Yes, I can verify this material. Peter Roussel Peter H. Roussel (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles about living persons generally require that the information be verifiable. Readers should be able to follow the citations to reliable sources to confirm that the information is true. This is partially for your protection, since without this policy someone claiming to be you could fabricate information about you, and editors would have no way of knowing whether it was true or not. Also, news articles have in the past referenced Wikipedia articles as reliable sources of facts, or just copied them outright. Feel free to post a note here if you need any help with formatting citations, or see here for a helpful tutorial. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DPRoberts534--Thank you for your help--much appreciated. Peter RousselPeter H. Roussel (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have given reason. is unsourced material, and therefore in violate of main wikipedia tenet to not be original research. is constructive to adhere to these, yes? will redo, please to justify inclusion. are free to add citations for material, but please leave unsourced material out of article as to better serve wikipedia core concepts. Lakdfhia (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern with the article content. Not everything which lacks a citation is false. Perhaps you could start by identifying a false statement in the article, finding a reliable source which contradicts it, and removing only that statement from the article. Make sure you reference the source of your information in your change message. DPRoberts534 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Catskill Mountains shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Lakdfhia (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some situations where reverting changes multiple times is permitted under Wikipedia policy, as it was in this case. Do you have specific concerns about the contents of that article? If so I will be happy to work with you to fix it after your editing privileges are restored. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your edit summary at Catskill Mountains, WP:BURDEN does permit the removal of unsourced content, even if it is uncontroversial; there is just a widely accepted understanding that such removals should only be made with good cause, but technically there is no requirement for that. Now if there was a community discussion, it would probably come down in your favor, but the policy is still there. Relying on edit warring exemptions can be a tricky thing, so I'd just urge you to be cautious. Monty₈₄₅ 05:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN does permit the removal of unsourced content but not the indiscriminate blanking of large portions of an article. I spot-checked the content that Lakdfhia removed and found that it was easily verifiable if not properly cited. I should have been more clear in my edit summary. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Matty.007 19:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DPRoberts534.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-From the cookie monster (: GraceSmileyface (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! A cookie out of the blue. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome(:GraceSmileyface (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm sorry but I don't know how to post on my talk page yet. You gave me some very helpful advice at the teahouse. I am going to research the soldier link you gave me and add more references from the media. Thanks! GMarin 02:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

hi, the information added is not copyrighted, rather it is a public domain information freely available, quoted, printed and shared, the only issue at most was giving proper credit, thanks for your assistance desert brook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert brook (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The museum website claims copyright over the contents. Did the museum reprint it from a public-domain source? What is the original source? DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"one should normally claim copyright over original contents, not as you say re-print that too from public-domain. The official citation given by the Government in early September 1965 was widely printed in all the newspapers of Pakistan as it was the first Gallontary medal of the war" desert brook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert brook (talk • contribs) 06:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The museum may not have intended to claim copyright over the citation. Was this originally a government publication, or a newspaper publication? In either case, it has not fallen into public domain. If it is a widely disseminated government work it will become public domain in 2016 unless it is recaptured. However, it may be reprinted verbatim as long as it is properly attributed. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DPRoberts534, Thank you for help! My data's are not religious, scholarly. Everyone can control it, because I give references enough. I will try to do what you wrote. Thanks again! I hope that I use correct way to send a message to you. --Tarasyani (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your critique! Did I even put this response in the right place? Wiki is complicated. Cmhauteps11 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for the advice. I did read the edit. I responded to you on the Teahouse page with a couple questions. Thank you in advance.Cmhauteps11 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to take Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of classic analog integrated circuits off of review due to a bug in the AFC Helper Script. See the discussions on various sub-pages of WT:WPAFC that relate to the helper script and the upcoming backlog drive. The but should be fixed on September 25. In the meantime, if you want to put articles under review or take them off of review, please use the development version of the script or edit the page by hand. The beta version may work as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thanks for reviewing and correcting the LM-series list. Lophostrix —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DPRoberts534: The bug in question is now fixed. You can now put articles under review and take them off of review safely using the gadget version of the AFC Helper Script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where you got those numbers from. Can you explain? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I split the article up into three sections roughly chronologically and did a word count. Most of the recommended discharge section was counted as Breanna, but if I was applying the rule evenly I should probably have counted it as Bradley. Everything on or after August 22 was counted as Chelsea except for the section Request for presidential pardon, which cited only sources referring to her primarily as Bradley. If you have an alternate word count I would definitely be willing to consider it. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're measuring word count of our wikipedia article? I'm not sure what this has to do with commonname, which is about usage in reliable sources - (since Aug 22, since there was a name change).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: That is why I called out NPOV. If content is balanced in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources, then it can be used as a proxy for the purposes of COMMONNAME. This also resolves some ambiguity with how reliable sources are weighed. Are you saying that sources from before August 22 should not be considered? DPRoberts534 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying they should be severely downgraded, at least w.r.t to this particular question. Otherwise, you will always have an overwhelming majority of sources in the past that can only be overcome by much more coverage in the future. Policy says you should give more recent sources more weight - I would tend to weigh them very heavily indeed in this case, since the name "Chelsea" was unheard of before Aug 22. In any case, I've never seen commonname invoked in that way - the sources used in a wikipedia article are arbitrary, and people could try to game it by swapping out a source that used X for Y but provided the same fact just to get their desired name. I think you should ignore what sources are used in the article and focus on the raw numbers in the reliable sources; the goal of commonname is to understand what was the reader exposed to when they opened their paper or browsed to their website? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my tl;dr argument on the RM, I downgraded the contribution of pre-August-22 content by requiring that only 10% of the content map to "Chelsea" sources. Measuring the prevalence of the names in all sources weighted by their reliability and depth would be preferable, but impractical. I don't think gaming is going to be a problem if I'm the only one counting :) I see some similarities between this and notability considerations. For Manning to have an article at all, she had to be involved in notable events. For Manning to be renamed to Chelsea, she needs to have some level of notability as Chelsea. I'm not sure exactly what the cutoff point is. COMMONNAME is clear but imprecise. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This sounds like a rather custom interpretation. In general the "this person was known under that name, not this name" is reasonable, but you need to look at ongoing coverage AFTER a name change. In the case of Manning, if in 1 year's time, articles say "Today Chelsea Manning said that she regretted releasing data" - without any recall back to Bradley - then we know commonname has stuck - even if "Bradley" was the name under which the crimes were committed. The way I think of it is this - if a journalist sits down to write an article, what do they type when they think of the subject - or what do their style guides tell them to use? That's the commonname. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on unwatching the page. I'm out too. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help regarding the Kenneth Frazier page. I see that you moved my suggestions from the talk page to another workpage (Talk:Kenneth Frazier/Merck Suggested Revision). I am unfamiliar with this process, and would like to know how you suggest I move forward. Specifically, does another editor have to weigh in, or can I now move the edits from the workpage to the live article? Thanks.

Nicole922 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicole922: Great to see you're still with us. I would not recommend moving your changes into the article yet. There are a few parts of the draft which very closely paraphrase the source material, and a few conclusions which seem to be ultimately sourced to Kenneth Frazier himself (through interviews and such). Also I would like to see a lot more content available before I restore the section headers; the old ones were problematic as I explained on the talk page. I have started compiling my notes at Talk:Kenneth Frazier/Notes. A lot of the work left to do is copying the individual facts and the source citations from your draft into the list of notes. It would be enormously helpful if you could help out with that page. Any update on the photo? DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning the process and compiling your notes. We are working on your edits and hope to have an update by midweek. Thank you for your time. Nicole922 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: I have completed the edits on the notes page you began for Kenneth Frazier, and it is now ready for your review. We are still working on the photo. Thank you. Nicole922 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will review your edits and continue to add information from the listed sources. Keep me posted about the photo. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: Thank you for taking a look at the edits. We also have a new photo of Mr. Frazier that I can upload to the notes page. Do you recommend that I use the File Upload Wizard or the Wikipedia Commons? Nicole922 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upload it to Commons, please. If you shot the photo but it has been previously published, or if you did not shoot it but the photographer has released it under a compatible license, then you will need to send an email to the Wikimedia OTRS team. You can find instructions for this at Commons:OTRS. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: I sent an email to permissions and recieved a reply saying they have made the necessary modifications, but I don't see a change to the image. Is there anything else I need to do in regards to this, as well as the content for the updated article? Thanks! Nicole922 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicole922: Can you point me to the image? Is it on Wikipedia or Commons? DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: CommonsNicole922 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking that on! I added the new photo to the article. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534:I see you have been making edits and comments on the notes page, thank you! Would it help if I began moving the sections you seem to have already reviewed (Life, Drinker Biddle, and Merck) from the notes page onto the public page? Nicole922 (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move the content to the article in sections after they are written. I am still in the process of taking notes from all the listed sources. Once that is done, hopefully within the next week, I will start writing content. DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: Just checking in... do you need anything from me to help move this page forward? Nicole922 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicole922: Good to hear from you! I'm still here and committed to the project. Holidays are getting in the way of my Wikipedia time. If you have any notes that are not in the outline, please add them. I hope to create a new draft page soon. DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: Thank you for your continued commitment to this project. With sales and earnings coming next week, we expect more visitors to Kenneth Frazier's page. In preparation for this, is it possible to add any more sections or content to the live page? Thanks, Nicole922 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DPRoberts534: Hi There, would you mind taking another look at Ken Frazier's page. I believe content has been added under the "Other Work" section that is skewed regarding the Penn State scandal. Thank you in advance! 155.91.45.231 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that you had marked this for review. I declined it already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I guess I'll go find another one. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I can't hijack a review from the 534th Dread Pirate Roberts, then I'll just have to hijack one from Inigo Montoya (talk · contribs) instead. Arrgg!  :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty good. Have you ever considered piracy? DPRoberts534 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DPRoberts534,

I would like to know the exact reason why my latest submission to Articles for creation had been declined. Unfortunately, I can not find the issues raised, so I am unable to solve them and re-submit the article. Thus, I would be grateful if you explained me, how is it possible to solve this situation and what aspects of the article should be changed and in what way.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, Tom-Innerfade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOM-InnerFade (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TOM-InnerFade: I declined your Articles for Creation submission because it did not list enough references of the quality needed to establish notability. As I mentioned in the decline comment, the article at news.lv may be reliable, but I could not determine if it provided significant coverage because the URL was not accessible. Also, you need to provide more than one reference to a reliable, independent source of information about the subject. The building's official pages other websites do not count towards this. You may want to take a look at the Latvian-language version of the article to see if there are any sources there that may meet the requirement. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review on e-IRG article

May I revise it again? If so can I please have it back to the sandbox.

In addition: what is the copyright violation? I am the responsible of the news item you are referring to...

best regards

Ari Turunen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari.turunen (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ari.turunen: If you want to reuse content that has already been published elsewhere, you will have to send an email to the Wikimedia OTRS team. They will need proof that you own the copyrighted material and that you are free to relicense it. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions on doing this. Your draft cannot be restored until this is done. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Љубичевске коњичке игре. Since you had some involvement with the Љубичевске коњичке игре redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said that my article was rejected because of use of copyrighted information. BUT I wrote that copyrighted information, all that text comes from my history that I made for the band The Thing. It is my band and my text, so I am allowed to use it, of course.

Salcanzonieri1960 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Salcanzonieri1960[reply]

@Salcanzonieri1960: I had to reject your submission primarily because the content was previously published. I understand that this can be frustrating. For an article to be accepted, the content must be freely licensed for modification and distribution, encyclopedic in tone, and verifiable. (See the five pillars of Wikipedia.) To provide proof that you are the author and agree to relicense your work, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Before you do this, you should confirm that the band is notable. Wikipedia cannot have an article about the band at all if it does not meet the guidelines described at Wikipedia:Notability (music). DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you accepted this.[1]. I see you tried to fix the formatting but it was left with no inline citations, calling him "Dr' against our guidelines, no verification of his credentials and a line that says "Wikipedia page mentioned Dr. Rashid Askari's "Our martyerd intellectuals" published as an editorial in the Daily Star, December 14, 2005. "1971 Bangladesh genocide"" and really doesn't belong in an article.

The main problem is really that no one notified the author of COI or how to write an article or specifically a biography. Askari turned it into [2] which was basically hype. I've removed it, but he is now restoring it. Do you think you could give him some advice - probably not to edit it at all as I don't think he (whoever he actually is) is capable of editing it either technically or from a content point of view.

I'm sorry if this comes across a bit heavy-handed, but dealing with issues like this is time-consuming and frustrating. I appreciate the work at AfC but sometimes the original creator needs instruction and guidance as they are usually going to continue editing the article after it is created. Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. I made an error in promoting the article, as was pointed out to my by more experienced AfC members. I will see what I can do to explain the COI problem to him. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, DPRoberts534! You're receiving the Working Man's Barnstar because you reviewed 108 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

‎

Thank you for your review of my article on June Julian. I have revised it to establish notability for her as a visual arts educator and artist. Her research is internationally recognized for paving the way for today's widespread collaborative practices in Web-based research, and I have tried to establish that case. Additionally, I have added significantly to her Publications List, but I am not sure if the works by other authors should go under References instead.Lincolnspencer (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make a page about my music career, why does it keep getting deleted for relevency? JAYthaRipper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1JAY7 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why I keep doing this over and over again, and somebody always deletes my progress and then I cannot get any of the work back, how do I get a wiki page that dosen't get booted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1JAY7 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-examine MyTime. Most of the references are unusable or barely usable for purposes of determining notability. If the page is not improved soon, I plan on WP:PRODding it or sending it to WP:AFD. As you approved it when it was in WP:AFC, I wanted to give you a courtesy heads-up before starting the deletion process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review my article on June Julian - I have tried to establish her notability as an Art Educator not as an artist. Also I have included a photo. Thank you! Lincolnspencer (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with my page I have changed my category from Artist to Educator. Please note my professional experience, credentials, & publications. Would you please help me work on this article? I have a new publication to add to my list: Stokrocki, M. Explorations in Virtual Worlds. Chap. 8 National Art Education Association, 2014 Thank you, June Julian Lincolnspencer (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I am Vivian from the Investor Relations team of Pacific Basin.

We made some updates on the PB wiki page this morning, and I noticed that you have reverted it back to the previous edition. May I know why?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Basin_Shipping_Limited

Thank you. Vivian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.196.245 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vivian, your change replaced the article with text copied from Pacific Basin websites. I reverted your change for three reasons. First, you removed the entire contents of the article without explanation. Second, you added text taken from various pages on the company's website and press releases. Company websites and press releases are under copyright protection. Copyrighted text cannot be added to Wikipedia without a license that allows extensive reuse. Even if it was released under a compatible license, text from press releases is seldom neutral and encyclopedic. Third, the account making the changes had a username indicating that it was representing the company. Company representatives should refrain from editing articles with which they have a conflict of interest unless they have established consensus for the change from uninvolved editors. To sum up, your task of promoting the company on Wikipedia is almost certainly incompatible with the governing rules. Sorry it didn't work out. DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roberts, please see the below message from our Director, Corporate Affairs.

Many thanks for your explanation which is helpful as we are not familiar with the Wikipedia process. We felt that the existing content and some facts were a bit outdated and inaccurate, as was the logo which the company changed a couple of years ago. The photo is of a ship that was due to enter dry dock shortly, and so her scruffy appearance is not representative of the average condition of the average ship in the Pacific Basin fleet. In trying to update the text, we actually tried to re-use a lot of the existing words. We also inserted a paragraph to explain what Handysize and Handymax ships are (note the corrected conventional format for these ship types).

We believe our proposed edits are purely factual – very much in the spirit of the original text. As a publicly listed company, a lot of data is verified by auditors and that includes the size of our fleet (you will not we reduced the number in the text).

We will want to research further how to ensure our proposed updates (and future updates) are accepted. Can you please help us out? How do we contact and guide a willing independent Wikipedia contributor to update content? Would that be you?

Thank you. Vivian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.196.245 (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can help you. In order to improve the article, we need a few things that you would be in a good position to provide. These are:

• A detailed list of newspaper and magazine articles and books that cover Pacific Basin in depth. These have to be written by authors independent of the company and to have passed some sort of editorial oversight.
• A list of factual errors in the article.
• At least one high-quality photograph representative of your operations and/or vessels, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. You will have to provide evidence that you are authorized to release it under a compatible license, most likely CC BY-SA 4.0. Documentation should accompany the photo that includes the date it was taken and details of what is being depicted.

Let me know if you are able to take care of these on your end. Any information you can provide should be posted to the article talk page. But please do not post any material that is under copyright protection. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert,

We have noticed the updates and here is some of the edits made by our Corporate Affairs Director, could you please help update with the changes?

1. "dry bulk international shipping" to "international dry bulk shipping" ("dry bulk shipping" is the standard form of the business so better not break in with an "international" in the middle)

2. "HandyMax" should be "Handymax" (just like Handysize in the same line)

3. Second sentence "Pacific Basin owns 'and' operates" please add an 'and' between "owns" and "operates" (grammatical fault)

4. "with a total of 197 dry bulk vessel 'which are' owned as well as ..." (just a suggestion to the sentence formatting which will make it easier to read)

5. "as well as chartered on both short term and long-term" is not really factually correct, please change to "as well as chartered 'under spot' and long-term"

6. add "cargo" before contract, so it will be like: "which are owned as well as chartered under spot and long-term cargo contract" (again, it is how it called in our industry)

7. Replace "to" wit ",the company" to make it sounds more right for sentence break, so the whole sentence will turn out to be "...and long-term cargo contracts, the company transport commodities..."

8. We currently has 12 offices but not 15, please as well take out Fremantle, Newcastle and Sydney (it is official information announced on our website and annual reports, please let me know if your source stated that we still have 15 office and we will correct them)

9. Manila is wrongly spelled - please kindly correct

10. The website showing our Company profile is http://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/index.php, the website URL currently displaying is not accessible as well

We are as well arranging the photo upload as we are getting the documents, the above changes are mainly correcting the factual mistakes and outdated information on the page currently, and some grammatical suggestions, not promoting our Company etc.

Please let me know if you find any of the changes unacceptable or needed a source

Thank you very much. Vivian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir pacificbasin (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. I will review the changes and update the article. Keep me posted about the photos. DPRoberts534 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1✓ 2✓ 3✓ 4✓ 5✓ 6✓ 7✓ 8✓ 9✓ 10

Sure, just wondering what kind of document should we provide? As we are going to use a photo of our vessel sailing, taken by a phorographer we hired for taking the photos.

Thank you. Vivian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir pacificbasin (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lr pacificbasin: The photo should be representative of your operations rather than staged. It should primarily show facilities and vehicles belonging to Pacific Basin. If employees are depicted in the photo, you need to have their written consent, and you may have to provide it to Wikimedia Commons OTRS. Documentation should accompany the photo detailing the location, date, names of vessels, and operation. Upload the photo at the highest resolution available from your photographer. Beyond that I don't have a preference. Here are some nice photos of ships and shipping facilities. DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thank you Robert, we are planning to upload photos like the ones you shown above.

I noticed that the number of offices and website details are not updated on the wiki page yet, do you have any problems with those information?

Thank you. Vivian

@Lr pacificbasin: It takes some time to do it right. For #10, I was about to ask you about that. Are you talking about the link in the References section with the title "Company Profile of Pacific Basin Shipping Limited"? That URL is intended as a reference citation for the information in the first sentence. Wikipedia policy is to keep citations with dead URLs, not to update them to a different page that may not have the same information. But I will replace it with a better reference if possible. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you've previously participated in discussion on this page, I would like to invite you to provide comment on the following RfC discussion located here if you have the time. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Newbury Park and Conejo Mountain twilight.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ternera (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]