Talk:EQTEC

Corrections

Corrected the price at which Kedco PLC was admitted to the AIM of the London Stock Exchange See official document at http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-news/stocks/welcome/20-10-08-kedcogroupplctoaim.htm

Also removed reference to a biogas plant for which a private individual (a landowner) had applied for planning permission. See Cork County Council Planning application in his name: http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/437638430.pdf If the planning application were successful the landowner may or may not have engaged Kedco to complete the project.

92.39.189.46 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Updates

Have updated article focussing on biogas plant - Kedco are associated with the plant but not landowners - that I think is fair. The land is not theirs but obviously the company is associated with it.

Also reinserted financial information - it is factual and verified. I see no reason why it should have been removed. By all means update the section as time goes on. There is no need to cut it - this constitutes vandalism. Hiberniae (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have repaired the article after vandalism by 92.39.189.46. As I have said, indicate your reasons for removing the text. Do not simply cut and remove. That is vandalism, not editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiberniae (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I have previously expressed my opinion on the worthiness of Kedco as an article for inclusion in wikipedia. It is a rather unimportant company.

However, I have heard rumours from a few different sources that Kedco will be featured in an upcoming investigation on Irish Television focussing on wood pellet boilers and the problems people are having with them. Thus it may be worthwhile to keep this article open until the programme has aired. Hiberniae (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Seamus72, if you are editing the page please discuss here first. Otherwise I will report you for vandalism. Removing duplication is one thing. Widespread deletion is not. Hiberniae (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

dsignal - you may or may not be someone who has already edited this page. If so, I suggest you discuss in depth your reasons for widespread deletion of the article. I have requested semi protection for the article. Ball is now in your court, state your reasons for deletion as opposed to improvement. I have done so with all my edits. Hiberniae (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To Seamus72/Dsignal/whoever - I suggest we use this cooling off period to discuss how best to improve the article. I have no difficulties with additions as long as the article is improved and not deleted. If you think the article gives an incomplete picture - fine, complete it then. Don't just wipe it bare.

However I will be watching this article when the protection expires and if someone tries to go down the road of widespread deletion again I'll push for a longer period of protection.

Hiberniae (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Highly POV content removed, protection extended

This uninvolved admin has removed two highly POV passages - one in the lede and one in Kedco#Proposed_Biogas_Plant. If there is consensus to restore it, please reach such consensus and post a {{editprotected}} template on this talk page. I have also extended protection on this page given the blatant threats and WP:OWNership in the statement above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While welcoming the protection on this page to help prevent the deliberate use of wikipedia for a personal agenda of one editor, it still contains inaccuracies and trivia. I suggest the following pages to make the protected version accurate and uncontroversial:

1.The passage in Kedco#Divisions that reads "however their boilers are manufactured for them by OPOP (a Czech company)" is inaccurate and, if to be included, should read "however one of their boilers are manufactured for them by OPOP (a Czech company)" as they also distribute other boilers. The inclusion of the attacker's personal Blog as a reference is also against wikipedia principles.

2.The passage Kedco#Proposed_Biogas_Plant is trivial and subjective. Should every proposed plant in Ireland and the UK, that has planning pending, be listed to cover the possibility that Kedco may be connected? I propose that this section be deleted completely. If such news sections are deemed appropriate, then all news relating to proposed plants should be includedSeamus72 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the {{editprotected}} template as I see no consensus here, rather, one editor's opinion. Please reapply after consensus achieved. Toddst1 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies I read your comment above as requiring a consensus to restore the passages you deleted.

My main concern currently is that the editor who was using the page for his own personal agenda and warned by you last week, is happy to have the current version protected as the non-neutral point of view serves his agenda, therefore he is unlikely to engage in reaching any form of consensus. He is also unlikely to reach consensus to remove his personal Blog as a citation even though it is clearly against Wikipedia Pprinciples. The protection of this particular version is protecting the controversial content in my opinion.

However, despite these concerns, I will try my best to reach consensus;I suggest the following 2 changes be made:

1.The passage in Kedco#Divisions that reads "however their boilers are manufactured for them by OPOP" is inaccurate and, if to be included, should read "however one of their boilers are manufactured for them by OPOP" as they also distribute other boilers. The inclusion of the attacker's personal Blog as a reference is also against wikipedia principles but even that only refers to one boiler type

2.The passage Kedco#Proposed_Biogas_Plant is trivial and subjective. Should every proposed plant in Ireland and the UK, that has planning pending, be listed to cover the possibility that Kedco may be connected? I propose that this section be deleted completely. If such news sections are deemed appropriate, then all news relating to proposed plants should be included rather than just one that serves a particular agendaSeamus72 (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As suspected, Hiberniae has not engaged whatsoever to reach consensus despite a prior ability to react and revert edits within minutes. Can this be taken as "default consensus"? It seems to be the case that since this administrator warning he has decided that this is nolonger the forum to further his personal agenda. Therefore the wordings and sections that are biased to further that agenda should be changed/removed in my opinion. To leave them there as they are in a protected versions only serves to underpin his biased agenda.

1. The user account, Hiberniae, was set up solely for the purposes of abusing Wikipedia to discredit this company. (All user activity is on this one single topic)

2. He persists in quoting his own personal blog as the reference for one of his biased points of view

3. One of his first edits was vandalism, personally attacking the CEO of the company

4. He more or less admitted here that this is a personal agenda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kedco/Archive_1#My_agenda.3F_The_truth ...This is also the tone of his blog which contains numerous negative references to Kedco.

Therefore I again suggest the following amendments ..but if this default consensus is not considered to be sufficient, please suggest how consensus can be reached when a user has abandoned his crusade:

1.The passage in Kedco#Divisions that reads "however their boilers are manufactured for them by OPOP" is inaccurate and, if to be included, should read "however one of their boilers are manufactured for them by OPOP" as they also distribute other boilers. The inclusion of the attacker's personal Blog as a reference is also against wikipedia principles but even that only refers to one boiler type.

2.The passage Kedco#Proposed_Biogas_Plant is trivial and subjective. Should every proposed plant in Ireland and the UK, that has planning pending, be listed to cover the possibility that Kedco may be connected? I propose that this section be deleted completely. If such news sections are deemed appropriate, then all news relating to proposed plants should be included rather than just one that serves a particular agenda

Update following removal of protection

Protection was removed following my editprotected request above so I've updated the page along the lines requested. I've also completely removed the reference to the personal blog of the editor who was using wikipedia as a tool in his personal agenda Seamus72 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Seamus72 - I'm not following any personal agenda. As I've said, I seek to ensure that 1. Wikipedia is not used to advertise unimportant companies and 2. That the Irish renewable energy industry is subject to scrutiny. Kedco is useful for analysis in this regard in the same manner that McDonalds are a useful single example to focus on in terms of the Fast food industry. That doesn't mean that Kedco are comparable in terms of size and influence to McDonalds. They are, as I said earlier, small unimportant bit players on the LSE. They manufacture nothing (except perhaps wood pellets).

So let's go through the article piece by piece.

Firstly, their floating on the AIM. It is fair and factual to say that kedco have made significant losses since their inception. It is also fair to say that Kedco's share price has been volatile since the launch. It is also a fact that Kedco is 25% owned by FBD, and it is a fact that a leading Irish Business magazine said that Kedco's finances were in dire straits until FBD arrived on the scene. All factual, all correctly referenced. (Business Plus Magazine, jan 09 issue)

Biogas Plant - the website of the residents opposing the plant (http://notokedco.com/) is noteworthy. Is the company directly involved in the plant? Probably not. Is there an association? Looks like it. It is noteworthy and should be left in.

Their claim to be manufacturers - please note Seamus that Kedco only supply ONE boiler according to their OWN Website - [1]. They also supply Wood Pellet STOVES that have a back boiler - but these are not WOOD PELLET BOILERS. Either way, the point I am getting at is that they claim to be manufacturers (and asked to be registered as such with Sustainable Energy Ireland) despite manufacturing nothing except wood pellets.

It's like Bill Cullen trying to claim he manufactures cars when all he does is import and distribute them.

The link to the article in the blog is a useful example of Kedco's rebranding of another product to pass it off as it's own. I see no reason why it should be deleted.

Since the article was originally protected until well into 2010 I said I'd go off and enjoy my Christmas. Now that that's over I suggest we go at this article again. I've made a few small edits to the article - looking forward to your replies.

Now I've a few questions for you.

Do you not agree that kedco do not manufacture either wood pellet stoves or boilers? Do you accept that Kedco are 25% owned by FBD, and have made significant losses since being founded in 2005? Do you agree that Kedco's share price has been volatile since launch? Do you accept that Kedco are associated with this proposed Biogas plant in Cork?

Hiberniae (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit more info on the financial situation. I suggest for the biogas plant that the section be retitled "association with proposed biogas plant" and I'm open to suggestions on the wording of the section. Perhaps the following?

"A group of residents of templeusque, Co. Cork have claimed that the company has been associated with a proposed development of a Biogas generating plant in Co. Cork. At present planning has not yet been granted for the plant but residents have established a website to demonstrate their opposition to the proposed development." - and a link added to the website. Fair and reasonable if you ask me.

I also see from looking at Kedco's share price tracker that their shares have now fallen to their lowest level since entering the AIM. In that context the statement of average share price is now starting to look a little dated. If you want to update it feel free. I'm open to suggestions. Hiberniae (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the lack of response from Seamus72 (or anyone for that matter) and given the latest news that Kedco are in more financial difficulty, reported here:

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/13414/kedco-forced-to-delay-gasification-plant-construction-due-to-lack-of-debt-finance-13414.html

and on the company's own website:

http://www.kedco.com/i/investment/february-trading-update/

I've updated the page accordingly. I await the inevitable accusations of bias from Seamus. Hiberniae (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I updated the article to more accurately deal with Kedco's manufacturing aspect. Good call by Energee5 - I can't prove that Kedco have no manufacturing capacity, only that they don't manufacture their Boilers/Stoves. They may manufacture wood pellets.

Someone else inserted a line regarding franchisees leaving the company - I had heard of this, however I'm not sure how to put in a citation for it. I have an old brochure for Kedco "bio fires" (manufactured by someone else of course) who list their franchisees on the back. When I called some of them to inquire about these fires, I was told they had left Kedco. I'm not sure how to put that into the article though.

The company's financial situation continues to fluctuate. The latest trading update shows some goodish news (still making a loss, but a smaller one) but there is a firesale of Kedco shares ongoing. Not sure if I want to update this article too much though, I was (very unfairly) accused of bias last time. Hiberniae (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 update

I still have heard nothing from Seamus72, Toddst or anyone else regarding my attempts to develop this article. As such I decided to insert a section on the proposed biogas plant in Cork and update the company's financial situation. My reasons are as follows:

1 The "Biogas Plant" The website of the protesters against the biogas plant strongly indicates that Kedco are associated with the plant - perhaps as external contractors, perhaps not. Either way, I have left that open while acknowledging the controversy.

2. Financial position - everything in the relevent section is referenced correctly. There is no reason to hide the fact that the company is underperforming.

I remain open to discussions, however I will not accept that I have shown "blatant ownership" of the article as I was accused of by Toddst or bias, as Seamus72 asserts. If there is anyone biased in this discussion it is Seamus and his fellow band of censors who tried everything possible to censor the inconvenient truths about this company.

Hiberniae (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2015 update

Updated the page to reflect some of the changes that have taken place. Bryanoneill (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not an expert on this - does anyone know how to change the title of the article? Kedco PLC is now officially React Energy PLC and the title should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanoneill (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)