User talk:Rangoon11/Archive 1

DLA Piper
Yes, please delete the Awards and rankings section, combine the clients section with the above section. Regarding the list of offices section, a person could accomplish the same thing with "69 offices on 5 continents" or something to that effect. Talk ToMe cintel ati 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will make those edits now. Regarding the offices, merely stating "69 offices on 5 continents" does not convey the locations and represents a loss of factual and cited information which I personally feel is appropriate and in no way advertising.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the flags, all they do to the article is add flash. if anything list the countries that it operates in. Talk ToMe cintel ati 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes the flags do look attractive, but our job as editors is not to make the articles of commercial organisations look unattractive just for the sake of it. And many other law firm articles use flags in exactly the same way. I completely agree that we should avoid any advertising type material, but equally we should not discriminate against commercial organisations by making their articles unattractive or removing completely factual material which is appropriate.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (I was orignialy going to put this on the article's talk page) No. the problem is NOT that the flags look nice, in fact I LIKE the flags, but in the middle of the article they are too much. As a compromise, I propose delete the flags and keep the list.-- Talk ToMe cintel ati 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But what do you mean by 'too much'? They stand out visually and appear in the middle of the screen (on some PCs anyhow) because the article is currently quite short, but that is not per se an argument against them. Over time one would expect that the article will develop and that sections like History will be expanded. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * exactly, but now, the flags make the short article seem like an advert.-- Talk ToMe cintel ati 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But there is a very big difference between a completely factual and cited article about a commercial organisation which happens to look attractive or even impressive and an advertisement. I strongly doubt that DLA Piper would place an advert in a newspaper that was simply a list of their offices with flags beside them, with no contact information and no puffery. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that the list of cities and countries is an attempt to make the business sound big. A person can get the same effect by saying, "60 Law offices in 30 countries on 5 continents".--17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But DLA is big, that is an indisputable fact, and it is a fact that it has those offices. To state that and to list the offices is not advertising, no more than it is advertising for the Wal-Mart article to state that Wal-Mart is 'the world's largest public corporation by revenue'...'the largest majority private employer and the largest grocery retailer in the United States'...'has 8500 stores in 15 countries', it is information that is fundamental for the reader to understand the subject of the article. It is not a policy of Wikipedia to avoid facts about commercial organisations merely because they are impressive.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a quiet comment; discussion of these content issues belongs on the article talk page, in Talk:DLA Piper/Archives/2012; I know you're both already commenting there, so that's cool, thanks.  Chzz  ► 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

3-revert warning
Just a note saying you're close to breaking the three-revert rule. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

British company vs. Global company?
Can I get some idea about when you are likely to revert my edits about companies being British or not? Is it simply a case of questioning where their operations are concentrated and whether they're exclusively inside the UK? If their being British or not is irrelevant in all cases regardless of the geographical boundaries of their operations, could you extend that principle to other companies? I could point you in the direction of some articles on purportedly 'American' or 'French' or 'German' companies if you'd like... 87.194.30.99 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. There are a few points here which apply to all of the articles where I have made this particular revert. Firstly, what do we actually mean when describing a multinational company's nationality? Essentially, in my view and I believe the general view of the media, we mean that its headquarters (and/or registered office if they are in different countries, as with Royal Dutch Shell or Xstrata) and stock market listing (or primary listing, if it has multiple listings) are in that country.


 * All of these companies' headquarters locations are already stated in the very first sentence of the articles (in many cases because I inserted it there) and the listing information is also very prominent in the lead.


 * The word 'global' refers to the scope of these companies activites. These companies generally describe themselves as global or international and this is what they mean, it is not an attempt to deny the location of the HQ or listing, it is referring to something else. There is no such thing as a 'global' nationality so I believe this is clear from the wording.


 * There is also the issue of clarity and POV. Defining nationality indirectly through the HQ and listing information is specific, cited and factual. Assigning a UK based multinational company with a nationality, when it may, as in the case of most FTSE 100 companies, have one or more (in some case all) of the following characteristics:


 * important business units headquartered outside of the UK;
 * the majority of its sales made outside of the UK;
 * the majority of its employees outside of the UK;
 * the majority of its manufacturing outside of the UK;
 * the majority of its assets outside of the UK;
 * the majority of its offices located outside of the UK;
 * foreign senior management; or
 * be majority owned by foreign shareholders,


 * is unspecific and probably even original research.


 * Regarding the articles of a number of non-UK headquartered multinationals, yes it is true that many do say 'American' or 'French' in the lead. Generally the leads of company articles on wikipedia are poorly written however and I don't feel that we should have to copy bad practice elsewhere. My own focus is on improving the quality of Wikipedia coverage of UK-based companies.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Magioladitis (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Simon Davies (lawyer)


A tag has been placed on Simon Davies (lawyer) 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 person or group of people, 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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 render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Paganpan (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)