Talk:Shell Oil Company/Archive 1

Creation

I have created a page for Shell Oil Company for the following reasons:

It is a very large American company indeed - with a long history.
SOC is the market leader in the USA
Other large affiliates of Shell also have their own entries (e.g. Shell Canada)

Citation request

The information on this entry is fully in the public domain : e.g Shell websites. See [1] in particular. PaddyBriggs 09:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shell logo (USA).jpg

Image:Shell logo (USA).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If you remove this image you will have to remove every fair use LOGO upload. PaddyBriggs 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the bot was griping about was that no fair use rationale was spelled out on the image's page, although, admittedly, it is getting a little rediculous when the bots start flagging images that are ID'd with the logo template. It's fixed now, though. MrZaius^talk 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend! Well done! PaddyBriggs 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shell logo (USA).jpg

Image:Shell logo (USA).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shell logo.svg

Image:Shell logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accurate naming of sections

Seattlehawk94, a user who has never edited this article since it was started in 2004 but has followed me around since he disagreed with an article I created has made a change in this article. Forgetting about the following behavior, let's focus on his changing of my edits.

He keeps changing a section to the section title of "Controversy and Criticism".

This is biased, in my opinion. Controversy and criticism should be a large issue involving a company. Surely nearly a century of existance, the largest and most notable controversy is not a dispute of a station owner with the price he is charged for fuel (zone pricing)!

To improve the article, I named the section something like "Station owner controversy and criticism". That is a more fair summary and establishes the extent of notability, i.e. a station dispute.

Is my explanation about "station owner controversy" reasonable? (that the use of that example as the only controversy in the history of the company is either a biased example or given undue weight to a minor aspect -- which could be fixed by either deletion OR retitling the section -- you see, I don't advocate just deletion, I provide an alternative) Presumptive (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a section that if someone wanted to could post a gripe about the Shell station on Main St., USA if that's the title of the topic. It's a criticism of the company. Quit changing it and making this into an edit war or I'll request a block, you've been warned once about changing articles once they are reverted already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

environmental record section

I think it needs rewriting. It does not comprehensively cover the topic. It seems to be news-ism. I won't do it, at least now because some may then think I am a Shell Oil fan. I am not. Presumptive (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for comprehensive coverage?

Is it possible to have an environmentally friendly oil company? How about in other countries? How terrible is Statoil in Norway? Are they just as bad?

What is the standard for good and bad. We need to address this to see if Shell is good or bad. Every oil company has spilled some oil. Even you and I spill oil. When we fill up, once in a while, we spill a drop. Even less common, we overfill the tank. So under the biography of -- -- (pick an actor or an author), should we have an environmental record section? For example, Danica Patrick drives....she has spilt gas...she is a polluter. Not very wikipedian! Presumptive (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]