User talk:Srp2015

Hi - Thanks for your edits to Spirax-Sarco Engineering. Unfortunately the text you added had not been wikified or independently sourced as required by WP:SOURCE. PLease also note that if you are an employee of the company you should not be editing the text as you have a conflict of interest. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk. Thank you for your message. You are correct that I am an employee of the company. I am also new to Wikipedia. I have been asked to review this Wikipedia article as it is not an accurate reflection of the Company today and a number of the references (I think about 10 of the 13) didn't/don't work. I need to ensure that this is a more accurate description of our Company. Please can you help me as it needs updating and I'm not sure how to do it? The global operations information, for example, that I added comes directly from our Annual Report and Accounts, which is fully audited and 100% accurate and reliable. As did the more detailed descriptions of the two aspects of our business. Our Annual Report and Account is a publically available document. If I extracted from that and referenced it would that be acceptable? I also don't understand why an employee editing would be unacceptable - after all, who is better placed to know if information is factually incorrect than someone who lives and breathes the company every day? Please can you help as I do want to get this updated and accurate as soon as possible. Thanks, Srp2015.
 * Hi - Thanks for your reply. It would be helpful if you read WP:COI about conflicts of interest. Is worrying that you were asked to asked to edit the article because it suggests that the lack of understanding about conflicts of interest extends to senior management in the company. I note that the material you added came from the annual report: I would urge you to read WP:SOURCE - material needs to be independently sourced and certainly should not be sourced from material issued by the company. I have updated the referencing myself as I agree some of the references did not actually work. If there are any real inaccuracies in the article, which currently seems to be well referenced from independent sources, then please set it out on this page. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, Thank you for your response. I have reviewed the Wikipedia policy documents that you have referred to. To quote directly from the policy, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. ... [a COI exists] when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." My interests in updating this article are 100% aligned with advancing the aims of Wikipedia i.e. to provide a neutral source of information which is factually accurate and free from bias. I am in no way trying to advance the interests of the Company or use this as an advertising platform. As I have said, I am only interested in making sure that this is an accurate article that reflects the Company as it is today. Please note, within the COI policy, it states that there is no prohibition on people with a COI from editing on Wikipedia as long as they do so in a responsible way. Two possibilities are to state that a contributor to the article is an employee of the Company – which you have already done or, to have someone else effectively arbitrate the content – which you are currently doing. So, I believe that we should be able to proceed to update the article without breaching the COI policy. To the end of resolving the potential “conflict of interest” I would be pleased to work with you to ensure that the article is accurate and meets Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I would ask that you either correct the following errors and update the article yourself, or allow me to do so. 1)	Article name: The Company name is Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc (not Spirax-Sarco Engineering) and so the company name needs changing in the article title and in the first sentence of the article. (Source: LSE, http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB00B946ZZ62GBGBXSTMM)

2)	Operations: You are correct that Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc has two core businesses. Spirax Sarco and Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group. Please note, however, that the company is called Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group and not “Watson-Marlow Bredel” as the article states (WM Bredel is just one of many WMFTG companies). This needs amending. Watson-Marlow does a lot more than just manufacture “peristaltic pumps, tube and hose pumps, sine pumps, liquid filling and OEM pumps” and this list no longer accurately represents the company as it is today. There are a lot of third party published articles that refer to the Watson-Marlow as “Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group” and which give a more detailed description of the company and what it does. Please see, for example, http://www.copybook.com/environmental/watson_marlow_pumps_group which states: Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group (WMFTG) is the world leader in niche peristaltic pumps and associated fluid path technologies for the food, pharmaceutical, chemical and environmental industries. Comprising seven established brands, each with their own area of expertise, but together offering our customers unrivalled solutions for their pumping and fluid transfer applications.

1)	Watson-Marlow Pumps: peristaltic tube pumps for pharmaceuticals and industry 2)	Watson-Marlow Tubing: precision tubing for pumping and other purposes, in a range of materials 3)	Bredel: heavy duty hose pumps 4)	Alitea: unique peristaltic solutions for OEM customers 5)	Flexicon: aseptic filling and capping systems 6)	MasoSine: gentle sinusoidal pumps for food, chemical and cosmetics applications 7)	BioPure: advanced single-use tubing connector systems

The following article refers to the recent name change to Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group (from Watson-Marlow Pumps Group): http://www.manufacturingchemist.com/news/article_page/WatsonMarlow_Fluid_Technology_Group_name_reflects_growing_portfolio_of_technologies/106556 Describing Spirax Sarco as: “engineered steam solutions, steam traps, heat transfer solutions, condensate pumps and recovery, flow metering and control valves” while not wrong, doesn’t sufficiently explain what the company does and doesn’t really make it explicit that Spirax Sarco is an expert in steam. (Engineered systems, heat transfer solutions and flow metering could all refer to a range of products and not specifically steam.) It also doesn’t explain why customers would use Spirax Sarco products and what they do. Please can you either update the text under Operations and include more details about our companies and what they do, or allow me to do so. I would like to see, at bare minimum, the following text (you will see that I have taken out anything that could be considered opinion and left it with the bare facts): The Group comprises two niche businesses: •	Spirax-Sarco: provides engineered solutions for the design, maintenance and provision of efficient industrial and commercial steam systems. •	Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group: designs and manufactures niche peristaltic pumps and associated fluid path technologies. The Spirax Sarco offering is very wide, from single products through to complete turnkey bespoke packages that can include design, fabrication, installation, commissioning and maintenance. Spirax Sarco products and services help steam users to improve operational efficiency, maintain product quality, reduce energy and water use, and comply with health, safety and environmental legislation.

Spirax Sarco products include: Engineered Steam Solutions, steam traps, Heat Transfer Solutions, Condensate pumps and Recovery, Flowmetering, control valves.

Watson-Marlow pumps are ideally suited for a wide variety of applications from biopharmaceutical processes that demand sterility and precision to highly corrosive slurries typically seen in precious metal processing. The Watson-Marlow Group comprises seven established brands:

1)	Watson-Marlow Pumps: peristaltic tube pumps for pharmaceuticals and industry 2)	Watson-Marlow Tubing: precision tubing for pumping and other purposes, in a range of materials 3)	Bredel: heavy duty hose pumps 4)	Alitea: unique peristaltic solutions for OEM customers 5)	Flexicon: aseptic filling and capping systems 6)	MasoSine: gentle sinusoidal pumps for food, chemical and cosmetics applications 7)	BioPure: advanced single-use tubing connector systems

Watson-Marlow products include: peristaltic pumps and associated fluid path technology, tube and hose pumps, sine pumps, liquid filling and OEM pumps.

As the article currently stands, there is no way that the reader can tell where Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc operates. Spirax Sarco has 70 operating units (operating companies, branches and associates) in 41 countries across the world. This is an essential bit of information to explain to reader the size and scope of the Company’s operations. By law, we have to disclose the name and location of our global operations in our Annual Report and Accounts. This document, while prepared by Spirax, is a legal printed document, which is 3rd party audited and which is submitted to Companies House every year. As we add new companies pretty much every year, either through establishing new companies or through acquisitions, our Annual Report is the most up-to-date and reliable source of this information. (As with our financial results – the only source of which has to be the Annual Report –s the most accurate source of information about our global operation is the Annual Report.) I think that if this is clearly stated as the source, there is no conflict of interest in using this as a reference. Please can you add, either under a new heading or at the bottom of the section entitled Operations, the following text: “Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc has operating units (operating companies, branches and associates) in 41 countries across the world.” (Source: 2014 Annual Report and Accounts, pages 5 and 154-155) I would also like to tackle the Company History at some point as some key information is missing. There is at least one published book which outlines the history of Spirax Sarco and so I can provide you with links to that to support the information. However, it is going to take me some time to prepare a more accurate history so, for now, please can you either make, or allow me to make the amends that I have suggested, which, I am sure that you can agree, are simply designed to provide a more comprehensive and accurate overview of the company. Regards, SRP2015
 * Hi - I have for the most part made the changes you were requesting. Just for the record WP:COI states that "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked." This seems pretty clear to me. You may be interested to know that your response to me has been automatically tagged by wikipedia as "Possible self promotion in userspace": this was not my doing. I have (i) added "plc" in the first line ('plc' is not be used in the article title per WP:NCCORP) (ii) updated the operations information to refer to the description in the "copy book" text and (iii) referred to the 41 countries, but I still have concerns about this is as an Annual Report is published by the company and is therefore not independent. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, Thank you for making some amends. Just two small things and then I am happy to leave the article as it is: 1) The statement "(from single products through to complete turnkey bespoke packages)" should really be after Spirax Sarco, rather than Watson-Marlow as it is the Spirax Sarco steam business that makes bespoke packages, rather than Watson-Marlow. 2) I have removed your latest addition in the Company history as you have misunderstood the Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail published an inaccurate and incorrect story as they misinterpreted our financial results announcement. They later retracted their article as they realized that they had got it wrong. You had written that we published something that was inaccurate and had to withdraw it in a profit warning which is simply untrue. We did not issue any retraction of anything we said in our results announcement, nor did we have to correct/add/amend anything that we said, nor did we issue a profit warning. Hence, the reference in the article was incorrect and needed to be removed - as, I am sure you will agree, as that the objective of Wikipedia is to provide factually correct information. Thanks again for your help. As I said, if you could make the tiny amend in point 1 above, and leave off the inaccurate comment from the company history (which, incidentally, you can confirm for yourself is incorrect if you look on the LSE as any such profit warning, had one existed, would have to have been submitted through the LSE), I am willing to leave the article as it is without any more changes for now. Thanks Srp2015
 * Hi – I have now moved the piece "(from single products through to complete turnkey bespoke packages)" as you requested. I am intrigued by your comments on the Daily Mail article. I have looked at the Interim Management Statement issued by the company on 7 November 2014 and must confess that it looks pretty clear to me i.e. not capable of misinterpretation. I note that the withdrawal appeared in other media e.g. Reuters (see ). Are you saying that Reuters also misinterpreted the company’s Interim Management Statement? Or was it that there was a verbal briefing given by the company at the same time which was capable of misinterpretation? Dormskirk (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for making that change. Yes, you're right Reuters got it wrong, they misinterpreted the IMS. No verbal briefing was given at the time of the IMS. They recognized their error and retracted it.

With reference to the IMS – the statement that you are referring to is this one: “If current exchange rates prevail for the remainder of the year, we now expect that sales for 2014 will be reduced by 6.3% on translation compared with full-year 2013 average exchange rates. The impact on operating profit continues to be somewhat greater, at an estimated 10% for the year.”

The Daily Mail incorrectly interpreted this as meaning that reported profits would be down 10% from the previous year. That is not what was being said. We said that the impact of exchange rates would reduce profits by an estimated 10%, not reduce profits by 10% from the 2013 profit figure. (Note, our IMS says “compared with full-year 2013 average exchange rates” and not compared with full year 2013 results.)

To explain further: You will see from our 2014 full year results, operating profit at constant currency was up 12%. However, currency movements impacted our profits so that overall our profits were up just 1% (i.e. at the end of the year, exchange rates reduced profits by approximately 11%) – close to the 10% that we estimated they would be.

Our sales were up 5% at constant currency for 2014, compared with 2013, but due to the impact of exchange rates, our reported sales were down 2% (i.e. approximately a 7% impact from exchange rates, very close to the 6.3% that we had estimated in the IMS).

Reuters realised their error and corrected it. I would guess - and it is only a guess - that the Daily Mail had used Reuters and as their source and so when Reuters corrected their error the Daily Mail did so as well.

I hope that clarifies things somewhat.
 * Hi - Thanks for your very full and helpful explanation. I agree that there is nothing here that is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)