481:
attempt to improve it or change it, only delete it. What happened about being bold? BTW if someone has been too lazy to write their own copy, then rewrite it. In my experience, nearly every "good article" has copyright issues because they are just reiterating conclusions of previously published sources. A direct result of
Knowledge policy of not allowing Original Research. Are you going to start removing all those previously published statements from all the main page articles? Of course not. Copyright should not be confused with plagiarism; but that doesn't mean deletion just judicious editing. So to people like
485:, why don't you spend less time worrying about power politics and conspiracy theories and actually get on with making contributions, huh? I do and for being bold, I get pilloried for it. I am no sock puppet except for my previous post. In fact, the reason I hadn't made any edits (and why I got on to this page) is because I often have a sad need to read AfDs and the user pages of dispute causing social-dysfunctional misfits. Ironically I now spent half my evening formulating a response to justify myself or my actions after a personal attack. Is this really what Knowledge was set up to be?
397:. It attacks Shell but those attacks uses actual news reports. Obviously without Shell's response, the article is currently one sided, but the point is...the page uses verifiable references that are from respectable news sources. The only thing this page is guilty of is a lack of balance. A simple tag can solve that not deletion. If pages, based on legitimate sources are going to be removed because they make unpalatable commentary. What does that say about Knowledge? For example the
464:. But I can see what the remark I am "a dirty sock" truly demonstrates, something I have known for along time (LOL: nowadays "the 💕 that anyone can edit" has a real hollow sound). I use an IP because what I say, I say on merit and the quality of what I say is based on facts that I know. However there are too many editors here who get a little bit of power - a barnstar, a title and they become the all-knowing keepers of the sacred seal of truth, knowledge and everything ("
468:"). I believe if my work is good, then it will stay. My work is based on being nothing more than an IP, it therefore has nothing to do with any self-styled "status" of a user account. In this case, and let's not forget about Shell, all I was trying to state was the article is in a pretty poor state, but Knowledge is a work in progress and this is an article on a notable topic (the oil industry safety record in general is already pretty questionable
476:). It shouldn't just be deleted because of the author. But it seems that this agenda has also been applied to me (an anon IP = questionable ethics i.e. not to be trusted) because I had the temerity to make a point in support of this article. Knowledge is now a shadow of what is was, there was a time when the call would be to be
401:
article is based entirely on negative news reports concerning events. It is not listed for deletion as an attack page on the world's largest
Christian religion. If Knowledge is to going have policies then they should be applied fairly and consistently. It would also seem to me that the need to delete
506:
I agree that sock calling is uneccesary, let me apologise to you for that since you took it personally, it's not clear that anyone here has a history of such a thing. Please note that in addition to the poor quality of the article as it is; as I noted above 50% of the text is copy-pasted from other
198:
created by editor who has/had court case with Royal Dutch Shell. The article does not have any logical structure or references. Significant part of it is copy-pasted from different news which raise copyvio concerns. I thought a quite long time how to improve this article; however, having a painful
459:
Excuse me but I take those remarks very, very personally. I have been on this site since about 2004. And I have never had an account because I don't buy into the BS that has grown up with being an editor, and all the accoutrements that go with it. The idea of an open source encyclopedia relies on
480:
and make changes. Things now have just degenerated into personal attacks and arbitrary decisions based on who is saying this, or saying that. By staying independent, all I have is the contributions I make with an IP address. In the case of this article, it's just been tagged. There has been no
519:). Basically as you note - it's a mess that needs cleaning up. Copyright violations are really not acceptable on this scale, the only reason I haven't 'tagged' it so far is that I hoped my message on the article's primary editor's page would have some effect on the problem.
203:
article overloaded similar stuff from the same editor, it seems that clean start would be better solution. It is also not clear if a separate article is needed or the safety issues concerning Royal Dutch Shell could be better addressed in
155:
311:
article and 3 "shell's problems" pages - if someone can recommend a good structure for covering this info (preferably 1 or 2 subpages max?) I would volunteer to rewrite any useful info currently in the problem
239:, both of which have similar issues. I and others have made an effort to improve "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell", but "Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues" is a similar mess.
149:
402:
is based more on who the article's author is and not what they are saying. As a neutral, I just read the page and made my own judgement. It needs work but it doesn't need to be deleted.
83:
78:
87:
246:
already has sections covering these subtopics - I would suggest expanding these sections with notable, concise information and deleting these, frankly unfixable articles.
110:
70:
358:
per nom, possibly notable topic, I might mark it for rescue if it was smaller but his is a hachet job and almost an attack page. COI concerns are a major issue here
334:
269:). It would also be helpful if someone could examine whether a topic or even total ban/block for User:Johnadonovan is suitable - given the numerous problems with
115:
375:- agree with the others, it is a biased attack page. At the end of the AfD, if the consensus is to delete, I intend to nominate the other "Shell problem" pages.
170:
137:
492:
409:
528:
500:
452:
434:
417:
384:
367:
349:
300:
282:
221:
52:
131:
236:
209:
17:
127:
248:
In my opinion they should be deleted on copyright violation grounds as well, since ~50% of the content is direct copy-paste.
232:
74:
177:
66:
58:
439:
odd the IP is citing policy and using wikilinks... with no other edits.... odd dont you think? Smells like a dirty
549:
36:
548:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
473:
398:
143:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
469:
496:
413:
266:
191:
186:
The article deals with a valid topic; however, right now it is just a collection of news to incriminate
516:
488:
405:
482:
444:
359:
524:
448:
426:
376:
363:
317:
292:
278:
163:
430:
380:
296:
474:
Scotsman: North Sea industry told 'raise game on safety' after jump in gas releases 24/08/2010
345:
308:
258:
243:
228:
205:
195:
187:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
508:
217:
515:
the problem is not resolved. (To see what the copyright notice that results looks like see
520:
440:
313:
274:
394:
288:
262:
477:
461:
341:
49:
104:
465:
213:
200:
393:- after reading the page, the main reason to delete seems to stem simply from
265:
and created poorly formed attack pages riddle with copyright violations (see
443:. Hope fully some one will stop by and admit they forgot to sign in...
470:
BBC: New checks on safety for ageing North Sea platforms 28/07/2010
466:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
542:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
212:
articles (the last one is also messy and needs extensive work).
100:
96:
92:
162:
227:I agree with the above analysis - the same editor
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
552:). No further edits should be made to this page.
507:places. This would be a clear case for using
335:list of Business-related deletion discussions
267:User_talk:Johnadonovan#Shell_articles_cleanup
176:
8:
237:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell
210:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell
329:
333:: This debate has been included in the
425:What about the copyright issues then ?
287:I agree he has continually ignored his
291:, I do think a topic ban is in order.
233:Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues
511:which eventually leads to a deletion
7:
231:has also created similar articles
24:
67:Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns
59:Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns
252:strongly recommend a fresh start
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
257:As an aside I'm annoyed that
273:contribution they have made.
199:experience with cleaning-up
529:00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
501:23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
453:12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
435:12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
418:11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
385:12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
368:19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
350:17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
307:We have currently have one
301:12:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
283:11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
222:09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
53:03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
569:
261:has consistently ignored
545:Please do not modify it.
399:Catholic sex abuse cases
190:. The article serves as
32:Please do not modify it.
517:Template:Copyviocore
44:The result was
491:comment added by
408:comment added by
352:
338:
309:Royal Dutch Shell
259:User:Johnadonovan
244:Royal Dutch Shell
229:User:Johnadonovan
206:Royal Dutch Shell
188:Royal Dutch Shell
560:
547:
509:Template:Copyvio
503:
420:
339:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
568:
567:
563:
562:
561:
559:
558:
557:
556:
550:deletion review
543:
486:
403:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
566:
564:
555:
554:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
422:
421:
387:
370:
353:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
304:
303:
240:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
565:
553:
551:
546:
540:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
505:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
484:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
400:
396:
392:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
351:
347:
343:
336:
332:
328:
327:
319:
315:
310:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
544:
541:
512:
493:86.171.20.99
410:86.169.4.232
390:
372:
355:
330:
270:
251:
247:
242:The article
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
487:—Preceding
404:—Preceding
201:Sakhalin-II
192:attack page
150:free images
462:good faith
196:WP:POVFORK
521:Sf5xeplus
483:Weaponbb7
445:Weaponbb7
360:Weaponbb7
342:• Gene93k
314:Sf5xeplus
275:Sf5xeplus
489:unsigned
427:Codf1977
406:unsigned
377:Codf1977
293:Codf1977
250:I would
111:View log
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
395:WP:IDL
373:Delete
356:delete
312:pages.
263:WP:COI
214:Beagel
128:Google
88:delete
46:delete
271:every
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
525:talk
497:talk
478:bold
449:talk
441:sock
431:talk
414:talk
391:Keep
381:talk
364:talk
346:talk
331:Note
318:talk
297:talk
279:talk
235:and
218:talk
194:and
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
340:--
289:COI
208:or
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
527:)
513:if
499:)
472:/
451:)
433:)
416:)
383:)
366:)
348:)
337:.
299:)
281:)
254:.
220:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
523:(
495:(
447:(
429:(
412:(
389:'
379:(
362:(
344:(
320:)
316:(
295:(
277:(
216:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.