companies Accenture and Compuware had been developing the Ohio Administrative Knowledge System (OAKS), an information system for the state of Ohio. The lost information was being used in the development of the system and was on a backup computer tape stolen on June 10, 2007..  The stolen tape contained the names and Social Security numbers of: every Ohio state employee; more than half a million people who were owed tax refunds by the state of Ohio; 602 Ohio Lottery winners who had not cashed their winnings; 84,000 welfare recipients; and tens of thousands of other individuals.  It also contained taxpayer identification numbers for Medicaid providers and bank account information for school districts and local governments.  The tape also contained sensitive information related to the state of Connecticut, also an Accenture client, that was being used in Ohio to develop a similar state government information system.


 * The tape was stolen from the car of 22 year old Jared Ilovar, an intern in the Ohio Office of Budget and Management, who had been assigned to nightly take home a backup tape and return it the next day, as part of a data security program. Ilovar's car and four others were broken into outside his apartment complex. He was fired by Ohio governor Ted Strickland during the storm of public indignation after the theft became public. In a statement to the Columbus Dispatch, Ilovar said: "I was a victim of a random car theft, and now I am the scapegoat for the state of Ohio. On the subject of instructions, I was never instructed by my employer on how to properly secure, store or watch over the data tapes at night. ... I was the newest person in the door, so I inherited the job of taking the data tapes out of the building. That was the extent of my instructions."

Employee count
Please do not change the employee count or other statistics without citing a reliable source. Personal guesses or wishful thinking are not reliable sources. --CliffC (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorporation
Given that the GAO "stated that "prior to incorporating in Bermuda, Accenture was operating as a series of related partnerships and corporations under the control of its partners through the mechanism of contracts with a Swiss coordinating entity."" in the change of incorporation section having "Previously incorporated in the USA, then in Bermuda," in the main section seems wrong.

Phrasing such as " Originally an American partnership, before becoming a global partnership, the post IPO company first registered in Bermuda before moving to Ireland on ..." would be better?

This better conveys the USA partnership -> global (Swiss Coordinated) partnership -> Bermuda company at incorporation Abz zeus (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Chicago
A couple of times I have removed the unsourced claim that the company is "based in Chicago" or has its "main business office" or "main US office" in Chicago, but it keeps getting put back in when vandalism is reverted. I'm aware of the company's historical association with Chicago, but can anyone provide a source for any of the above? If not, let's leave it out. Mister Ant (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot say that Chicago was ever the "main office" but -- the worldwide training facility was (and is) located in St. Charles -- a western suburb of Chicago. It is also the case that Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) had some other major facilities in the Chicago metro, especially in Northbrook. SunSw0rd (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I was aware of it in the mid-80s through at least the early 90s, Chicago contained "the Chicago Office" of the consulting division as well as many organizational pieces that were referred to as "World Headquarters" or "WHQ". My understanding was that for the most part, Chicago Office was housed at 33 West Monroe, and the WHQ was housed mostly in 69 West Washington, 100 S. Wacker.  Wrotemovie (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Arthur Andersen was founded in Chicago, hence the historic ties. A lot of training facilities were shared AA/AC before the split and based in Chicago. The company is now Dublin based, so I'd have "the pre Accenture partnership was historically based in Chicago but now the company is based in New York and Dublin.

When the company was incorporated they chose to incorporate in Bermuda and have subsequently moved to Dublin Abz zeus (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Encylcopedic
Most of the information in this article is not encyclopedic. Where does this information come from? It looks like most of it is from employee viewpoints or Accenture literature/propoganda. Those are both primary sources and not allowed. If this information comes from other sources, these sources should be cited. And many information is not from a neutral point of view. That should be cleaned up (or deleted), and future editors need to be careful to cite their sources and keep a NPoV. Ziroby 19:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Or it's just public knowledge? Where have you been in the past few years, Ziroby?

The information should be in there. It just needs to have a nuteral point of view. And there should be sources for the information. Maybe there's a news article that mentions it? Or if it is from company literature, mention that. Ziroby 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I agree with Ziroby, this entire article reads like a performance brochure rather than a descriptive article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.224.177 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy and criticism"
Hmm. It seems that the "Controversy and criticism" section makes up about a half of this article. I wonder if the examples presented merit such attention... (Not to mention that a lot of it is unsourced.) --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know if the examples merit such attention, but Andersen Consulting has had a dismal reputation for a very long time. They had to do the name change before the enron scandal, because they were already reviled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 24.6.157.14, you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. 69.11.13.24 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This section should be removed. It is related to Arthur Anderson, not Accenture. Anderson performed accounting services, Accenture is an IT consulting business. The doings of Anderson are irrelevant to an article on Accenture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.18.110 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen municipality mess
Somebody should add something about the mess Accenture created when they took over the handling of paychecks for the Copenhagen municipality. --Bagande 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What happened? Maybe you can tell us something? 216.231.36.203 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only english language source that I have been able to find is this blog.--Bagande 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, while we're at it, let's note everything wrong every company has ever done! Let's name all of the issues with IBM, Apple, Sony...oh wait, you mean that's not possible?  69.11.13.24 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted text under Subsidiaries
It seems like some text has been accidently deleted from this phrase in the Accenture article (under 4. Subsidiaries):

"Accenture Technology Solutions is a subsidiary of Accenture providing technology skills[citation needed] to clients and comprises the entThe Philippines and Romania where they work in Accenture Delivery Centers."

someone who knows what it said, could perhaps correct this?

JohnAndersenSr (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors in text
At the top of the page the summary box shows the number of employees. It doesn't look correct no matter which direction you read it in. Perhaps some further proof reading of the entire article would be a good idea?

46.233.70.99 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Correcting information about Booz & Company
Hello, as mentioned above, I'm currently working on behalf of Accenture to improve this article. Recently, a user made an edit to this article, adding a section called "Recent news" which includes a single sentence: "In July 2013, Accenture announced it was in talks to acquire its rival Booz & Company." However, this is incorrect and isn't in the source provided—Reuters repeats speculative reports from the Wall Street Journal that Accenture and Booz are in talks, and at no point does it say that Accenture has announced these talks. Since this is very clearly incorrect, I'd like to request that this sentence either be removed completely, or changed to read "In July 2013, Reuters reported that Accenture was in talks to acquire its rival Booz and Company." Thanks, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is now ✅. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Making some updates to this article
Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of Accenture to help improve their article here on Wikipedia. Because of my financial conflict of interest, I'm posting here so that volunteer editors can take a look at my suggestions rather than making the edits myself.

Currently, this article suffers from a number of inaccuracies. In some cases, these are simply the result of information being out-of-date, but in others, incorrect and unsourced claims are present. As a first pass, here are a few small updates I'd like to request:

Infobox
First, I have a few small changes to the infobox that I'd like to request.
 * Pierre Nanterme's current title in the article, "(Executive Chairman & CEO)", is incorrect. It should be simply "(Chairman & CEO)".
 * Also in the infobox, I'd like to suggest a small addition to the "Revenue" line. Currently, the amount of revenue reads "US$29.77". However, more commonly used in Accenture's industry is the net revenue, so I'd suggest adding that figure as well, changing the revenue line to read "US$29.77 (US$27.9 billion net)" (the current source contains the new figure).
 * Finally, in early June, "management consulting" was removed under "Industry". However, this is a major part of Accenture's business and is an area of work they are well known for. There was no reason given for removing it, so I'd like to suggest that this be added back in.

Introduction
The introductory paragraph currently contains the sentence "Accenture's current clients include 94 of the Fortune Global 100 and more than three-quarters of the Fortune Global 500." However, this figure is out of date. I'd like to suggest we update this with the current figures (and add a source for the information while we're at it):

This information is compiled by Accenture each year and does not tend to be published by independent sources (and if it did, it would simply be providing the information from Accenture) so I believe that the company's fact sheet is an acceptable source for this detail.


 * This is reasonable. I verified it, and will make the change. Please be aware that the PDF says Proprietary and Confidentialin the lower left-corner of the second page. Are you comfortable with appearing as a linked reference? It is current but not new (or unreleased) information, so I don't have a problem with that. I merely wanted to point it out.


 * Next, I am going to use this as the citation markup:


 * For company leadership, the three individuals who are Chairman and CEO, CFO and COO are adequate for WP purposes. I will update the article accordingly. --FeralOink (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Leadership
Finally, under the Leadership section, only one member of the board of directors is listed currently. This seems like an omission, particularly since the directors of the company are mentioned in secondary sources, as well as listed on the Accenture website. I'd suggest adding the complete board:

I'll be back in the future with a few other changes that I'd also like to see made to the article, but I'm hoping to get these issues fixed first. If someone has time to take a look at these changes and, if they look okay, move them over into the article, I'd appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi FeralOink, thanks so much for looking at this for me! I really appreciate the help. As to the PDF being marked as confidential and proprietary—it's fine to go ahead and link to it.


 * For Leadership—the issue with the current section, to my mind, is that it lists only one board member, Gilles C. Pélisson, seemingly at random. What do you think about removing that section entirely? It just seems to me that the list should either be complete and current, or not there at all. If you feel the directors should not be listed, can you remove Pélisson?


 * Also, I'm curious if you have thoughts on the changes to the infobox that I suggested. I'd like to get these in place (although we can certainly revisit the infobox if we need to tweak the headquarters information; see my talk for my reply on that topic).


 * Thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey FeralOink, Thanks for making some of the edits requested above, I really appreciate your help! As I've also explained on your Talk page, there are still a few of the edits from my request that remain, so I've copied and pasted these below. Let me know what you think about these.


 * "Also in the infobox, I'd like to suggest a small addition to the "Revenue" line. Currently, the amount of revenue reads "US$29.77". However, more commonly used in Accenture's industry is the net revenue, so I'd suggest adding that figure as well, changing the revenue line to read "US$29.77 (US$27.9 billion net)" (the current source contains the new figure)."
 * "Finally, in early June, "management consulting" was removed under "Industry" [in the infobox]. However, this is a major part of Accenture's business and is an area of work they are well known for. There was no reason given for removing it, so I'd like to suggest that this be added back in."
 * Additionally, there's still just a single board member listed under "Leadership". It really seems to me like we should either remove this single member, or include the entire board. Thoughts?


 * Thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding FeralOink's recent comments/questions/etc.
Hey FeralOink, moving our discussion of the specifics over here for the moment. That's great about the revenue; I definitely appreciate you adding it, and all of your help here! Let me know when you have your questions prepped and I can run them up the ladder and see.

A couple things about the edits you recently made:
 * In Leadership — I'm thinking we should swap out "Martin I. (Marty) Cole - Group Chief Executive-Technology" for the firm's COO, Jo Deblaere. As you can see from this page, there are actually a number of group chief executives, so I don't think it makes much sense to only have one in there, but no info about the COO.
 * One other thing about leadership, while we're talking about that section—now that it's been trimmed down, it seems so short. I'm starting to rethink my previous suggestion, and wonder if it wouldn't be better to include the list of board members now, especially since it's already been prepped and ready to go (I've included it again below). What do you think?


 * In "Formation and early years" under History, you removed a couple of sentences: "Joe Glickauf was Arthur Andersen's project leader responsible for the payroll processing automation project. Now considered to be the father of computer consulting, Glickauf headed Arthur Andersen's Administrative Services division for 10 years." Although this was unsourced, Glickauf was an extremely important part of Accenture during its early years, and the company feels that this information does belong in the article. It looks like the previous language was actually copied and pasted from an Accenture blog, though, so good call on removing the specific wording. I've prepped new language based on an independent source. I'd suggest adding it in the same location in the article as the material you removed:

Regarding your questions from my Talk:


 * I'm not sure how best to deal with the (re)incorporation — let me have a think, and ask Accenture what they think, too.
 * Regarding "Accenture's three practices, lines of businesses and methods" — I'm not sure what you mean here. The subsections under Operations? Most of that section looks okay to me at first glance, but I can take a closer look if you think it's that problematic.

I do have a few other changes that I'd like to see implemented here, and I'll be posting these in the next few days. Think you'd be willing to work through those with me as well? Thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey again FeralOink, thanks for making the update to the revenue box, much appreciated! I'm wondering if you have thoughts on the other suggestions I posted? If you're too busy to look at this, I certainly understand, and can reach out to other editors for more opinions and help here. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)