Talk:Privateer Holdings

Should make Tilray a separate article
I have moved articles in the past to change the full title, but this is a more complicated concept.

The Tilray subsidiary has become far more significant than the fact that Privateer owns it. IMHO, it is time to start a new article re: Tilray and move much of the content about that company to the new page. After that is done, I could do some work on it for any necessary improvement.

I need help, or at least a comment on the above plan. Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See Splitting to see how to put up some templates and start a discussion to suggest a split. Ron h jones (Talk) 02:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update re: Tilray has been deleted by another editor
Of course, my plan to start a new article about Tilray may not be relevant if User Scope creep continues to delete new content that I have added.

I am not adding advertising content! I added fully cited content from major news media including Bloomberg. See my User page: I have no personal interest in cannabis stock, but I have been updating articles such as Cannabis in Canada for some months now. The legal and business aspects of the topic are of interest to me. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter K Burian. I have no interest in removing stuff in an arbitrary manner, only stuff which is not specific to the article, or promotional or spam in nature. This is encyclopedia. This is not Bloomberg. You seem to write in a promotional manner, particular adding business minutia which has no purpose on Wikipedia, and has little value to the average reader, and is already replicated on Bloomberg. Most of what I have removed can be easily found on Bloomberg. Nor am I stopping you from creating another article on Tilray, although it is likely it will fail WP:NCORP at an Afd. Complaining about another editor who is editing the article in WP:GOODFAITH is not good faith. scope_creep (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, scope_creep. I guess we disagree on the term "encyclopedic". Why is the article Canopy Growth Corporation encyclopedic if the similar article that I am proposing (or the content I had added here) is "promotional" or "business minutia". I did not create Canopy Growth Corporation and am only one of many editors working on it.


 * One of the significant aspects of that article is that Canopy was the largest cannabis company in the world. Now, Tilray is the largest in the world. How is that not significant? Or the fact that the stock has increased in value by 1100% in a few months. (And in an attempt at being non-promotional, for neutral POV, I added the fully-cited sentence indicating that a third of investors believe that the stock is overpriced and are short-selling it.)


 * Complaining about another editor who is editing the article in WP:GOODFAITH is not good faith. I complained only about the fact that an editor deleted my fully-cited, good faith paragraph, without a meaningful explanation. Is this not something we might have discussed in Talk, before it was all deleted? Was not a single word of that paragraph of value? I hope we can collaborate to make this a better article because I believe that is both your goal and mine. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. The Tesla, Inc. article is one that contains a great deal of "promotional" content and "business minutia". I wish someone would address that. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)