User talk:Bebington

Welcome!

Hello, Bebington, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Fayenatic (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat sheet

Hi, thanks for your reply. It was indeed entirely in the correct place and manner! You seem to be doing fine, but WP:CHEAT is a handy reference to a lot of basics. Drop me a line any time if you have any questions, Fayenatic (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of semi-colons

You might want to read this (http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node17.html) on use of semi-colons. My understanding is that they cannot be used in the way you propose. Dormskirk (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points (i) I merely made a minor improvement to the article to comply, inter alia, with the University of Sussex guide - it was you who chose to make an issue of this (ii) the list in the Alfred McAlpine article is not a complicated list so the the point in the University of Bristol style guide is not relevant as it applies to "a complicated list" (iii) I am disturbed by your comment that "I was unconcerned with the many factual errors that had been contained in the history section of the various construction companies". What evidence do you have that I was aware of the errors let alone unconcerned by them? Please read WP:AGF before making any allegations. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your very helpful response of 18 May 2011. I certainly believe that the history sections of the articles you have edited have really benefited from your work. Dormskirk (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Housebuilders

Hi Bebington - I have now set up articles for M J Gleeson, Henry Boot PLC and Beazer. Over to you to expand appropriately. Best wishes Dormskirk (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I have seen the frameworks and I can work with those. I have just finished adding to the Balfour Beatty history but it will take me a while to work through the others.

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your excellent work improving the article on Tarmac Limited and many other construction businesses. Keep up the good work! Dormskirk (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk

How very kind of you.

I put a comment on Traf House on your page. I have now finished the history and put in a short piece on the Housebuilding division. However, I think the divisional structure is a bit hit and miss and I may look at it later. I still think the list of subsidiaries should come out.

Do you have any thoughts about an entry on Ideal Homes?

Regards Bebington (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem re the Barnstar - it reflects some very good work. Apologies re the comment on Trafalgar House (which I had missed). I agree the list of subsidiary companies should be deleted (wiki is not a directory). I will set something up on Ideal Homes. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now set up as Ideal Building Corporation (there was already an article on an american company called Ideal Homes). Best of luck! Dormskirk (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grindlays

Hi Bebington: George Orwell's fourth, of five rules for effective writing was: "Never use the passive where you can use the active." Given the fame of his writing, perhaps an admonition worth heading. Furthermore, messing about with existing articles in attempts to improve them is what Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can and may edit, is about. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acad Ronin

Thank you for responding on the talk page – it gives me the opportunity to respond more carefully. The Grindlays article I edited (and I know you helped to get it started) had material factual deficiencies, not the least of which was the total absence of the history of the National Bank of India, which was the dominant part of the entity latterly called Grindlays. It was inadequately sourced and made no reference either to National and Grindlays’ published history or to Jones “British Multinational Banking”. Having put in a considerable amount of time to get the article factually correct, I suppose I was a little irritated to find that the only response was someone changing one phrase from the passive to the active – particularly as, the first time, Grindlays was misspelt (there are spelling errors above as well).

Writing style is subjective and much depends on the context and, probably, the age and background of the author. My daughter, who teaches writing, would agree with your preference for the active. My doctoral supervisor, in contrast, would have been horrified if I had been over free with the active, as would the editors of books that I have published. These Wikipedia articles are factual and the passive voice is not inappropriate. As I indicated in the edit, it also allowed me to start the sentence with the subject of the article.

I have no objection to people picking up factual inaccuracies, typing or spelling errors, missing links etc. However, to change someone else’s work you must surely have to believe that they are wrong – not just writing in a different style to you?

On a wider front, I don’t know what your interest in bank histories is – I have seen your edits on other bank sites. I have spent a considerable time in writing or improving the history sections of construction and building material companies and I am now looking at the banks. My initial view is that the standard is very mixed (to say the least) and largely sourced from the internet rather than the extensive body of published literature that exists. I don’t know if there is anyone at an editorial level that takes an overview.

I am not sure whether you automatically get an alert to this response or whether I should have put it on your talk page.

Anyway, best wishes.

Bebington (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bebington,

There are numerous bank history articles that I have started and that therefore I monitor. When I see that someone has edited one I will check to see if there has been vandalism. Often in looking at the changes something catches my eye and I do some editing, even if I do not add to the information. That's what happened with Grindlays. (By the way, I welcome people going over articles I have written if for no other reason than that my spelling is haphazard at best. More critically, it is the reader who decides whether something is clear, not the author. This is an insight I learned from Mcckloskey; see below.)

I have some more Grindlays info to add at some point, I just had wandered off the topic after my original foray. (I believe that originally my intent was to do a separate article on NBI, so that the Grindlays would link to that. Then my attention wandered.)

As for style, I believe that we should edit for style. Many authors in Wikipedia are subject matter experts, but are horrible writers, in ways that both of us wouldagree. Many are not native speakers of English, and some that are still need help. Frequently, editing can turn a leaden article into something that is a pleasure to read, or at least understandable.

Several works have influenced my writing. Orwell I have already alluded to. In addition, Donald (now Deidre) Mcckloskey wrote an essay, "Economical Writing", that I recommend highly. (If you google "mccloskey economical writing pdf", the first two links are to the pdf of the article itself and to a distillation of her rules.) What I got from Mccloskey was the notion that one should write to make it easy for the reader. This includes using the active voice, not introducing differences in words that are not distinctions, avoiding sending the reader back to verify which is "the former" and which is "the latter", short sentences, and the like. I also have noticed how journalists use short sentences and short paragraphs, sometimes even one-sentence paragraphs, to avoid creating forbidding masses of text.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but because its readership is quite broad, it should be as readable as we can make it. The cynical side of me argues that a certain level of obscurity simulates authority. (I flatter myself that some of my less successful academic articles suffered from excessive clarity and would have done better with referees had I made them more labyrinthine.) In the case of wikipedia I believe we should err on the side of simplicity, clarity, white space, and directness. Authority can come from references.

As far as bank histories are concerned, I am not aware of anyone that really cares. Some topics, such as Napoleonic Era naval vessels or anything to do with small arms or tanks, are parts of larger projects and so have a number of interested editors, some of whom are active in generating high quality articles and who at least exercise some oversight. Bank history does not appear to be such an area. Articles on banks that are still going concerns tend to draw heavily on the banks' own websites. Articles on defunct banks are rare; I am one of the few people that have written such articles. Frequently all that I can find is a few passing references to the bank in question in something that I found via Google books.

Finally, there does not seem to be an established rule on commenting. There is a way for notifying someone on their talk page that you have replied on your talk page to something they have written there, but I don't know how to do that. After I have commented on someone's talk page I sometimes add their talk page to my watchlist so that I can see if they respond. In your case, I simply checked back.

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the latest on the active/passive voice issue, please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilawyering_over_passive_voice. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Bank of Scotland and National Bank of Scotland

Many thanks for your additions! Are you able to add page numbers to the references quoted, if appropriate, as this is considered 'best practice' as the clearest way of giving sources. Also the reference to "RBS Heritage Online" (NBS ref. 3) needs to incorporate a link to the web page being referred to. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan

I did think long and hard about the page numbering (and for other banks I have done) and I know that in an ideal world it is best practice - I have done it regularly on longer work. There are two problems. The main one is that these history articles, even though I have extended them considerably, are still fairly short. Thus, one para typically includes material that is drawn from several pages - and not necesssarily consecutive ones. The second point is only presentational in that there would need to be a lot more footnotes separating out the individual statements - some would have pagination, some not - and I think it would probably look very messy. While I was taught to use pagination where possible, I was also taught not to overload the text with footnotes! On a practical note, if any reader really wants to cross-check the text against the original sources, then the two official histories are fairly short and the Checkland is well indexed.

Re the RBS Online reference, I left it out for two reasons, one being that I am not sure I know how to make the link - I am sure there are instructions somewhere. However, the more substantive reason is that I have noticed on a number of the banks, people have written brief histories drawn solely from the RBS site and the link no longer worked (this is true of a lot of internet links which is why I have been keen to replace them with hard copy sources where possible). In the event that the link changes again (or RBS runs out of money to maintain it) I thought just indicating the source would enable people to find it on their own - and the link had been established at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it is just being lazy.

Let me know what you want me to do.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. What you say about page numbers is fair enough, they are not essential (though I tend towards the idea that too many refs are better than too few!). The website link is essential however: "RBS Heritage Online" isn't much of a starting point as the reader first has to discover what website is intended, then search within it to find the relevant material, so a direct link is much preferred. The point you make about broken links is a very good one: it is known as link rot, and there are several strategies to combat it, outlined here. But that in itself is not a reason to omit the link in the first place. The easiest way to add an external link is explained here, or you may wish to use {{cite web}}, a more specialised way of adding references to internet content. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. (By the way, there's no need to type ~~~~ in edit summaries - it only works for comments on talk pages) Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me the lesson is not to cite the internet! Spent far too long messing about with this but with only partial success. The original comment was only an aside and I am tempted just to remove it.

Regards

Bebington

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first ever Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crown Agents, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chnanged - thank youBebington (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C Czarnikow moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, C Czarnikow, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am stil loading the text, which is fully referencedBebington (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Finlay & Co (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

notable , but needs a little less in-house detail, and removal of adjectives -- and less reuse of firm name

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Finlay & Co and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:James Finlay & Co, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bebington! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Finlay & Co has been accepted

James Finlay & Co, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 help desk. 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elementis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malaya, Chrome and Eric Miller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbey National, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knowsley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Original Barnstar
	For some great work on building societies. Dormskirk (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Bebington (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Bromwich Building Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Handsworth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bebington. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonathan Backhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Friendly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andover.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve County Fire Office

Hello, Bebington,

Thank you for creating County Fire Office.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please consider returning to the article and addressing the tagged issues, plus adding the country where this is, adding cats, and a project banner to the talk page

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and I admire the speed with which you read the article. Although I have created many entries, you have the advantage over me with cats and project banner - I have never been asked before and don't know what they are. The URLs are my best attempt to give the source - I could just have written DNB etc. without a link which would normally be an acceptable written reference. I know that some editors have ussed their greater expertise to play around with URLs in the past, for which I thank them. I am making the source as clear as I know how.

We all make spelleing and stylistic mistakes from time to time and it would have been helpful if you could have given me some indication. At the moment you have left the entry looking as though it has been written by an amateur which I am sure was not your intention.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a copy edit it on it, sorting the spelling and the grammar and adding a few missing bits. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Friends Provident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Rowntree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thames & Mersey Marine moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Thames & Mersey Marine, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one further reference (which I had missed from my original submission). I don't know how familiar you are with companies that have long gone out of existence, but which were important in their time. but there is often very little available in the way of online sources. However, in many cases there is an official history (as you will see frm the other histories I have added to). You haave a dilemma. Do you accept an entry based on an authorative source so that it is available to users of Wikipedia users, or do you remove an imprtant institution from the potential body of knowledge.

There are inconsistancies in Wikepedia editing. If you look at Royal London Mutual, thereis a short history section with no sources at all, yet that has been accepted, Or Refuge Assurance which has a one para history and one source.

It is, of course, very easy to add irrelevant citations, such as where the archives are held or a legal case which apppears on the internet, but which has no relevance. I would regard this as inellectual chating.

You might also look at Dormskirk's page where this issue is addressed uner "Insurance"

Regards

Bebington (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my artticle into draftspace very quickly without having a discussion first. Nevertheless I did give you a considered response and it would be reasonable to expect a reply so that the article could be returned to the public domain.

Regards Bebington (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve London Assurance Company

Hello, Bebington,

Thank you for creating London Assurance Company.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Would be better to source each line rather than group references at end of paragraph

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Slywriter}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slywriter (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you have made the point about line references rather than by paragraph. However, the sources are broadly covering the same material rather than providing discrete parts of each paragraph. I could do it if you think it makes the article more compliant but it would be somewhat artificial.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London and Lancashire Insurance

The first paragraph is too long and needs more references. Just my suggestion. Dormskirk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that the first para is a little too long but I have reread it and it is hard to find a natural break. There are three references which I think is not too bad given the period, unless I trawl the Times. I have added links from other articles which I probably haven't done as much as I should have in the past.

These articles take a considerable time to prepare, which is my choice. But it does seem sometimes that half a dozen people pile in to make alterations, even when I am still fixing small things. Some of the edits can be good - we all make mistakes. But so often it is a matter of individual taste - where someone wants to use a comma, or a tense, or a particular conjunction, or a capital. Quite often the original and the new versions are equally acceptable, so why bother? What is odd is the attention a new (and not too bad?) article gets within minutes of going on line, yet existing articles which are of a poor standard, sit there quite happily - take Royal Insurance as an example.

I find it a bit discouraging but I suppose I must learn to livve with it. Anyway, that's off my chest now.

Regards Bebington (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am afraid that's life. The new articles always get all the attention because there is a team of editors looking at them. Anyway it is better than having your article "draftified". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Pensions

Hi there,

My name is Maddy, and I work for Headland Consultancy. We are a PR firm that represents a number of clients, including Clara Pensions. Clara Pensions is a relatively new UK pensions provider which is part of a new breed of pension “superfunds”. These superfunds have been created to bridge the gap for defined benefit pension schemes who are looking to transfer their pension members to an insurer, but cannot yet afford to do so. Clara is the first (and so far only) superfund to be approved by the Pensions Regulator. It expects to start transactions and welcome its first pension scheme members later in 2023.

I’m getting in touch with you today because I can see that you’ve written and contributed to a number of different pages about major UK pensions and financial services providers, including Liverpool Victoria and Royal Insurance. Given your established presence as a Wikipedia editor in this sector, I was wondering if you would be interested in creating an article about Clara Pensions. Given that it’s a fairly recent challenger in the British pensions market, it has yet to have a Wikipedia page. I hope you will consider making this contribution to Clara’s Wikipedia presence. Do let me know if you have any questions or require any further information on the above.

Thanks,

Maddyruthg19 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Maddy[reply]

I think that is against the Wikipedia rules, Out of interest, what fee were you proposing? Bebington (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for getting back to me!

You are right that asking for articles in exchange for a fee is against the rules, hence why I am not offering a fee. Rather, I am enquiring about a contribution to build Wikipedia's database on UK pensions firms, which is allowed within the rules, as I have made my affiliations clear. I hope that you will consider my enquiry.

Thanks. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just testing!

I am not an expert on the rules, but I think you are still in danger of breaking them. Ask Dormskirk. Bebington (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! Have already been in contact with Dormskirk and this is not one for them unfortunately. Thanks for your time anyway. Maddyruthg19 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators Noticeboard Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is New user WP:PROXYING. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Amicable Life Assurance moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Scottish Amicable Life Assurance, is not suitable as written to remain published. Its current sourcing does not have enough information to pass WP:VERIFY, please see WP:CIT to see what information needs to be included. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You moved my article on Scottish Amicable into draft space on the basis that there were not enough verifiable sources. This is the fourteenth insurance company article that I have authored in recent months, all have been well known in their time. A common feature is that the main source in the pre-internet era is a company history – and I have only used well written ones. Sometimes there are additional sources, such as a founder in DNB but often not a great deal. The dilemma is then, do you leave Wikipedia with no information on what was an important Scottish company, or accept it but with a flag which states that it is heavily reliant on one source – the reader can then process the information with that background knowledge.

However, I have been back to the article and inserted three references from old insurance directories. I have also added a short section on head offices, which have two links, and an old legal case.

Regards. Bebington (talk) Bebington (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Finlay & Co

Hi Bebington, just watched The Violent History of Britain's Cup of Tea and than read the article you created. Don't you think it is important to present the perspective of the exploited as well? Best regards 93.211.214.108 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair poinnt. I have created or substantially added to the history of a lage number of companies. Let's say there were 20 banks - does one put in the exploitation of savers repetitively in each one? I suppose I have adoopted the practice of treating companies as self-contained entities. I have found in Wikipedia that conributors are always happy to add a para if they have a particular view to express. Having said that, and without minimising plantation conditions, I am a bit hesitant about the current fashion for rewriting history by today's moral standards.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scottish Amicable Life Assurance (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It's impossible to tell what sources #6-10 say about the subject, but where they're cited suggests just routine business reporting (happy to be proven wrong, if evidence can be produced to the contrary). And the rest of the sources are primary, or offer only incidental support. As such, I cannot find multiple secondary sources with significant coverage, to satisfy WP:GNG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scottish Amicable Life Assurance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]