Jump to content

Talk:Glencore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bolivian situation

This addition was made at 18:54, on 9 February 2007, by 160.253.0.7 "The Glencore´s Vinto complex had been illegally bought from the Bolivian government." It is an interesting comment. However, do you have a source? I hope you have one. But, if you don´t, or if you fail to add one in the near future, I will remove your addition. Thanks. ACinfo 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Corporate filings for Glencore

Annual reports from Glencore are hard to obtain, but they are filed with the Singapore Stock Exchange, try http://info.sgx.com/listprosp.nsf/By+Company?OpenView&start=378&count=5&expand=378 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.85.69 (talk)

Yes, it's in the article now. (Although one mention would have sufficed...) Thanks! Sandstein 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where figure of EUR 76 billion for 2006 revenue comes from, as stock exchange filing gives USD 116 billion (approx EUR 86 billion). Suggest changing. Lakeview 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting deletions

That was some hefty redaction of controversial material from the ip 84.73.95.117; someone dialing in from the Zug headquarters, perhaps? Whiskey Pete 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 

 Name:    84-73-95-117.dclient.hispeed.ch
 Address:  84.73.95.117
Earlier, there was 217.192.190.11 (talk · contribs), registered to Glencore, which also attempted to delete the material about the company's controversies. Sandstein 04:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealings with Rogue States

What's this section doing in the article? It's hearsay based on one rather bizarre article (the USSR was hardly a 'rogue state').113.73.15.153 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Improvements

Hi there. As many of you are already aware, this article can be further clarified and improved. There are also a number of factual inaccuracies that should be reviewed and corrected. In the interest of transparency I am declaring that Glencore is my client. I hope to work with other editors to ensure that this Wikipedia article is accurate. Please contact me on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

1. Regarding Glencore’s ranking in the Fortune Global 500 list, the company has moved from twelfth to tenth position, according to the Fortune Global 500 website (the link is already available on the page). Can I suggest the following revision:

“As of 2014, it ranked tenth in the Fortune Global 500 list of the world's largest companies”

2. Prior to its merger with Xstrata, Glencore was named “Glencore International plc”. This can be seen from the companies statements, available here (http://www.investegate.co.uk/Index.aspx?searchtype=2&words=glencore&pno=2). For accuracy, could I suggest the second paragraph is revised to reflect this:

“As Glencore International plc, the company was…”

3. Regarding Glencore’s secondary listings, could I suggest the tense in the third paragraph is revised to reflect that Glencore still has its Hong Kong listing, as shown in the information box:

“It has a secondary listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.”

4. The company also listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) in November 2013. Could I suggest a sentence on this is added in following the line on the Hong Kong listing, with a link to a Financial Times article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb201bba-4c47-11e3-923d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Cjx3NpHY):

“Glencore’s shares started trading on Johannesburg’s stock exchange in November 2013” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

done. Dormskirk (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dormskirk, thank you very much. There are a number of other updates, additions and revisions to make across the whole page which I believe would be useful in the interests of accuracy and balance. I would appreciate your feedback and where possible, help in making the revisions. Please find the next block of suggestions below:

5. Starting in the “History” section, “1974 to 2000”, the page suggests Glencore is now run by Marc Rich's inner-circle of "lieutenants". There is no source for this and it is quite a subjective statement. In the interests of accuracy, could I suggest we remove the “inner-circle of lieutenants” if there is no source available?

6. In the same paragraph, the page notes that Glencore is still run by “founding Glencore CEO Willy Strothotte”. Could I suggest we remove this as he is no longer at the company? The current list of Glencore’s Board of Directors is available here: (http://www.glencore.com/who-we-are/corporate-governance/board-of-directors/)

7. In the “2000 to present” section, the final paragraph notes that a Reuters report included speculation that Glencore could develop an interest in ENRC. Could I suggest we add a line from an FT article from June 2011 noting Glencore’s statement on this:

“Glencore said that, contrary to recent reports, it was not interested in bidding for the under-fire group.” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3a232b6-9695-11e0-afc5-00144feab49a.html#axzz3CKkwWFeD)

8. In the “Glencore's Initial Public Offering” section, the wording is slightly incorrect in line 2: “With the IPO, Glasenberg shares would fall from 18.1 before the IPO percent to 15.8 percent after the offering.” Could we revise it so it reads “would fall from 18.1%”?

9. In line 3, the page suggests that Glencore is known for its "opportunistic but lucrative acquisition strategy”. Could I suggest we add at the beginning of this sentence “According to Reuters” and add in the link to the article (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-glencore-ipo-idUSTRE7430EF20110504)?

10. In the “Relationship with Xstrata”, the first paragraph reads as out of date, given that Glencore has now merged with Xstrata. Could I suggest revising the tense to the past, as follows:

“Prior to its merger with Xstrata, Glencore is reported to have served as a marketing partner for the company. As of 2006, Glencore leaders Willy Strothotte and Ivan Glasenberg were on the board of Xstrata, which Strothotte chaired.[29] According to The Sunday Times, Glencore controlled 40% of Xstrata stock and appointed the Xstrata CEO, Mick Davis.”

11. In paragraph 3, could I suggest, in the interest of accuracy, that we revise the tense in the “post-Reid era” sentence to the past, as follows:

“After 11 years of involvement, this marked a massive shift in the company's strategy and the group was entering a post-Reid era.”

13. In paragraph 5, could I suggest, in the interest of accuracy, that we revise the tense to the past and add “BBC News reported”, given it is unclear where the article obtained its statistics? Could I also suggest that we change “glenstrata” to “Glencore Xstrata” for accuracy and add “According to mining analyst John Meyer” at the beginning of this sentence, given that this was his forecast? As per the below:

“In October 2012, BBC News reported that Glencore had more ships than the British Royal Navy. Glencore's operations in 40 countries handled 3% of the world's oil consumption. Xstrata's operations in more than 20 countries employed 70,000 people. According to mining analyst John Meyer, if the two companies merged into Glencore Xstrata, they would be the 4th largest commodities trader in the world.”

12. The links for sources 30, 31, 32 are faulty, while source 34 links to a Bloomberg article which does not contain the information cited on the page. Could I suggest these are updated?

13. In the penultimate sentence, could I suggest that, for accuracy, we update it slightly to note the sentence in the Reuters article that net income fell 25%, excluding the impact of the impairment charge from its holding in RUSAL:

“Just before completing its forced April 2013 takeover of mining rival Xstrata as it awaited Chinese regulatory approval for its long-planned merger, the world's largest diversified commodities trader, Glencore's annual income fell 25 percent, as its trading division offset the impact of weak commodity prices. Including the impact of an impairment related to a reclassification of its holding in Russian aluminium producer RUSAL, net income fell 75 per cent.”

14. At the end of the “Relationship with Xstrata” section, could I suggest we add in a line on Glencore’s recent name change to Glencore plc, citing an article from The Australian?

“On 20 May 2014, Glencore Xstrata changed its name to Glencore plc following the 2014 AGM.” (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/glencore-drops-xstrata/story-e6frg90f-1226924732965)

Many thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I have picked up most of these. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dormskirk, please see below a further block of suggested updates and revisions which takes us through to the end of the page. As always in the interests of balance and accuracy, I would appreciate your feedback and where possible, help in making the revisions.

15. In the first line of the “Financial and accounting manipulations” section, for accuracy could I suggest we revise the tense to the past, adding in the date, as per the below:

“Five non-government organisations filed a complaint in April 2011 to….”

16. Also in this paragraph, could I suggest a few revisions for accuracy and balance:

First, regarding the Grant Thornton report, could I suggest we add in that it was a “draft” report and that it had “alleged” Glencore had avoided tax in Zambia, as per what was reported in this Observer article http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/apr/17/glencore-denies-copper-tax-allegations:

“In 2011, a draft Grant Thornton report alleged that tax avoidance by Glencore in Zambia cost the Zambian Government hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. The avoidance was alleged to have been facilitated through mechanisms such as transfer pricing and inflating costs at Glencore's Mopani Copper Mine.”

Second, could we add in a reference to the fact that Glencore had “categorically rejected” these allegations, adding in the link to the same Observer article (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/apr/17/glencore-denies-copper-tax-allegations), as per the below:

“The Observer reported the draft report had been “categorically rejected” by Glencore.”

Third, in the interests of further balance and clarity, can I suggest we also add in a line referring to Glencore’s statement submitted to the UK International Development Committee in April 2012 on this matter, inserting the link (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmintdev/130/130we18.htm):

“In a submission to the UK International Development Committee in April 2012, Glencore said “Mopani is convinced that the taxes, royalties and other dues to the Government have always been calculated and paid in the proper manner in line with the applicable legislation”. Glencore also said that “the draft provisional report [from Grant Thornton] contained fundamental factual errors and both Mopani and Glencore have publicly refuted its ‘conclusions’ on numerous occasions”.

17. In the “Investments in Colombia” section in the final paragraph, could I suggest, in the interests of balance, that we insert a line referencing Ivan Glasenberg’s statements reported in the BBC article already cited? So, following the last line, (….that coal was the motive for the massacre.), could we add in the below line, inserting the link to the BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17702487):

“Ivan Glasenberg refuted the court's ruling. He told Panorama: "The court is wrong. If that's what the court ruling was, I can assure you Glencore doesn't own the land. There is no coal underneath that land. Or if there is coal underneath that land then it is very deep and not mineable." He also told Panorama that Glencore had "never dealt, never paid, never met the paramilitaries in all our years in Colombia".

18. In the “Investments in Bolivia” section, Glencore currently operates 4 businesses through its Bolivian subsidiary Sinchi Wayra, rather than the 6 written here. This is according to the Glencore website (http://www.glencore.com/global-operations/). Could I suggest we revise the sentence to:

“Glencore operates four businesses in Bolivia that mine and process tin, silver, gold and zinc.”

19. In the “Investments in Zambia” section, could I suggest we add in that the quote here is attributed to the Reuters article:

“According to a Reuters article in 2011, "[O]fficials in Zambia believe pollution from Glencore's Mopani mines smelter is causing acid rain and health problems in an area where 5 million people live."

Second, could I suggest we also add in a line noting that the Mopani smelter has since been upgraded, citing this article (http://ukzambians.co.uk/home/2014/06/11/mopani-completes-smelter-upgrade-project/):

“The upgrade of the Mopani Mines smelter was completed in June 2014 eliminating the emissions of 97 per cent of sulphur dioxide emissions in line with the recommended international standards by the World Health Organisation (WHO).”

20. In the “Investments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo” section, at the end of the first paragraph, could I suggest we add in an additional line from the BBC article, as per the below:

“Glencore said the pollution started long before the company took over the refinery and that the pollution has now ended.”

Second, in the second paragraph regarding “conflict minerals”, could I suggest we add in Glencore’s statement from the Wall Street Journal article cited:

“In a detailed letter sent to Global Witness, the company denied any wrongdoing. A Glencore spokesman told Corruption Currents that the company was not involved in any of the transactions listed in the report and had disclosed the acquisitions last year.”

Third, in the third paragraph, could I suggest we revise the tense slightly, while also adding in “According to Global Witness” to the beginning of the second line for accuracy, as per the below:

“Glencore acquired stakes in the Kansuki mine in Congo's southern Katanga Province in 2012. According to Global Witness, Congo's government transferred a 75 per cent…”

Fourth, at the end of this paragraph, could I suggest adding in Glencore’s statement cited in the Guardian, adding in the link to the article (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/may/08/mining-firms-congo-deals):

“A spokesman for Glencore, whose annual meeting takes place, said: "During the period when these transactions took place, Glencore had decided in general not to increase its shareholdings in DRC projects. This was for two reasons – firstly, Glencore already had substantial capital commitments to develop Katanga and Mutanda and preferred to invest its funds in developing its DRC projects rather than paying out shareholders. Secondly, Glencore perceived that there was potentially some uncertainty ahead of the DRC presidential election. The outcome was uncertain and it was possible that there could be very unfavourable implications for the mining industry."

Fifth, in the first line of the final paragraph, could I suggest revising the tense and adding in the date:

“Glencore acquired a 50 per cent share in SAMREF Congo SPRL in 2007, a Congolese registered company holding 80% of the Mutanda mine.”

Sixth, in the second line of the final paragraph, could I suggest we insert “According to Global Witness” at the beginning for accuracy, as per the below:

“According to Global Witness, SMREF Congo SPRL recommended…”

Seventh, could I also suggest we add in Dan Gertler’s statement from the same Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/may/08/mining-firms-congo-deals), as per the below:

“A spokesman for Gertler said the Global Witness report's valuations do "not take into account the considerable capital expenditure and time required to bring these assets to full production. The value of these assets is determined by what the market is prepared to pay. There is a considerable amount of risk attached and no other party was prepared to pay a fraction of the sum paid by [Gertler companies]. Clearly, there would be limited interest from industry partners in taking a 25% minority stake in such a project," the spokesman said.”

21. In the “Associations with mining companies” section, could I suggest we revise the tense to reflect the completion of the Xstrata merger, as per the paragraph in the “Relationship with Xstrata section” already updated:

“Glencore is also noted for its association with the publicly traded Xstrata mining group, which was also headquartered in the low-tax[14] Canton of Zug, Switzerland. On 2 May 2013, it completed its merger with Xstrata. Glencore was reported to serve as a marketing partner for Xstrata. As of 2006, Glencore leaders Willy Strothotte and Ivan Glasenberg were on the board of Xstrata, which Strothotte chaired. According to The Sunday Times in 2005, Glencore controlled 40% of Xstrata stock and appointed the Xstrata CEO, Mick Davis.”

Many thanks again for all your help with this, please let me know if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again I have picked most of this up but without quoting verbatim from Glencore statements. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Domskirk, thank you very much. Could I just ask, on point 17 regarding Investments In Colombia, would you mind just adding "Ivan Glasenberg refuted the court's ruling" at the end of the paragraph. I understand that my previous suggestion was probably too long but it would be good to get some of the statement in, in the interests of balance. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Domskirk, thank you for the above changes. One last point, please could we consider completely removing the table of assets and production facilities until we have a chance to provide one which is accurate, as the current one on the page is severely out of date, and no longer an accurate reflection of the current facilities. Many thanks for your patience with this. Wiki6789 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor has taken a lot of trouble over this so I suggest you work up an updated and more accurate table in a similar format - perhaps posting it here first. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dormskirk, the problem is that such a table would run to several pages and would need to be regularly updated to remain useful. I appreciate that someone took a lot of time to put together the current table but it is largely out of date and no longer accurately portrays the company’s assets. In the interests of accuracy, can I suggest that we remove the table and provide a link to the detailed asset list and map on Glencore’s website (http://www.glencore.com/global-operations/)? This is constantly updated and would be a more useful source of information for users. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: it was very out of date. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve just had another scan of the page and there are a few more changes and additions which I think would make things a bit clearer. In particular, could I perhaps suggest we add links to some of Glencore’s responses to the controversies listed. They add a useful amount of context to each case and would make the page a bit more balanced:

1. In the fact box at the top of the page, please could we change Tony Hayward to “chairman” rather than “interim chairman”

2. In the “Financial and accounting manipulations” section, could I suggest we change the final sentence to “Glencore and its auditor Deloitte rejected these allegations”, adding in links to Glencore and Deloitte’s response (leaving in the link to the Guardian article):

Glencore response: http://www.glencore.com/assets/Uploads/media/glencore/2011/201106020800-Glencore-comments-on-Mopani-tax-payments.pdf

Deloitte letter: http://www.glencore.com/assets/Uploads/media/glencore/2011/201102180800-Letter-From-Mopani-Copper-Mines-Auditors.pdf

3. In the “Investments in Colombia” section, could I suggest we change the final sentence to “Glencore refuted the allegations”, adding in a link to its response to the Panorama investigation (leaving in the link to the BBC article):

Glencore response: http://www.glencore.com/assets/Uploads/media/glencore/2012/201204160800-Response-to-Panorama.pdf

4. Could I perhaps suggest we remove the Investments in Bolivia section altogether, given that it’s not really a controversy (i.e. Glencore was the wronged party and protested against the nationalisation of the mine). Further context can be found here, let me know if you agree:

http://www.glencore.com/assets/Uploads/media/glencore/2012/201206220800-Glencore-response-to-the-nationalisation-of-the-Colquiri-mine-in-Bolivia.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18553454

5. In the “Investments in Zambia” section, the original change is slightly incorrect (my fault). Could we change the “Mopani Mines smelter” to the “Mopani Mines asset plant” and change the date to March 2014 from June 2014.

6. In the “Investments in DRC” section, could I suggest we move the final sentence “Glencore said the pollution…” to the end of the first paragraph as it is currently out of place.

Second, could I suggest we add in a line at the end of the section as follows: “Glencore has responded a number of times to Global Witness regarding these allegations”, adding in the below source:

http://www.glencore.com/assets/Uploads/media/glencore/2014/201405190900-Glencore-response-to-Global-Witness-May-2014.pdf

7. Could I suggest that we modify the “Association with mining companies” as again, it’s not really a controversy and is slightly confusing? First, could I suggest we delete the first 5 lines on Glencore’s relationship with Xstrata (down to “a 12 per cent stake in Xstrata”) as this is already outlined in the “Relationship with Xstrata” section above. Second, could I suggest we then move the remaining paragraph into the History section, retaining the title “Associations with mining companies”? Hope this makes sense!

8. Could I suggest we modify the title of the final controversies section to “Women on the board” from “Lack of women on the board”, given that Glencore has recently appointed Patrice Merrin?

Thank you again for your patience and diligent work on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

done. Dormskirk (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The rise of Glencore, the biggest company you've never heard of

£37bn flotation to make commodities company – and the 'extremely private' people behind it – very public

Glencore's market share is so large that it recorded revenues of $145bn (£89bn) last year and the flotation value is £37bn.

Taking Glencore to the next level, however, giving it the chance of even greater success through a series of acquisitions, requires the $11bn of funds that will be raised through the flotation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/19/rise-of-glencore-commodities-company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.155.34 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's weird. I just heard about them for the first time from a 2011 story. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Child labour

new BBC article today mentioning this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17702487 --66.7.139.222 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.zenithcitynews.com/060915/feature.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) SovalValtos (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glencore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph copied and pasted from http://oecdwatch.org/news-en/tax-evasion-in-zambia removed in its entirety. Dormskirk (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glencore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glencore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glencore/Archive_1&oldid=1122750839"