General Re

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Gen Re. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Financial security and historical information

With regard to the two sections edited on July 29, 2014, and the edits revoked the same day:

Financial security (aka "claims paying ability"), arguably the single most important quality of a company in the (re)insurance business, cannot be alleged by a (re)insurer about itself, but is assessed and then publicized (or disclosed against a fee) by professional rating agencies. The result of such process is precisely what I have added here, so, in my view, no advertising or inappropriate external links insofar, but unbiased and important information which I would suggest to reinstate.

Historical information: From a formal point, two subsection headings were added to the History section, to better balance the appearance against the AIG Securities Fraud subsection which had been added by User:Trident13 in 2012 with a subsection header of its own. More importantly, two content items were added, viz. some details from earlier corporate history that had not been widely known before, and the final and full closure of the a.m. AIG matter. The former item might perhaps be questioned for its relevance but was thought of historic interest for some readers, while the latter is definitely an important legal and regulatory result, omitting which in this context would be misleading. As no unaffiliated Wikipedian had mentioned it in over a year, I felt I had to do it myself. What's more, both content amendments were correctly substantiated with reputable independent external links. So again, in my view, no advertising or inappropriate external links, but serious and neutral information which should be reinstated.

If however the links should be formally organized in a different way, I'd be grateful for guidance. General Re (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gen Re may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | key_people = Tad Montross <small>([[Chairman of the Board|Chairman]] and [[Chief executive officer|CEO]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Senior

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)