User talk:Gr1st

Luxottica page

Hello Gr1st,

I noticed that you recently updated Luxottica’s financial figures. I wanted to reintroduce myself to you. We corresponded late last year about some changes that I had made to the Luxottica page. You correctly noted that the texts I posted were not objective. I will no longer make changes myself as I realise that is contrary to the rules on conflict of interest. I have created a user page for myself where I say who I am and how I want to help to improve the page. Would you be willing to consider some elements currently missing from the Luxottica page that would make it more informative? Any advice would be very welcome when you have time. Thanks, Michele Laterza (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose additions to the article (best to post them on its talk page for review). In my opinion, the most important things are: 1) the text should not simply be copied from Luxottica publications (e.g. annual reports); 2) the text should completely adhere to the neutral point of view policy; and 3) the article's text already relies heavily on one section of the Luxottica website as a reference. Other independent but reliable sources (e.g. books or reputable newspapers/news websites) should be used to support statements made. Gr1st (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gr1st, thanks for your feedback. I will start proposing new references on Luxottica talk page as you suggested. Michele Laterza (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Update Manz Automation

Hi GR1st, I'm an employee of Manz and I've checked the article about Manz Automation... I noticed that there are some outdated facts. Manz has a new logo (the actual one is already inserted in the German version. In the info-box on the right side the employee figure and the product range could be updated (lab automation doesn't exist any longer). And the article itself could be a bit more detailed. On the Manz-Websiteyou can find lots of information for it. As I don't want to update the article of "my" company maybe you could make an unbiased update? Tanks in advance, TWmanzAG (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also noted the official name change and moved the article to Manz. I have attempted to expand the article to a reasonable level, however I don't really have time at the moment to drive a significant expansion of the article beyond this point. Regards, Gr1st (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Great – thank you for the fast update of the article! Reading it I found two passages that are not totally correct. It would be very kind if you corrected them:

• Source No.2 of the first sentence is no longer up to date (the area “healthcare” doesn’t exist any longer) – actual information you could find here and on this site
• In my opinion the last sentence of the second paragraph is a bit misleading. Automation is not a business unit. It is one of several core competencies and part of nearly all products that Manz develops. The area “carbide cutting tools” was closed.

Thanks again for your support, TWmanzAG (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Revised as per the above. Gr1st (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SES.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SES.svg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Atos Wikipedia page - neutrality is disputed

Dear Wiki editor,

We notice that the neutrality is disputed for the section of the Atos Wikipedia page entitled: ‘Controversy over benefit assessments’. We would like to work with you to increase the clarity of this page to the benefit of all readers.

As you may have seen the recent Harrington report recognised that “Atos takes the brunt of public criticism for the WCA” (for which they are not responsible for the medical policy, only in the delivery of that policy). (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/101506.htm para 92). This perhaps helps explain why the neutrality is in dispute.

We have more information and supporting evidence on the contract that Atos Healthcare has with the DWP and would like to work with you to update this page. We would be happy to send you further information for you to update or to update ourselves or to discuss in more detail via the ‘talkpage’.

Please let us know which works best for you.

Best regards

a144808A144808 (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Standard Life.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Standard Life.svg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Orion Corporation.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Orion Corporation.svg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbel Fauvet Rail

Hello. You added a CAC snall companies template to Arbel Fauvet Rail but the company doesn't appear to be on the list? I'm not familiar with this - can you update the list or remove the template. (Note "Fauvet Girel" is on the list - but I think it is defunct.Imgaril (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A mistake on my part - Fauvet Girel redirects to Arbel Fauvet Rail. The company still exists but a closer look at its current profile (only financial investments) suggests it would be inappropriate to have the template on the Arbel Fauvet Rail page. Removed. Gr1st (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Criteria CaixaCorp.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Criteria CaixaCorp.svg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Jaguar Land Rover info box

Hi, as a very experienced editor on UK company articles, I would be grateful for your input on a seemingly minor point regarding the infobox of the above article but which does in my view have wider relevance. The issue concerns the presentation of the 'public limited company' suffix to the company name. Thanks in advance.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Atos Wikipedia page - neutrality is disputed

Hello Gr1st,

Just a brief introduction.I'm working at Atos as a social media manager. Yesterday I've met the founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Walsh. It was really an honor to meet him at the iStrategy Digital Comms Event. After his presentation we spoke briefly about the best way of working approaching the wikipedia editors about the presentation of facts at Wikipedia. He has adviced me to approach the editors who have been editing the page the most. So I like to ask you to collaborate in keeping the Atos page factually correct. the way it is presented right now compromises the neutrality of Atos page seriously.

Would you consinder removing or repositioning the recented added fact:

There has been such anger about Atos's Assessment of disabled people, for the UK Government, that a campaign to object to their involvement with the 2012 Paralympics has been called for by 'Black Triangle' the Scottish Disability Defence organisation.

The additional copy is factually true, but should it be on the top of the page? It is better to publish at the paragraph " Controversy over benefit assessments".

And don't you agree that the comment should be sourced? With actually statements?

If you think the neutralise it, would you add the following sentence? " Paul Deighton, CEO of London 2012 in a recent TV interview described the idea of a boycott of the Paralympic Games as perverse. The Paralympics is an elite and unique sporting event for athletes with a disability. "

It would be very helpfull if you can edit the page as soon as you have the oppertunity. Thank you in advance.

Muriel