Talk:Best & Less

Conflict of Interest

This article was reported on WP:COIN and on review it was found to have been written by Best & Less themselves. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it's completely unreferenced, which violates WP:V, and written like an advertisement: "propelled into a structured new growth phase" etc. (WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP). -- samj _in^out 23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The entry relating to Best & Less contains incorrect information. Attempts by Best & Less to correct the information are repeatedly vandalised and our user access is repeatedly blocked.

Best & Less is not a publicly listed company and attracts little media attention. Thus sources and references are difficult to provide. Any feedback on how we can provide accurate information without interference would be appreciated.

Could you point out the specific inaccuracies in the article? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The information that is written in the History is incorrect and the correct history of Best & Less is as follows. Best & Less opened its first store at Parramatta, NSW on 27 May 1965. In April 1998 it was acquired by Pepkor Limited - a leading listed retail group in South Africa. The acquisition by Pepkor has enabled Best & Less to grow to the current 185 stores, with an anticipated 195 stores by the end of 2010. The current Best & Less Head Office is located in Leichhardt, New South Wales.

Please let me know how you reference what you have written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.0.114 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history of this article, so I will wait for somebody who is to answer that question. I only reverted your change because it looked like you were adding unreferenced content. However, the version I reverted to is not the same as what was here a year ago and so I assume that the changes that have occurred in the meantime have been talked about somewhere (though I can't find anything in the history of this talk page). If not, those changes should also be reverted unless they can be backed up with reliable sources such as news reports. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 05:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In the past the changes by B&L itself have been reverted, while they may be correct, they were unreferenced, but more importantly read like an advertisement and was repeatedly replaced by the anonymous IP without explanation on the talk page. if they had entered into a discussion on the topic on the talk page then perhaps the repeated banning of the IP could have been avoided. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, now that I look at the talk page - the user above has vandalised the talk page itself - see this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Best_%26_Less&action=historysubmit&diff=340469082&oldid=338841471 This is not something that will make any wikipedia admin sympathetic to your cause. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester

Manchester is commonly used in Australia to describe bed linen and curtains - although I can't find it in the wikipedia disambig page. havn't ever really thought about it until now, just took it for granted. stumbled accross this: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/message.jspa?messageID=14059060 and a google search for "manchester linen australia" reveales a lot of stores selling "manchester". now I'm curious as to where it came from. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

further searching hasn't helped much - reading through the manchester and history of manchester articles reveales that it was an important hub for the production of linen - possibly where the term has come from, having been so popular that the product is equated with the place - like "I hoover my house" meaning to vacume clean it rather than referring to the brand. "I put manchester on my bed" rather than linen - anyway, just speculation Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon-protect

Anyone agree with me we should be anon-protecting this page to stop the B&L IP? Recently blocked for a 3rd time. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nooo - better to block the IP. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I have emailed rspraggon[at]bestandless.com.au (email came from WhoIs) complaining of the edits the two IP's have made. However, they are on annual leave until January 27th. I'm going to wait on the other one until that IP has 5 blocks before complaining, but as this one seemed to have a B&L email, I saw no harm in complaining myself. Regards -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Update 2014

I have update the Best & Less Logo to match their branding as visible from their new website here www.bestandless.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek.twr (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Best & Less. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pepkor.co.za/bestless.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102072054/http://westfield.com/corporate/pdf/history/chapter4.pdf to http://westfield.com/corporate/pdf/history/chapter4.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pepkor.co.za/bestless.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)