Hi and thanks for your message. Yes happy to help out. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Arturo, you may have noticed on the BP talk page that we are working on a "stock history" section as per the "company articles" guideline you shared with us in the DRN. You certainly don't need to, but if you feel to help construct that section, we would most welcome any input. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 20:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petrarchan, I would like to be able to help with this section to provide sources and additional information. I do think there should be a section that addresses BP's corporate governance including its long-term stock history, on both the LSE and NYSE. Is that what you have in mind? Will you be working on this in your userspace? If so, please provide the link then I can take a look at what you have and see where I can help. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP Biofuels Highlands.
Message added 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Arturo. I've tried to unravel the BP 2004 DoJ finding as stated below:

A criminal penalty of $100 million, a payment of $25 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Consumer Fraud Fund, and restitution of approximately $53 million, plus a civil penalty of $125 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as part of an agreement to defer the prosecution of a one-count criminal information filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging BP America Inc. with conspiring to violate the Commodity Exchange Act and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.

Then they go on to say:

In addition, a 20-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Chicago today charges four former employees of a subsidiary of BP America, Inc. with conspiring to manipulate and corner the TET propane market in February 2004, and to sell TET propane at an artificially inflated index price in violation of federal mail and wire fraud statutes, along with substantive violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and wire fraud.

However, in 2011 it was decided:

[1]

This court decision has been used as a reason to remove mention of the 2004 information from the article by both Connolly and Beagle. I've read the same information but come away with the idea that the 2004 court finding was not at all nullified by the 2011 court decision as that was a separate matter. More info here:

[2]

Hopefully you can clear this up. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer, I have heard back from others within BP who are more knowledgeable about this and can confirm that the information in the article now is correct, but perhaps needs a few small changes to make it completely clear.

What I was told is that there was no case brought in 2004, the charges against the company and traders were brought in 2006, related to activity in 2003 and 2004. This is supported by the sources used at the end of the first sentence in the section: the complaint and the NBC News article. In 2007, BP entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, settling these charges. This is also supported by the existing source in the section, the Reuters article and also the Red Orbit article you shared. As the Red Orbit source mentions, also in 2007, a federal grand jury indicted four more employees. The charges against these traders were later dismissed in 2009 and the dismissal upheld in 2011. The dismissal of these charges is verified by the Houston Chronicle article cited and also by the 2011 court ruling, which found that the trader's activities in 2004 "fell within a statutory exemption for off-exchange commodities transactions".

The current wording is as follows:

The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused BP Products North America Inc. (subsidiary of BP plc) and several BP traders with conspiring to raise the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.^[1][2][3] In 2006, one former trader pleaded guilty.^[2] In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.^[4] That same year, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by a U.S. District Court in 2009 and upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.^[3]

I think just a few changes here can make the chain of events clearer here. Here is my suggestion:

In 2006, the US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused BP Products North America Inc. (subsidiary of BP plc) and several BP traders with conspiring to raise the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2003 and 2004.^[1][2][3] That year, one former trader pleaded guilty.^[2] In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution.^[4][5] Also in 2007, four other former traders were charged;^[5] however, charges were dismissed by a U.S. District Court in 2009 and this dismissal was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.^[3]

Does that make things clearer? Arturo at BP (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi Arturo, I appreciate the request, but I am away for awhile with some health issues. Hopefully someone at BP talk can take care of the editing needs soon. The removal of outdated information is simple enough, and I'm sure in time we can get the alternative energy section worked out. Sorry I can't be of immediate help. petrarchan47tc 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For making constructive contributions to Wikipedia while respecting conflict of interest guidelines. Drm310 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done Arturo. I copied the above to your user page. Also, I posted a reply to your COIN post here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "As that request has not received a response."[3] When an article talk page request is posted, it may go unanswered because the page does not receive enough traffic. To address this, If you post a request on Talk:BP, select the history tab, select External tools: Contributors, and then consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors letting them know that you posted on the Talk:BP page. Then, look at the list of contributors to the article page itself,[4] and consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors. By looking at the contributors list for both the BP article and BP talk page, looks like Rangoon11, Beagel, Petrarchan47, Gandydancer, Binksternet, and BozMo are the most active in the topic and likely would be interested in responding to a talk page request at Talk:BP. You also can use {{request edit}} for conflict-of-interest edits. Generally see Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uzma, I appreciate your suggestions, which are very much in line with my interactions on Wikipedia so far. Sometimes these editors get busy with other projects, so from time to time I've reached out to others too. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo. Congrats with you Barnstar. It shows that you are a very good expert in Wikipedia by contributing good content and balancing the BP page. Would you mind having a look at the Atos page? How can we ge in contact with you? Thanks in advance. (tim362729|t ) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw you left some requests for assistance at my talk page and WP:COIN but I have been a bit busy. How do things stand now? Are you still in need of help? --Drm310 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drm310, thanks for dropping me a note. I would still like to get your opinion on a couple of discussions on the BP talk page, particularly regarding some wording I think might be POV in the section on the Caspian Sea gas leak. If you have time available, can you review my request here and offer your opinion. Also, if you are able, please take a look at the New Structure talk page discussion. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP#Caspian_Sea.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP#Environmental_record_overview.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem. Silverseren^C 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Silverseren. I will be posting a response at the BP Talk page that answers your questions and otherwise focuses on the content of the section shortly. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arturo. Could you please clarify little further your involvement with BP? Does your editing in Wikipedia is related to your paid job with BP, that mean you are dealing BP's PR, information, etc in the broad sense? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beagel. I work for BP. I apologize if you were under a different impression. The information I present from news sources is verified by the various subject matter experts within the company. I am not an expert myself on all of the topics and I want to make sure that any proposed language from news sources used is actually accurate. Arturo at BP (talk)

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has Bell Pottinger ever issued a statement coming clean on its former wikipedia sanitation efforts? Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan, I'm not able to answer your question as I do not know anything about Bell Pottinger beyond what I have seen in the media. The BP in my username refers to the energy company, BP, where I am an employee. As my user page explains, the goal of my activity on Wikipedia is to help improve articles related to BP and I have not been involved with any other topic areas. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For the total integrity which you have shown in your declaration of a connection to BP, and the respect which you have demonstrated for Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. And for providing draft text of the highest quality. I hope that you will continue to be involved in this project. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		For the undue and ill-informed criticism you'll have to endure for your policy-guided contributions towards improving BP.Smallman12q (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo, I just want to quickly clarify something. Was it I who connected you to Rangoon or did that happen independently? I checked my records and I don't see anything about it on or off-wiki, but I've been asked to clear up that point. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not. Almost 100% sure first contact with Rangoon was on BP Talk Page after she responded to a request I put up there. Arturo at BP (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For correctly following our WP:COI. Thanks for helping us improve our coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Olive Branch Barn Star
		Because there is no conflict and you have done nothing wrong. Keep up the good work and thank you for your contributions. Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo,

By way of introduction, my name is Phil Gomes and I am a co-founder of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE). A Facebook group serves as our base of operations. We are (mostly) PR folk and interested Wikipedians who see value in dialogue rather than the well-worn tactic of public shaming.

Our mission statement:

CREWE comprises Wikipedians, corporate communications, academics, students and other interested parties who are exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia can work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries.

This case has been a topic of active discussion and we'd love to have you join us and participate.

--Philgomes (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your impressive work, above and beyond the COI policies, even in the face of frequent challenges and criticism -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am trying to find out more about COI etc on wikipedia. I was wondering if your job description (duties etc) is publicly available somewhere? Perhaps the job was publicly advertised for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first part of a statement we gave to the press that addresses my role:

Arturo Silva is a full-time BP employee assigned to the Group’s Corporate Communications team in Houston.

Among his many responsibilities, Silva has been leading our project to openly engage with Wikipedia editors and offer suggestions to improve the accuracy of the BP Wikipedia article.Arturo at BP (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being completely transparent about what you do here. We hope to see more editors like you! Please know that the Wikipedia community is openly with you!! :) [Would it be possible to run a news story that revealed the hoax of the previous one? Mal-informed articles like those damages both BP's and Wikipedia's credibility] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo, as the BP rep could you please read my new section re TNK-BP environmental concerns and give feedback. Does this pipeline remain in disrepair or has it been repaired or replaced as needed? Also, could you provide information re the recent changes in the ownership of TNK-BK? Who is now responsible to do the repairs and pipeline replacement that the Minister of Natural Resources said need to be done? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to look into it. Thanks for the request. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see the new questions at the Prudhoe Bay section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, by the way, if there was any question, I confirmed that TNK-BP exists no longer after the completion of the sale which we confirmed by press release last week. It's on our website. I am just checking on the facts regarding the pipelines.Arturo at BP (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you just asking me to verify that the information by Beagel in his last post is correct and clarify anything else discussed there? Arturo at BP (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking if you will take a look at the further questions that I asked at the end of the thread that you started when you presented your rewrite of the Prudhoe Bay entry. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll just copy it here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Your work in ensuring neutral, uniquely-accurate coverage of BP-related articles is admirable. You've shown that entities with a "COI" can still contribute neutrally and effectively to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. dci | TALK 01:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{Accept that he doesn't have a COI since he isn't placing his outside interests above the aims of Wikipedia. But its still a nice gesture to give the barnstar!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

I had a question. Would you object to insertion, at the top of the BP article, the Wikipedia notice that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Wikipedia rules do not appear to require that this template be placed on the article. However, this appears to be the only way to inform readers that BP had and has a role in the formulation of this continually evolving article. In light of your active participation in the article, would you object to this notice, so that readers of the article would be duly informed of BP's involvement? I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge you, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way toward diffusing the situation. Thanks in advance, Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you agree to a disclosure notice for the article but feel that the wording should be different than above, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on alternate wording that can be placed at the top of the BP article. Thanks again, Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Arturo but I for one would object very strongly to this, and I know many others would too. We have never done this before and I don't anticipate it happening in the future. This is not an option. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT CONFLICT] While I appreciate your concerns re paid editing, wouldn't it be better to bring this matter up with the several Wikipedia groups that continue to work with our paid editor policies? As you know, many articles have paid editors and it would seem only fair that they should all be tagged as well if your line of thinking is correct. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, I agree with Prioryman: the problem is that it would be a misuse of the template, which I understand is supposed to be used only when direct edits by a COI contributor have made the page promotional. So, to use it on the BP article would not be correct. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I anticipated that, which is why I placed in boldface that disclosure is not required. What I am asking is if BP would agree with, or oppose, a voluntary disclosure that would put this matter behind us? What about some other wording? Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this[5] perhaps? Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that deciding something like this is not within my authority according to Wikipedia guidelines, and is a matter for the community to decide which is why it was suggested that you bring the matter up with several Wikipedia groups. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I wanted to know how you felt about it, and if you had any objections to it or some similar wording. If you have no objection in principle to that kind of notice, I think it would alleviate the situation. Whatever your view on this, I'd really like to hear your view on the subject of disclosure to Wikipedia readers of your role in the article. Let's put aside Wikipedia policies and bureaucracies and talk about the issue of disclosure to readers. (P.S. I know that Arturo has many Wiki friends who would like to chime in. But can we please hear from Arturo in this, if he cares to respond?) Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors have made this pretty clear. Arturo has as well. Please continue this at other locations.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to start a dialogue with Arturo, not his friends. Unless you work with Arturo at BP (do you?) and are authorized to speak for him, he is the one who needs to respond, or not. If you're not part of his BP team, you should not speak for him. Whether he wishes to engage in a dialogue is up to him. I don't want to begin a back and forth with other users on this page. I guess that I can't very well stop that from happening, but my only interest is in the BP position on disclosure to readers, not what anyone else has to say. And no, he has not talked about that here or anywhere else. If he chooses not to say anything further, his silence will be a perfectly adequate response. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see... more baseless accusations. Do you work for Chevron? LOL! I guess if you label me as his "friend" that makes you his "enemy"? The editor is not required to respond. If you don't want to begin a back and forth with other users on this page then don't reply to them. I think it is pretty clear that the contributor has no problems speaking for himself. However, I will add that not responding further than they have already means nothing more than they have already said. Arturo, If you wish, you may certainly address this further, but you should also be aware you may request any editor (including myself) refrain from further posting on your talk page at any time.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my question was not intended as an accusation! I apologize for that. I was wondering if you might be; I wasn't trying to be a smartass. On your other point: You're right, the ball is in Arturo's court, and I'll just ignore other editors who chime in on this question. If he doesn't want a dialogue, or if he doesn't even want me to ask him further questions on his talk page, he has a right to ask that I not do so and obviously I'll honor any such request.Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, as I mentioned before, this is really not my call and it should be continued elsewhere among editors. I think what's important to readers is that the article be as accurate as possible and that requires input from all kinds of sources, including individuals with all kinds of relationships to the subject matter. I think the community has decided that it's inappropriate to single out any one editor because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it appears that adding a template like you describe goes against that aspect of the community. However, I'm obviously not opposed to proper disclosure as the community defines it, which right now includes a "connected contributor" template on the discussion page, and am not outright opposed to other considerations that may be agreed upon as reasonable.Arturo at BP (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arturo, I appreciate your response. I notice that your edit summary said "final reply." Does that mean that you're not interested in having a dialogue on public disclosure? I'd rather not surmise on something like that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in one here, but thanks for asking. I might in the future give additional thoughts on the matter on an agreed upon forum elsewhere on Wikipedia but would prefer to let other editors engage first. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arturo. I think that your views on that subject would be welcome. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not feel that this is a fair question for Arturo. It is clear that Artuno has a narrow interest (which is not intended to be negative, simply factual). That interest, presumably, is in helping the community be aware of facts that may be appropriate for a small number of articles. I don't think there is any interest by Artuno in debating what practices ought to be followed by the community. While you've emphasized that you are making a voluntary request, it would create a precedent, and such a precedent ought to be debated by the community. While Arturo is part of the community, and could be involved if desired, I believe Arturo has sensibly demurred. I don't think Arturo's reticence to offer an opinion should be construed as anything other than good sense that this sounds like a can of worms best left alone. OTOH, it may be a subject worth debating by the community, but the talk page of one editor is not the right venue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think that the question is perfectly fair. Arturo is a BP employee, and his job is to be an editor here. Every word he writes is within the scope of his employment. This isn't a hobby. He is representing his employer here. I'm sure that he welcomes your advice, but I am sure that BP is amply equipped to decide by itself whether it is good or bad to engage with other Wikipedia editors, and to what extent they wish to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with SPhilbrick on this issue. Coretheapple, you are fairly new to WP and perhaps are not aware that it is not unusual for several editors to offer their opinions to questions, etc., that are brought up. We don't mean to be speaking for Arturo, who I assume will reply to your question as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I realize that. I actually wasn't expecting more from Arturo on this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not expect him to respond, then you are baiting him. We discuss things to reach solutions, not to deliberately provoke or extend conflict, or to give an impression that someone is being uncooperative, or to try to build up evidence against someone. In my opinion, to the extent someone is responsible to his employer for trying to obtain a good and fair article according to our rules, he would be entirely correct in limiting his efforts to editing the articles and defending his work, not in trying to fight with everyone who opposes him. Indeed, were he to engage in a general discussion of our policies, some people would probably say he is trying to influence our rules for the benefit of his own editing. My own opinion, fwiw, is that he has been editing in scrupulous conformity with our preferred practices, and his work here should be referred to as a good example of the best and safest practices. That even with the safest practices some will object anyway is inevitable in a open group like ours, and here too he has been exemplary in adapting to it and tolerating it. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, after his most recent response I expected nothing further. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In part I agree with DGG--certainly Arturo has strictly followed WP policy. However, it is a mistake to think that corporate reps are "trying to obtain a good and fair article". They are not. Their interest is to make their corporation look good. As I have already said, it's not Arturo's fault that some editors are not aware of this fact. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The storm will die. I am an admin here and also an email response volunteer. What you've done is exactly what I'd have advised, and had I advised it then I would have gone to bat for you and taken any opprobrium myself. You have played a straight bat. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as I've just said above, I agree entirely with Guy's assessment. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has already been said, but life would be easier if you could provide more explicit independent (intellectually independent, not form press releases) secondary sources for content. I appreciate that you will ahve information from inside, but bear in mind that Jimbo Wales' article had (and probably still has) wrong information, because the reliable sources got it wrong and we can't take his word over theirs. To quite Douglas Adams, where we are inaccurate, we are at least definitively inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I use news articles in my drafts where I can because my understanding is it is preferred by the Wiki community, but I often check any facts used from those news articles internally to make sure they are correct. However, in some cases, the details are not the kind that tend to be covered in intellectually independent news sources, specifically speaking about operational details such as up-to-date number of employees, locations of certain operations, or correct production figures, for which published BP sources such as the annual report are often the best available source. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontentious detail like locations and numbers of employees can be self-sourced back to the BP site, you'd have no reason to make that stuff up on your own website. Other stuff, we prefer more analytical sources. News sources are good for current events, but they get summarised by the weeklies and the trade press, and those secondary sources are better as they usually give more perspective. It's the contentious stuff that causes problems, and you can help your case here by listing sources which disagree with you - Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent is good guidance here. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the guidance. I'll take a look. If you click on the sources for the Env. Intro draft I proposed, it includes Time, Foreign Policy, and the Petroleum Economist, and I often source very negative BP articles. One of the few positive references to BPs environmental record links to treehugger.com. As you know, a lot of trades are behind firewalls so there are limitations there. I do appreciate your distinction between what to use for sourcing analysis and current news. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Paywalled sources are not prohibited, and some of the most authoritative scholarship is indeed in paywalled journals. Still, because your submissions suggest review from uninvolved editors, that's a far more complex situation when the full text is not freely available online. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He could simply provide copies of any paywalled sources to the reviewers. Ryan Vesey 03:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say standard sources like journals etc that a University would have are fine as a large proportion of editors have access to them, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out the change I just made. I was based on your proposed sentence which relates to the year 2011. Should it be 2012? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done...2012...```Buster Seven Talk 19:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Arturo, thanks for the update. In the future, it might be more efficient to leave any content-related information on the BP talk page rather than my personal page. petrarchan47tc 21:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the GOM output update, I left a follow-up question for you here petrarchan47tc 18:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a related question for you here. Thanks again. petrarchan47tc 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...when you first started editing about a year ago, you were of the practice of notifying editors (of your choosing) that you had (or you were going to) make a request at the BP article and could they assist you in implementing them. I wonder if that is still something that you choose to do. Or do you leave it up to chance as to which editor will act as your proxy (which BTW is not the bad word that many make it out to be)? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t done this in recent months because it’s not necessary since there is plenty of activity on the talk page. Also, I think I usually only did it when proposing a draft. I could foresee in the future needing to bring attention to edit page requests but it doesn’t seem to be needed now. Arturo at BP (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. While there is still much tugging and twisting of the article, an important aspect of what we, as editors, do is to improvise a working relationship between collaborators. Our objectives as to what the article needs to impart to our reader may be different but, beyond that, we are creating a capacity to work together as encyclopedists. Not just for the BP article and the editors working there, but for other coporate/religious/poltical/etc articles to come. When I first came to the article. I could barely follow the multi-layered discussions centering around your requests. They were confusing and hard to follow (without having participated) and did not allow focussed discussions. I think the confusion also led to unintended tensions and misunderstandings. Your capacity to see a solution to the problem and implement it into your editing process is appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is for Gandydancer, to follow up the discussion following my April 19 statement: "It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light." I hesitated in following up because I am not asking for an apology or for you to defend yourself. My comment was influenced by the current difficult tone of the discussion, and also your suggestion that my requests didn't need to be looked at soon, while I have to respond quickly to others' questions. In looking back through our interactions, I've noticed that we have worked very well together at some times, however when things go wrong, I find that your tone sometime changes sharply, which can make the situation more difficult.

I was specifically responding to your comment the same day that I "took several weeks, (or was it months?) to get back" about Prudhoe Bay, and I appreciate that you've now acknowledged the confusion with the DOJ and CFTC charges. I also had in mind your complaints about the initial delay, including calling this "disturbing" on January 12 and bringing it up again in reply to Silverseren on March 24. Regarding the delay in that case, I'm sorry I wasn't more communicative in the time I was waiting for a response, which I now realize would have helped.

I was thinking as well of our discussion surrounding the Prudhoe Bay section on March 27, after we improved it, when you found new information which we hadn't included because we didn't know about it. At this time you suggested that I was "deceived by BP" while implying that I may be deceiving you, and you disagreed that the section was more accurate than what was there before. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it that I wasn't aware of those developments and I didn't ask the right questions to get information about it from colleagues in the company, but a simple before and after comparison of that section shows that we corrected serious distortions, even if it was not exactly complete. (Which of course Wikipedia never is.) Later, on April 19, you said about the Prudhoe Bay section: "I am still trying to untangle that mess and expect no assist from BP." But I did in fact seek out more information once you asked, and I presented more information on April 1, and continued to participate after it was decided that this should be added to the article.

We've had positive experiences working together, but also some obvious tension. Your comment on April 19 made it sound as if you were no longer interested in working with me. I hope that's not the case. My comment expressed frustration with these tensions, and hopefully by addressing it we can continue to work successfully together in the future. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...for seperating your most recent requests into individual sections. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP Canada.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Interior (Talk) 15:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the reference as per you suggestion from the BP website to the Business Journal reference. Thanks Blackrock36 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Blackrock. As a courtesy to other editors at titled article, it may be a good idea to note at the talk page that you have made the changes that Arturo requested. As it looks now, the request is still open. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference, Blackrock36. I will leave a note on the Talk page at the article to let editors know that the first part of my request has been done and ask if anyone is willing to update the production figures using the new source. Buster Seven, thanks for your note here too, hopefully my adding a note to the Talk page will suffice to show that part of the request is done. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo, your name was mentioned in this comment. Could you please comment this? I know you have commented this also earlier, so maybe you could provide also a relevant link. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, you are right, I have replied about this before on the BP Talk page. But since that reply has been archived now and it seems like Petrarchan did not see it before or did not read it properly, I will explain again and link back to the original comment. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment this and this issues. Thank you Beagel (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo. Thank you for you message. I just finished writing the Steve Cuozzo article and have room for a new biography project. If Geoff Morrell is looking for something like the Steve Cuozzo biography article, I'd be happy to expand the Geoff Morrell article. However, I'll need some things from you since you have direct contact with Geoff. First, I would like you/Geoff/someone to upload more photos for the Geoff Morrell article into Commons. It's a biography, so the photos that would be nice are Morrell's early life/environment photos (childhood/family through college) and two or three photos that show his career/environment. I'm also hoping to receive early life information - date of birth, parents names, occupations, brothers/sisters names (order of birth), birth place, elementary, junior high, high school names, year graduated from high school, year entered Georgetown University, one or two extra circular things he did/experienced at Georgetown University (or very early in his life) that someone might see as fitting with being a spokesperson. Having this information and a copy of his resume would help guide me on searching for independent reliable source information to support adding such information to the article. Geoff Morrell is a very common name, so it will be difficult for me to find independent/reliable sourced biography information on Geoff Morrell without his assistance. Also, if you can provide me links to article that discuss his life, that would help out. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jreferee. Thank you for your offer of help. I think for now I would be happy just making these smaller updates. I am not sure that there would be enough reliable sources about Geoff to expand this article much beyond where it is now. Johnbod has now made most of the quick updates I listed on the talk page, but a couple regarding his role with the Department of Defense still remain if you're able to look at those? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Are you looking to add the part about the White House and Pentagon being consumed by two wars? ("He covered the White House for ABC News, then was Pentagon press secretary throughout the tenure of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, spanning two presidencies and consumed by two wars."[6]) The word "consumed" probably would not work. Also, the focus seems to imply that when Morrell went to the White House and Pentagon, all he saw was a White House and Pentagon being consumed by two wars. The look and feel he received from those places probably included other things. BP Biography - If you know of someone at BP who is notable and has a less common name, I'd be happy to look into writing a biography article on him/her. Edit - I'm not sure how, but this edit of yours added an archived thread back into my talk page and deleted another thread. It's not a big deal. Someone undid it,[7] while keeping your posted message. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arturo As you may know, your Wikipedia editing exploits were discussed in a March 2013 blog post by CIPR member Stuart Bruce - see http://stuartbruce.biz/2013/03/pr-wikipedia-and-bpa-sorry-tale.html. The CIPR has been updating its Wikipedia best practice guidelines and, as a Wikipedian and - like Stuart - a member of the CIPR's Social Media Panel, I was asked to help, along with a fellow member of Wikimedia UK. I hope you don't mind but I have included a mini-case study about your efforts on behalf of BP, citing this as good practice in managing COI. If you would like to know more, please let me know. Paul W (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BPLogo2015.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:David Lawler. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the article, DGG! Arturo at BP (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Lawler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lawler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Please can you use the {{request edit}} template in future when requesting edits. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk, Apologize for the delay in responding. I can use the request edit template for future requests. I had been pinging you and others because you were active on the article, but I'm happy to use the template if that's more helpful. I have tried suggesting direct edits in the past, often receiving little response when there are more than just a couple. I found editors were more responsive when I provided an option for updated or alternative language. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]