User talk:Ian3055/Archive 2

UK banking

Hi Ian, I notice that you have linked to the page I created last night on current accounts. I would appreciate if you have anything to add in the realm of banking to help me shift the emphasis away from the odd US terminology.

I have also edited deposit account and much of the UK related mortgage pages. simonthebold 09:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:P.S.S. Inc.

Could you make a fictional article branch-off and add the category there? - Patricknoddy 3:20pm March 26, 2006 (EST)

Economic impact of AIDS

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on an Economics topic

Hi Ian, I'm relatively new to Wikepedia. I see you have an interest in Economics and are a member of the Wiki business/econ project group. I need some expertise/help on an economic-related item on a sister Wiki project. If you would be willing to consider taking a look at it, and putting in your two cents, please let me know on my user talk page. Thanks. N2e 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ian for your offer of assistance on my user/talk page earlier today. The issue is on the sister Wiki project Wiktionary. There is a request for verification on an economics-related word: 'Slutsky' -- the adjective for a number of concepts in Microeconomics, most notably the Slutsky equation. I have put all the info over on Wiktionary on the talk page Slutsky that should be sufficient to justify the definition as common in Economics, but since I am a newbie on Wiktionary, my input wouldn't carry as much weight as yours, and the gentleman who asked for the rfv suggested I could likely find an Economics expert on Wikepedia to help out.

It all started out as simply a request for someone to help out with how to properly pronounce the word from one of my colleagues who does not speak English as a native. But the Wiktionary administrator is questioning its appropriateness, probably because of what it might sound like, and his unfamiliarity with Economics -- which is all quite fair. That is why I am asking for you to weigh in. Thanks for your wiki assistance! N2e 01:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ian for your input on Wiktionary. I appreciate it, and Wiktionary will be better for it. N2e 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

re: The automobile manufacturers CFD

I have left the following note at User talk:Cyde: As the categories had been renamed I just closed this as the only outstanding one for that day. Maybe it would have been better to tell Cyde and let him close the cfd. If he wants to change it I have no objection. Tim! 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: ITN

Done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming Conventions - Corporations

Looks like you're doing excellent work on getting these sorted - I stumbled across one and found your list while dealing with its links. I just wonder about Corporations - Bose list their name as "Bose Corporation" on their website, we've got them now at Bose Corp., but perhaps something like Bose (audio) would be better? - I was under the impression that disambig by activity was preferable to by legal status - I recon there is just something not quite right about "Corp." in a title. Just some thoughts really, incidently if you let me know how you keep track of that list I'll jump in after my finals. Ian3055 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. It's been a real bear renaming all these companies and fixing double redirects. Anyway, I have renamed the article to Bose (audio) at your suggestion. I'm also not really happy about "Corp." but usually in most cases the "Corp." is not included and we can use the main company interest to make it "sound better".

I'm not sure what you mean by "keep track" of the list so I'll go into a little bit of detail. The list is created manually. Because of redirects, I have to check against the real title which are only listed in categories (Category:Companies, Category:Companies by stock exchange, Category:Companies by country). I copied all the items in most of the categories to an excel spreadsheet and then sorted out the items that have "Inc." "Corp" "plc" or other variants and then compiled them into a single list which is put into wikipedia. After that, I then just go down the list removing items as I go. Some items are renamed, other stay as they are but either way they have been "addressed" and can be removed from the list until the next time. I'm thinking about creating an "addressed" list so that companies do not have to be checked everytime I refresh the list. Thanks for writing and letting me know about Bose and any help you can offer would be appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's a mistake to change Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1886) to Westinghouse Electric (1886). The names of that series of companies is confusing enough as it is without shortening them. (See Westinghouse for a list of a dozen past and present companies that use the main brand name.) Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1886) is different than Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1998), which, in turn, is very different from Westinghouse Electric Company. I would recommend that you change it back, most importantly for the last one. Jkatzen 02:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Replied

I understand why you did it -- but I think it's confusing in this case. End users who don't know a.) the intricacies of Wikipedia convention, or b.) the detailed history of Westinghouse will be completely and utterly confused to find that the various iterations of "Westinghouse Electric" are not the same as "Westinghouse Electric Company" if that is how you plan to leave them. Perhaps you should open it up for a vote. Jkatzen 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Replied and listed at Requested Moves

Ian, thanks for keeping up with the convention and doing some of the renaming. But, I have to let you know that I reverted your hard and tedious work at Television Broadcasts Limited. The logo in the article shows "Limited" as part of the usage and how the company refers to itself. I will gladly re-revert myself if I'm shown wrong, but I do want consistency for the convention. Thanks again for continuing to help. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Replied

I agree that it's something of a judgement call, but I think that based on the logo that the Limited should be retained since it is clear evidence of company literature. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Barclays

Hi - In your laudable thrust for accuracy of corporate names (especially British), I'm afraid I felt compelled to revert the changes you made from PLC to plc on the Barclays Bank article. My understanding is that companies choose their own style, and Wikipedia should follow that. Thus HSBC uses lower case plc, Barclays doesn't! (see foot of their webpage: [1]) Thanks. Carbonix 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Replied

Me again! Can I also challenge your amendment to the Royal Bank of Scotland page: I think this refers to the Group, and the previous name (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC) was therefore correct (but should have been lower case 'plc'!) You have changed it to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, which is a subsidiary - see [2]. I believe the Wikipedia article is about the whole Group. Carbonix 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Replied

Lboro

My bad, the loughborough university modifications were experimenting, I do appoligize. Nonetheless, wouldnt it be cool to have a present student list! Especially for you finalists. A way of leaving a lasting memory. A kind of online leavers book

Furthermore note that David colletts address has been added

• Comment moved from User talk:Ian3055/Archive 1, and Replied.

HMS Severn

Hi Ian

I was trying to upload the image, one I took early in 2005, but got foiled by the technology.

Thanks for putting me straight on how to do it - I'll give it a try when I have the time.

Tim

Automobile/Motor

I've posted a comment at WP:AN/I and reinstated the items on the list. I've also created the new categories and started to change items over. I'm doing it by hand though (I have no bot), so any help in that would be appreciated. Three still need to have items changed: Category:Automobile manufacturers of Australia, Category:Automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom, and Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, but in hindsight User:Paul foord's comment on my user page that it should have been "Motor vehicle manufacturers of X" is probably better. Don't be surprised if this comes back to CFD for further tweaking sometime. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Replied

It seems to be back at CFD already, with a compromise suggestion that may be acceptable to everyone. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletions

G'day Ian,

you tagged Nate Myles for speedy deletion last night. The subject is a professional rugby league player who plays in one of the better teams in the strongest professional rugby league competition in the world and has appeared in the most prestigious representative tournament the sport has to offer. Further, the article made this clear before you tagged it. Please be more careful in future. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied

We judge based on the quality of the article itself, not on its author(s). In this case, you found an article about a professional rugby league player from the top professional competition in the world; an article which said as much in its text; and you put a template on it that said "no assertion of notability". I imagine you would not tag Jermaine Defoe or Chris Kirkland as {{db-bio}}; that's why I assumed you'd tagged it because you didn't know anything about rugby league.

If you're concerned about a particular article, there are many avenues you can take. Two of the most useful are to take it to WP:AfD, or to post to WP:ANI and say "I'm worried about User X, who has made a lot of poor contributions, and also created this article about some chap called Nate Myles, what do you think?", or words to that effect. HTH, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)