Talk:Shell Exploration and Production Ireland

Revert

SEPIL doesn't just operate in Ireland, it operates solely in Ireland. Shell deals in more than just oil. The Corrib gas project is highly controversial; see Corrib gas controversy. SEPIL also has licences for oil exploration, so it's not just a gas company. There's no need for the Shell category as the Corrib category is already a subcategory of it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content Move

Just two points - 1) Gainline was referencing this, and 2) reverting because "not all of [the content was merged]" when the only bit of content that wasn't is an image of dubious WP:NPOV status, and isn't really related to the company in question is a bit of a stretch. If you truly do feel stongly LP, please discuss instead of blind reverts. Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't advice to move, it's advice about moving. Why not just add to the original article, or is that too much like work? Why do you believe the picture is POV? To contend it's not related to the article is risible. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I was satisfied that the correct protocol was followed and that this info was sufficiently covered as part of Royal Dutch Shell article. The picture is obviously taken by somebody involved in the campaign and was introducing anti-shell bias and also would have been Wp:Undue in such a large article G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 18:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the picture introduce bias? Why did the thought not occur to you to research SEPIL and contribute to Wikipedia's store of knowledge? Your first instinct was to delete, wasn't it? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of a protest against the company taken by somebody involved with the campaign (you) and was the only picture in the article. No information was deleted, the text was copied and pasted into the Royal Dutch Shell article. Finally let me again remind you of WP:NPA particlulary Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please stop your confrontation. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that introduces bias, and you have failed to answer any of my other questions. Unless you have a good reason not to, I propose to restore and add to the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was designed to portray the subject in a a negative light and you have a COI. Please also remember WP:NPOV. Text in full has been introduced to Royal Dutch Shell article as part of the cleanup on the Corrib gas articles. If you want to add to the topic then please do so on that page. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the company is portrayed in a negative light by the photo is a subjective opinion, and I've told either you or 9x5 before that COI is not the get-out clause you seem to consider it. Given the nature of your first edits, I'm not entirely persuaded you don't have one yourself. How many people decided that a "cleanup" necessitated turning this article into a redirect? I can't find this discussion anywhere. Let me repeat myself, for effect; unless you have a good reason not to, I propose to restore and add to the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be editing any pages related to Corrib gas, really. Or, at the very least, should seek a third opinion that your edits are neutral. I see no problem with keeping the page the way it is, and having extra content added to the Royal Dutch Shell article, what's the problem with that? If the section in that article grows deserving of its own article, then it can be merged back. Don't see why this is such a big deal. Just as an aside "not having a good reason not to" is not a good enough reason to do something. Thanks! Fin ©™ 13:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on COI suggest that at the very least you exercise great caution as opposed to editing aggressively on these topics. From my statement in the medcab case, you are aware of my interests and are in effect calling me a liar. Please cease your continual personal attacks. At this stage, you don't seem to be able to approach this topic objectively so I am asking you to please exempt yourself from editing articles related to this topic. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 13:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the RDS article a tad on the long side; it needs more forks, not less. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]