User talk:Londoner1961
Welcome!
Hello, Londoner1961, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Ronz 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ronz 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised by your comment and by the deletion of my entry as the points I made are a matter of public record through filings at Companies House, are backed by primary sources, and are of legitimate interest in the context of a site which names the companies in question. I will, however, take care to list the sources when I re-post the material.
Londoner1961 00:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you wrote the comments above, then started edit warring immediately afterward. Let's see what Athaenara thinks. --Ronz 00:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Tom Barker. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz 15:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand what you mean by "warring" or by "unreferenced controversial biographical content". The page mentions b consultants ltd and SmartSlab Ltd. The information regarding those companies, and which I posted, is a matter of public record at Companies House. As it happens, I was a shareholder in b consultants ltd, before it went bust, and remain a shareholder in, and am an ex-director of, SmartSlab Ltd, so I have copies of all the accounts, as well as much other public information.
Could you please explain to me what your problem is with public information related to these companies being published on the page?
Londoner1961 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I hope WP:BLP explains the situation. Further, there are WP:COI issues here. I've started a discussion in the article talk page. I'll try to get some help as well from Athaenara again. --Ronz 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. It would be more helpful, however, if you were to be specific rather than simply referencing catch-all guidance with which I am familiar and with which, in my view, I am compliant.
Londoner1961 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring your comments here, but hoping we're answering them in the article talk page. --Ronz 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I had noticed! Thanks for taking an interest.
Londoner1961 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
At least I am not using Wiki as a vehicle for posting misleading and inaccurate advertisements for myself and my business enterprises!
Londoner1961 (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a volunteer at the biographies of living persons noticeboard and was drawn to the above article by an open ticket there. You may already be well aware of this, but I just wanted to note in regards to the comment removed from Talk:Tom Barker on February 13th that it is not only possible, but also encouraged to provide neutral, balanced coverage of living individuals with biographies on Wikipedia. It's simply a matter of providing reliable secondary sourcing and ensuring that we do not make implications with our tone. If you have solid reason to believe that any other editor involved in the article has a conflict of interest and is blocking legitimate, sourced criticism, there are avenues you can take to redress that, including the conflict of interest noticeboard. Quite probably the best method of addressing this is first ensuring that your sourcing for contentious information is impeccable. Lacking sound secondary sources, we must be conservative in writing about living persons in any Wikipedia space, including talk pages. This is in large part for Wikipedia's protection. Please feel free to leave a note at my talk page if you'd like to discuss these policies further. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Have done so, thanks.
Londoner1961 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on your recent edits[edit]
Has been started here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Londoner1961. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- In view of your concerns I have given a detailed explanation and reference for the edit I made today on the Tom Barker discussion page. --Londoner1961 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
SmartSlab[edit]
Hi. Given your WP:COI on this subject (bias is not always positive :)), you do need to take particular care that material you insert in the article is sourced and neutral. I've removed your most recent edit to SmartSlab, as it did not meet the former. Whether or not it meets the latter will depend on context & the sourcing you provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, would a reference to the SmartSlab Ltd company promotion site (which is linked on the Wiki page) not serve to establish the point? The SmartSlab article is essentially a product advertisement (I know that argument has been and gone, and I don't want to go there again) and surely it would be of interest to readers to know that despite all the promotion there have never been any takers? Well, it is possible that there has been a sale or installation and the company is keeping it secret, but that seems highly unlikely to me. The current SmartSlab article is in effect a puff piece, so some realism and balance would be helpful. ;) --Londoner1961 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is all for balance, but I'd be very surprised if the company website says it's never sold anything, as this would seem to be poor advertisement. :) Assuming this is the same Smartslab, it seems that they may have sold some interactive digital display screens to a digital media facility in Bristol. (Article is here, but, alas, tucked behind a subscriber wall. All I know about it comes from the snippet here.) It would be a lot easier to add balance to the article if there were citable material to add, but there's very little out there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Like you, I can't get through the subscription screen, but I suspect it is of a piece with all other SmartSlab-related articles - there is steady a drip-feed of such things, which always turn out to be PR fluff and over-hyping of - at best - an expression of interest. I would be amazed if the company had kept quiet about an actual sale - it would be plastered all over their website. But my point is not that the company site says it has not sold anything, which I agree they would be unlikely to do. My point - and I phrased it carefully - was that the company had made no announcement of a sale or permanent installation. And that is, I think, both verifiable and pertinent to the article. --Londoner1961 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the company announced that it had made no sales, you could say so. There is no reliable source otherwise that can verify the statement that the company has made no announcements of a sale. After all, they could have made many announcements of which we're unaware. They could broadcast all over television and radio. They could do direct marketing newsletters. You could state that you did not find such an announcement, but that would be original research, which is also disallowed. If there's a newspaper article out there in a reliable publication where somebody is speculating about the meaning of Smartslab's lack of a customer list, you could write about that, but you can't speculate about it yourself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- All these things are indeed possible ;) (As a shareholder, I get frequent emails from the SS management, but I have not yet been alerted to any such event.) How about an alternative: "The SmartSlab Ltd corporate website has so far made no announcement of any sale or permanent installation of the SmartSlab product." --Londoner1961 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because the statement is unsourced, it would ve considered original research. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is also likely unverifiable, since we would have to be able to demonstrate that there never was such an announcement at the website, which is none too easy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just so I am clear on this. What you are saying is that the SS corporate site link is appropriate (which I understand) but that to reference any information (or any absence of information) from the SS site is not allowed because to do so would be original research? Is that correct? --Londoner1961 (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No. it's not. You may reference information from the site. We encourage referenced information. As long as the sources are reliable, in fact, we thrive on it. You may not reference or draw inference from absence of information (though if a reliable source has done so, you are welcome to make note of that). Linking to the official site of the company is not only appropriate, but standard practice. Wikipedia:External links lists as first under "What should be linked", "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, got it, thanks. --Londoner1961 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- No. it's not. You may reference information from the site. We encourage referenced information. As long as the sources are reliable, in fact, we thrive on it. You may not reference or draw inference from absence of information (though if a reliable source has done so, you are welcome to make note of that). Linking to the official site of the company is not only appropriate, but standard practice. Wikipedia:External links lists as first under "What should be linked", "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just so I am clear on this. What you are saying is that the SS corporate site link is appropriate (which I understand) but that to reference any information (or any absence of information) from the SS site is not allowed because to do so would be original research? Is that correct? --Londoner1961 (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is also likely unverifiable, since we would have to be able to demonstrate that there never was such an announcement at the website, which is none too easy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because the statement is unsourced, it would ve considered original research. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- All these things are indeed possible ;) (As a shareholder, I get frequent emails from the SS management, but I have not yet been alerted to any such event.) How about an alternative: "The SmartSlab Ltd corporate website has so far made no announcement of any sale or permanent installation of the SmartSlab product." --Londoner1961 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the company announced that it had made no sales, you could say so. There is no reliable source otherwise that can verify the statement that the company has made no announcements of a sale. After all, they could have made many announcements of which we're unaware. They could broadcast all over television and radio. They could do direct marketing newsletters. You could state that you did not find such an announcement, but that would be original research, which is also disallowed. If there's a newspaper article out there in a reliable publication where somebody is speculating about the meaning of Smartslab's lack of a customer list, you could write about that, but you can't speculate about it yourself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Like you, I can't get through the subscription screen, but I suspect it is of a piece with all other SmartSlab-related articles - there is steady a drip-feed of such things, which always turn out to be PR fluff and over-hyping of - at best - an expression of interest. I would be amazed if the company had kept quiet about an actual sale - it would be plastered all over their website. But my point is not that the company site says it has not sold anything, which I agree they would be unlikely to do. My point - and I phrased it carefully - was that the company had made no announcement of a sale or permanent installation. And that is, I think, both verifiable and pertinent to the article. --Londoner1961 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is all for balance, but I'd be very surprised if the company website says it's never sold anything, as this would seem to be poor advertisement. :) Assuming this is the same Smartslab, it seems that they may have sold some interactive digital display screens to a digital media facility in Bristol. (Article is here, but, alas, tucked behind a subscriber wall. All I know about it comes from the snippet here.) It would be a lot easier to add balance to the article if there were citable material to add, but there's very little out there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)