User talk:Urbanrenewal/Archive 3

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Urbanrenewal/Archive 3

Private equity

Hi, nice work you are doing on the categorizing of private equity owned companies. I was just curious, because you tagged Telenor in this category; though the company previously was owned by Government of Norway, I would personally not categorize the government as a private equity owner, even if the two concepts have many similarities. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apax Partners acquired Telenor Satellite Services which was a subsidiary of Telenor for which there is no article on Wikipedia. If you think it is not productive or confusing to keep it on there it can come out. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a good answer. I presume the Telenor name disappeared with the take-over, so in my opinion the current category usage is a bit confusing and I'll remove it. Venture forth with your categorizing of the other articles; you are doing a great deed for Wikipedia :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)r[reply]

Sounds good (Not sure what happened with the name) Thanks for the compliment. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this. Just curious, but why doesn't he belong in that cat? He's in the venture capitalists category. Enigma ^message 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am separating into two distinct subcategories. Having everyone appear in both Category:Venture capitalists and Category:Private equity and venture capital investors does not fit with the general policy that an article should not appear in both a category and the subcategory. Currently, the non-VC investors are in the parent category and all of the VCs have been subcategorized. Having them mixed is not as useful. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you added him to it in the first place, I can hardly disagree. :) Enigma ^message 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cfd - Companies with current or prior private equity ownership

Once the CfD is opened it basically runs to conclusion. As necessary I'll reply to comments in the nomination's discussion, since that is the proper place for any discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the discussion is on the CfD. It is not what you want or what I want. It is what the community consensus is. If you have other points that are valid for the discussion please make them at the CfD. That is simply how it is done. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated apology

I meant to remove the prod stuff, but I must have forgotten to hit "save page." I just wanted to let you know I'm really sorry about that and I'll definitely be more careful in the future. Again, I'm really sorry about that. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the use of a magazine cover on George R. Roberts

Are you willing to discuss this? I've put a comment on this (your talk page) before, but it was archived without being responded to. If you read item #8 at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2, it says (in a nutshell) that it can't be used unless the article talks about it. If you are willing to discuss this, please reply here. I will keep this page on my watchlist.--Rockfang (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- my read of that is that magazine covers should not be used primarily as an identifier of the person but are acceptable in an article about the person if the magazine cover itself is the story or part of the context of the story in the article. I originally loaded the picture for an article on History of private equity and venture capital where I think the rationale is pretty clear that this was a high water mark moment for private equity in the 1980s around the time of the RJR Nabisco acquisition. Similarly, I think it is appropriate on this page for the same function. As a picture of George Roberts it is not terribly effective but for demonstrating the moment in history it is quite important. I tried to weave it more clearly into the text as well. I think I am reading this the right way but if you disagree please let me know.|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. One of your most recent updates does bring discussion of the magazine cover into the article. I missed that when I removed the image the 2nd time. My apologies.--Rockfang (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private equity

Hi, I have answered to your message on my Talk page (talk) - I hope this is the right place - if not sorry about that as I am learning. —Preceding comment was added at 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image:Henry Kravis.jpg

To answer your question. The image on Flickr is CC-BY-NC, or "Attribution-Noncommercial". As our Licensing page states, we only allow images that are free of commercial and derivative restrictions (In other words, we don't allow CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND). This makes your image eligible for deletion as a Copyright Violation. Lastly, you are correct, I did not inform the contributing user - I generally don't if I don't think you had a malicious intent. (If you have more questions, feel free to leave me a note my Commons talk page.)--ShakataGaNai ^Talk 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from Lamro

Hi Mr. U!

This is Lamro. Thanks for your e-mail, and sorry for my late reply. I share the same passion for the finance and investments as you do, so I will check your contributions, and if I can, I will improve. Great template for PE firms!

Lamro (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HM Capital

Hi

There is a redirect link from HM Capital to HM Capital Partners. No need to re-link. My guess was that in other articles a short name may be appropriate, but the key article about the firm should have the correct official name.

Lamro (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

Thanks for your message, but I stand by my closure. Before I forget, a list of the companies from which the category was removed is here for you.

I had to weigh arguments, not conduct a vote-counting exercise. The arguments in favour of deletion were stronger since:

"It's analogous to categories for Government-owned companies, or Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and Category:Companies formerly listed on the London Stock Exchange" - this is a weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - merely because we categorise other companies in those ways does not mean that these companies have to be categorised in this way.
The argument was made that it was overcategorization to collect together companies that at some stage of their existence have been owned by a private equity company. WP:OVERCAT says that not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. The counter-argument was that most companies were privately held, but not necessarily owned by private equity, but no good reason was given in the discussion (to my mind) as to why this required a separate category to denote this. The suggestion that the category would allow the impact of private equity to be seen was not made out, particularly as the category was going to contain companies with any amount of private equity ownership. User:UnitedStatesian made a number of further good points.

As nearly all agreed, it was not a good category name to start with. As Vegaswikian said, it was then a choice of deleting and starting again, or starting from an ambiguous, misleading and confusing category name. I chose the former. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 02:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going try to address the fundamental issue with a different named category. This is a very distinct category - an entire class of companies that are not just "privately held" but actually controlled by private equity firms. This is not an argument of other categories get away with it so I want to also, it is an argument that this is very analogous to valuable existing categories that describe the ownership of a company. What I think Vegaswikian failed to recognize was that if you had looked at the vast majority of the articles, there is referenced discussion of their ownership as it represents a major event for the company and not just some natural state through which most companies progress. For many of these companies, you could easily strip away half the categories without losing out any characteristics that actually define the company - whereas ownership by private equity often is a defining characteristic of the history and operation of the business. Aside from Vegaswikian who nominated and has no familiarity with the industry, I don't think most of the editors were really in favor of deletion but rather separation / renaming. Either way, it would have been helpful to consult as I am going to have to recategorize this by hand and there are much better uses of time.|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, Urbanrenewal. I noticed the disambiguation page you moved at TPG to TPG (disambiguation). I'd like to remind you that moves should always be done with the move button at the top of the page, not via cut-and-paste. The reason for this is that it separates the page from the edit history, and the terms of the GDFL mandate that each individual contributor is credited for his or her work. This is accomplished through the edit history, so separating the two in effect voids the GDFL. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, here or on my talk page. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]