Talk:Royal Automobile Club of Queensland
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
For some reason, the title of this article was "Royal Automobile Club of Queensland Limited" from its creation. I have now removed the "Limited" from this title. - Mark 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
8 July 2015 edits
editI'm not convinced these edits [1] are suitable. Ignoring the fact that they were added, removed and re-added by two WP:ORGNAME users, I believe this falls under the category of WP:NOTNEWS. --Drm310 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
9th July edits
editIt appears that RACQ staffers have been editing the page (removing local information) in the belief that Wiki is an authorised company page. [(4,858 bytes) (-1,213) . . (remove unauthorised information from company page as authorised communications staff member)] [04:40, 9 July 2015 RACQ Official (talk | contribs) . . (4,761 bytes) (-8) . . (undo | thank)] I am not sure that they are unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evmuseum (talk • contribs)
- And the edits claiming to be from an "authorised communications staff member" of RACQ and a "RACQ Official" account were reverted with notice to the former (the latter was blocked from editing) that RACQ doesn't own this page. If the information is removed, it will not be for that reason (though its long-term relevance to an encyclopaedic article on RACQ is questionable, as mentioned in the section above, so it could be removed for that reason). General Ization Talk 23:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)