User talk:Gr1st/Archive 11

DSM (company)

Dear Gr1st. I notice that you have made certain changes to . I am grateful for the changes you made to the info box (right hand side of page). I see that you also edited the Company information. Unfortunately, this info is now out-of-date (it has reverted to last year's text and links). I updated it so it corresponded with the new info as published at . Please can I update the Company information so that it is up-to-date? 212.159.200.167 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can update out-of-date information (you don't need my permission for that), but much of the text in this edit was corporate bullshit, if you don't mind me saying so. Wikipedia needs to be written in an encyclopaedic manner, not like an advert, and phrases like "solutions that nourish, protect and improve performance" and "triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity" don't even come close. In any case the text is copyrighted from said webpage and so cannot be used verbatim on Wikipedia. Best, Gr1st (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gr1st. I have taken account of your comments, particularly those about corporate bullshit and have posted an edited version of DSM's Company Profile without, I think, the elements that could be considered as an advert for the company. The text is now in a much more encyclopaedic manner and deals in hard facts. Of course, I welcome any further comments you may have.212.159.200.163 (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gr1st. For my future reference it would be a great help if you could define 'inappropriate links' in terms of postings on Wikipedia.212.159.200.167 (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I slightly misread the edit first time around - I thought you had added five separate external links. On closer inspection, I see that you added the same link five times. Such repetition is not necessary, so I've reinstated the link at the end of the sentence. Regards, Gr1st (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gr1st. Thanks for clarifying this. I have added some further external links from the Business Group section of the page to pages on the DSM website where further information about each business group is available. I hope you have no objection to these links and that they are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia pages / content. Let me know if you disagree.212.159.200.163 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I again disagree with these additions - as stated here, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. All of these are linked to from here, which is sufficient. Gr1st (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback, I take your point212.159.200.163 (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cobham.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cobham.svg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Atos Origin

Hi

I made some changes to the Atos Origin page last night to replace incorrect information with correct facts. This includes a recent up to date history and changes to listings including the correct stock exchange listing, the correct job title for the CEO, the correct tags for the company's work and the correct tags for the industries in which the company works. But I've just seen that all have been rolled back because of apparent 'blatant advertising from start to finish'

I made efforts to ensure it was not blatant advertising including facts on how the business is performing financially. In addition I included sections that were not even about Atos Origin (Powder Blue Surgeon Fish logo) so I'm not sure why that was classed as advertising. I'm more than happy to make further changes to my amends to ensure they are balanced and unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBeaverhousen (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this response seems a bit blunt, but your edit was spectacularly unencyclopaedic in places. It reads like a corporate brochure issued by the company itself. This is an encyclopaedia, and needs to be written as such. It should not be considered an extension of the PR strategy of any company, large or small. Let me break your edit down a bit:

• You actually removed content from the infobox (including financials and the reference for them). In my opinion the infobox was adequately furnished beforehand.
• You removed the lead section (i.e. there is nothing above the table of contents). Articles should have a lead section which summarises the content within. A short lead is better than none at all.
• Company information: "Described by analysts as “the best kept secret in IT”..." - Really? Because when I Google Atos + "best-kept secret" I get nada. Even if one analyst did say it, doesn't make it from a neutral point of view - a pillar of Wikipedia.
• History: This section is largely all right, although the last paragraph starts going all "leverage the extensive expertise" and "push innovative ideas", which are corp-speak and not neutral.
• Atos Origin and the Powder Blue Surgeonfish: completely unsuitable in my view. The logo is "said to symbolise the values and qualities of the company as it is agile, efficient, responsive, bright and convivial..." You're saying, effectively that Atos Origin is agile, efficient, responsive, bright and convivial (no idea how a company can be "convivial", but there you go) - again WP:NPOV is nowhere near satisfied. Here's just one example of the company's supposed "agility" and "efficiency" being disputed. An additional (minor) note: the title of an article should generally not be used as a section name (or part of it), so "Atos Origin" shouldn't be there.
• The Olympic Games connection: no major quibbles with this section, though "Olympic Games contract" or similar would be a more appropriate section name. The language could also be tightened up ("vast IT system that relays results, events and athlete information to spectators and media around the world" is still a bit press release-ish).
• Corporate responsibility: to be honest, I'd ditch most of it. "Atos Origin believes that companies have a responsibility to positively influence their employees, clients, partners and suppliers, while also ensuring that they benefit the environment and communities in which they operate under the areas of people, profit and planet" undoubtedly has the ring of PR fluff. There's also the inevitable attempt to push the company's environmental credentials (cloud computing as "socially responsible"???). In the age of greenwash, grand aims are not really worthy of inclusion on WP, grand achievements may be.
• Innovation: "Atos Origin claims that innovation is at the heart of its future strategy" - well, so does everyone else. There's also plenty more unsuitable language (cf. "best scientific minds", "help clients to reinvent their growth models", etc.).
• Fast facts: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information.
• External links: Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. A link to the official global website is sufficient, interested users can navigate onward from there.

I hope that summarises the issues with your edit. You claim that "incorrect information" was replaced - I am not aware of any. The stock exchange listing was not incorrect, nor was the CEO job title. As a result I have (selectively) reverted some of your edit. Please discuss any further issues either here or on the talk page before reverting again. Gr1st (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

SGS PROFILE

hello, This is a factual description of what SGS does / is / stands for, and we believe that it is not today reflecting the company (description is obsolete). It adopts an approach that does not differ from the one adopted by Vincotte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C3%A7otte_%28company%29 or Accenture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture and many others. In no way this is an advertising.

Hello. Quite simply, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for PR departments to advertise their company. You have a conflict of interest as you work for the company (I presume this is you) and as a result should avoid or exercise great caution when editing the SGS article (aside from minor edits, e.g. correcting indisputably false information).

Your edit is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it is written in a promotional tone throughout and does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

• If you think that the phrases like "From the energy that powers our cars and homes, to the food on our plates and the clothes on our backs – and everything in between – SGS provides independent services that make a difference in people’s lives" and "SGS plays a proactive role in safeguarding our environment by proposing a wide range of tests to ensure environmentally friendly products" read like an encyclopaedia article and not a corporate communications presentation, then you've been working in PR for too long.
• The text continually reads like an address from the company - it is peppered with words like "we", "us" and "our". Wikipedia is not a business directory - additions should be written in the third person, be clearly from a neutral point of view and be supported by reliable sources.

The Vinçotte and Accenture articles are not written like this (I do not claim they are perfect) - in any case pointing out that other articles contain flaws does not make it okay add text with those same flaws in this article. Gr1st (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thnaks

Thanks for proving this information it is correct i was actually adding randomly since most European companies operate globally and they are multinational corporations. Thanks Again.--Kkm010 (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Template OTCBB2 ?

Hello, I was looking for a template for OTC Bulletin Board symbols and I found two templates, OTCBB and OTCBB2. They seem identical, so I wonder why you created the second one ? Thank you YellowLemonTree (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OTCBB2 is identical apart from the fact that it does not automatically transclude Category:Companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board onto the pages on which it is used. This is useful in (for example) company templates like Template:Nestlé, where use of Template:OTCBB would result in Category:Companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board being added to pages like Kaspar Villiger, Walnut Whip and International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, which is obviously undesirable. Best, Gr1st (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wärtsilä

Regarding the Wärtsilä article: the company doesn't only sell engines, reduction gears and propellers, but also takes the total responsibility of the ship propulsion engineering. It is quite typical that the shipyard only tells the application specific requirements of the propulsion (max speed, max fuel consumption, dimensions of the engine rooms, some special demands etc.) and the supplier (for example Wärtsilä) selects and makes (or buys) the suitable engines, reduction gears, propellers and other auxiliary equipment like the fuel oil boosters, filters, separators, auxiliary engines, alternators and heat exchangers, and then sells the whole package to the yard. This is a common practice nowadays - the yards don't want to take the engineering responsiblility. I don't know what is the most suitable way to put it into English but this is more than just making and selling the engines and other components. --Gwafton (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "Power plants, ship engines and marine propulsion engineering" for the "products" field then? If you can summarise it better than that, then by all means go ahead, but I completely object (in general) to the use of the phrase "... solutions" on Wikipedia - it is meaningless marketing speak which does not add to the reader's understanding of what a company or organisation actually does. Best, Gr1st (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think marine propulsion systems is a term which is both descriptive and short enough for the company template. Thanks! --Gwafton (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)