Talk:Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report

Comment

The Foster Natural Gas/Oil report is produced by Foster Associates, INC. It is a well respected company which delivers its report to a number of major players in the natural gas and oil industry, including congress. Please do not delete this page. Foster's competitor Platts has a page on wikipedia, and Foster should as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs)

Please keep this article. The person who marked it for deletion clearly knows nothing about the natural gas/oil industry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether the editor who tagged this article for deletion knows about the oil and gas industry is not the determining factor in whether it will be deleted. The article must have reliable sources, which should be included as inline citations. The article should have a lede, too. If you don't know how to make those changes, ask for help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I created a lead a references. Please help me keep this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

When you add a comment, please sign your contribution by using the fourth icon across at the head of the editing box, which puts --~~~~ following your contribution, which automatically becomes a signature when you save the contribution.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much for teaching me. i greatly appreciate all the help you have given me. --Katya Foster (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article was cleaned-up to remove promotional tone. However, this was reverted by the creator of this article. I believe that this was good faith edit by unexperienced editor. Therefore, I went through of cleaning this article and adding proper category one more time. However, I have a concern that this article may be created only for promotional purposes, which is supported by potential WP:COI and WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report → Foster Natural Gas Report – The creator of this article claims that since August 2011, the Foster Natural Gas Report was renamed to be Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. However, there is no source using this name. Even the publisher's website uses the name Foster Natural Gas Report only.

The page was move to this title and moved back by another editor, so the move is controversial. It is also moved again by copy-paste method by third editor, so the article needs also history merge.

Discussion about this article title is also here. Beagel (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree The title should reflect the name of the report, not just additional info that may be present in it.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on this move overall, except that nobody should try to implement it before the AfD closes. The page has already been moved once during the AfD, and the page could still wind up being deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course the move depends on AfD result. Beagel (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to the change in name, as I believe the current name to be accurate, and I certainly object to any change in name prior to the resolution of the AfD result. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So far, there is no source using the current name of this article. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Beagel (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question from article

"Foster Associates report???? Where is citation for this? I dont see this information anywhere in the references. This needs to be referenced." This was not my question (see article history), but doesn't belong in the article, where I found it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See Also Section?

What is the point of the see also section? Foster does not do business with these companies.--Katya Foster (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See also sections provide similar or quasi-related organizations, and in this case also a link to the oil/gas portal. Your removal - twice - looks like you're removing links to competitors, so stop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok but why are you only adding it to the Foster page. Why do the others not have a see also section? --Katya Foster (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add it ... I reverted your removal. Twice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand that. But if this information is on the Foster page it should be on the other pages too. Otherwise, please let me remove it. Its only fair. --Katya Foster (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you like being blocked, go ahead :-). Consensus says the information stays. If this is the only article you are going to edit, then you'll be known as an WP:SPA ... which is never good. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

All three of these magazines now have See also pointers to each other, for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with these oil and gas industry publications. I would object to the removal of any of them, and I would revert any changes if detected. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

SPA and CIO are welcome on talk pages. They often have insights and information into the subject that other editors do not have, and we should listen to them to see how we might improve the article. In the case of the "See also" section, Katya asked a valid question. Why are these links here and not on similar pages? It's more productive to answer this question than point a finger and say "SPA". Next: I see no evidence of a consensus. As Katya says, there are many reports, and I agree it's absurd to list only a few here. I'd support linking to an index of reports, however. Rklawton (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point - my rather cleverly veiled suggestion was that she go edit the others to do exactly what DThomsen8 did ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If she did, we'd consider POINTY and someone would likely revert - not to mention the obvious COI issues. It's better to let someone more neutral do it - as is what ultimately occurred. Rklawton (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is directed to Bwilkins: What are you talking about???? What consesus? And you say I am only editing the Foster article. I can edit as many or as few articles on wikipedia as I like. What does that have to do with anything? Now you are threatening to block me? For what? I would like you to please stop threatening me and to stop your rude and agressive behavior. It is unprofessional and childish.--Katya Foster (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"I can edit as many or as few articles on wikipedia as I like." Actually, that is not the case. If you have a conflict of interest or are deteremined by the community to be a single purpose account, the community will subject your edits to particular scrutiny, and they're likely be be reverted if they seem suspicious or one-sided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My edits are not one sided. I have knowledge about the Foster Report which I have tried to give to wikipedia. I am not editing articles about industries and companies that i have no knowledge in because that would be wrong. However, I am glad you are on the the topic of suspicious edits. Yours are suspicious. You undo everything I do. For instance, I once wrote something in a discussion forum, forgot to sign it, went back to sign it (the only change made) and you undid it. Why? What do you have against me that you must constantly undo everything I do even if I am within my rights and it makes sence what I am doing?--Katya Foster (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the AfD is closed, and has a big notice at the top saying "DO NOT EDIT". If you can't follow a simple rule like that, why should we believe that you can edit articles in the manner expected of good Wikipedians? You've certainly shown no indication that you can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not an explanation. You are taking things to an extreme. I did not change anything. I simply signed my edit. I did not add to it or delete it. And you know it!--Katya Foster (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Katya is right. Rklawton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Name change

Thanks for the heads up regarding the name change. Rklawton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)