User talk:Cryptonymius

Corporate crime category

Please do not add the Corporate crime category to companies/corporations for which there is not corresponding, verified information in the article. — ERcheck (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: You added the category to the ExxonMobil and to the ~~Shell (corporation)~~ articles. On what basis? — ERcheck (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating — there is a distinction between criminal violations and civil violations. For example, for the Sudan fine, see the government summary [1]. It was a civil fine, not criminal. It involved not getting the proper paperwork when bringing in computers; not a criminal offense. — ERcheck (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa on the "Shell (corporation)" — I was thinking RDS. (Though shell companies are not illegal, they might be used for Corporate crime.) — ERcheck (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Corporate crime article. — ERcheck (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "unethical practices" section of the ExxonMobil article, as it stands today [2], substantially violates WP:NPOV. For example, the Sudan fine does not indicate context, nor ExxonMobil's side of the issue. (In this case, from what I could find in readily available online sources, it stemmed from not filing the correct paperwork with respect to bringing in computers ?office equipment?). Concerning the inclusion of the former-Mobil official's conviction, the article implies that ExxonMobil is guilty (by putting in under a company unethical practices section) From the references, it seems to be a conviction of an official who took a personal kickback, not a kickback scheme returning money to XOM. Details of the case would likely be more appropriate it its own article, e.g. US vs. J. Bryan Williams. (From a general construction point, there is some redundancy between the paragraph you added and the one above it.) — ERcheck (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added Ovson Egg to your corporate crimes. Please remove this category from the article. Just because there was an indictment, doesn't mean a crime was committed.--Trust101 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and Nazism

Thanks for your kind remark. I was probably out of line in starting the discussion since we are not supposed to be doing things to make points here. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:3musketeers2006dustcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:3musketeers2006dustcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]