Hi and thanks for your message. Yes happy to help out. Rangoon11 ( talk) 02:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Arturo, you may have noticed on the BP talk page that we are working on a "stock history" section as per the "company articles" guideline you shared with us in the DRN. You certainly don't need to, but if you feel to help construct that section, we would most welcome any input. Thanks, petrarchan47 t c 20:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
DES (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Arturo. I've tried to unravel the BP 2004 DoJ finding as stated below:
A criminal penalty of $100 million, a payment of $25 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Consumer Fraud Fund, and restitution of approximately $53 million, plus a civil penalty of $125 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as part of an agreement to defer the prosecution of a one-count criminal information filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging BP America Inc. with conspiring to violate the Commodity Exchange Act and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.
Then they go on to say:
In addition, a 20-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Chicago today charges four former employees of a subsidiary of BP America, Inc. with conspiring to manipulate and corner the TET propane market in February 2004, and to sell TET propane at an artificially inflated index price in violation of federal mail and wire fraud statutes, along with substantive violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and wire fraud.
However, in 2011 it was decided:
This court decision has been used as a reason to remove mention of the 2004 information from the article by both Connolly and Beagle. I've read the same information but come away with the idea that the 2004 court finding was not at all nullified by the 2011 court decision as that was a separate matter. More info here:
Hopefully you can clear this up. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
References
Hi Arturo, I appreciate the request, but I am away for awhile with some health issues. Hopefully someone at BP talk can take care of the editing needs soon. The removal of outdated information is simple enough, and I'm sure in time we can get the alternative energy section worked out. Sorry I can't be of immediate help. petrarchan47 t c 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For making constructive contributions to Wikipedia while respecting conflict of interest guidelines. Drm310 ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
RE: "As that request has not received a response." [3] When an article talk page request is posted, it may go unanswered because the page does not receive enough traffic. To address this, If you post a request on Talk:BP, select the history tab, select External tools: Contributors, and then consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors letting them know that you posted on the Talk:BP page. Then, look at the list of contributors to the article page itself, [4] and consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors. By looking at the contributors list for both the BP article and BP talk page, looks like Rangoon11, Beagel, Petrarchan47, Gandydancer, Binksternet, and BozMo are the most active in the topic and likely would be interested in responding to a talk page request at Talk:BP. You also can use {{ request edit}} for conflict-of-interest edits. Generally see Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arturo. Congrats with you Barnstar. It shows that you are a very good expert in Wikipedia by contributing good content and balancing the BP page. Would you mind having a look at the Atos page? How can we ge in contact with you? Thanks in advance. ( tim362729| t ) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you left some requests for assistance at my talk page and WP:COIN but I have been a bit busy. How do things stand now? Are you still in need of help? -- Drm310 ( talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren C 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren C 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem. Silver seren C 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arturo. Could you please clarify little further your involvement with BP? Does your editing in Wikipedia is related to your paid job with BP, that mean you are dealing BP's PR, information, etc in the broad sense? Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Has Bell Pottinger ever issued a statement coming clean on its former wikipedia sanitation efforts? Geo Swan ( talk) 13:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For the total integrity which you have shown in your declaration of a connection to BP, and the respect which you have demonstrated for Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. And for providing draft text of the highest quality. I hope that you will continue to be involved in this project. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For the undue and ill-informed criticism you'll have to endure for your policy-guided contributions towards improving BP. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For correctly following our WP:COI. Thanks for helping us improve our coverage. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Olive Branch Barn Star | ||
Because there is no conflict and you have done nothing wrong. Keep up the good work and thank you for your contributions. Amadscientist ( talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Arturo,
By way of introduction, my name is Phil Gomes and I am a co-founder of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE). A Facebook group serves as our base of operations. We are (mostly) PR folk and interested Wikipedians who see value in dialogue rather than the well-worn tactic of public shaming.
Our mission statement:
This case has been a topic of active discussion and we'd love to have you join us and participate.
-- Philgomes ( talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your impressive work, above and beyond the COI policies, even in the face of frequent challenges and criticism -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. I am trying to find out more about COI etc on wikipedia. I was wondering if your job description (duties etc) is publicly available somewhere? Perhaps the job was publicly advertised for example. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the first part of a statement we gave to the press that addresses my role:
Thank you for being completely transparent about what you do here. We hope to see more editors like you! Please know that the Wikipedia community is openly with you!! :)
[Would it be possible to run a news story that revealed the hoax of the previous one? Mal-informed articles like those damages both BP's and Wikipedia's credibility] TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Arturo, as the BP rep could you please read my new section re TNK-BP environmental concerns and give feedback. Does this pipeline remain in disrepair or has it been repaired or replaced as needed? Also, could you provide information re the recent changes in the ownership of TNK-BK? Who is now responsible to do the repairs and pipeline replacement that the Minister of Natural Resources said need to be done? Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The No Spam Barnstar | |
Your work in ensuring neutral, uniquely-accurate coverage of BP-related articles is admirable. You've shown that entities with a "COI" can still contribute neutrally and effectively to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. dci | TALK 01:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
Accept that he doesn't have a COI since he isn't placing his outside interests above the aims of Wikipedia. But its still a nice gesture to give the barnstar!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a question. Would you object to insertion, at the top of the BP article, the Wikipedia notice that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Wikipedia rules do not appear to require that this template be placed on the article. However, this appears to be the only way to inform readers that BP had and has a role in the formulation of this continually evolving article. In light of your active participation in the article, would you object to this notice, so that readers of the article would be duly informed of BP's involvement? I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge you, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way toward diffusing the situation. Thanks in advance, Coretheapple ( talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if you agree to a disclosure notice for the article but feel that the wording should be different than above, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on alternate wording that can be placed at the top of the BP article. Thanks again, Coretheapple ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The storm will die. I am an admin here and also an email response volunteer. What you've done is exactly what I'd have advised, and had I advised it then I would have gone to bat for you and taken any opprobrium myself. You have played a straight bat. Guy ( Help!) 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this has already been said, but life would be easier if you could provide more explicit independent (intellectually independent, not form press releases) secondary sources for content. I appreciate that you will ahve information from inside, but bear in mind that Jimbo Wales' article had (and probably still has) wrong information, because the reliable sources got it wrong and we can't take his word over theirs. To quite Douglas Adams, where we are inaccurate, we are at least definitively inaccurate. Guy ( Help!) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Arturo, thanks for the update. In the future, it might be more efficient to leave any content-related information on the BP talk page rather than my personal page. petrarchan47 t c 21:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Just curious...when you first started editing about a year ago, you were of the practice of notifying editors (of your choosing) that you had (or you were going to) make a request at the BP article and could they assist you in implementing them. I wonder if that is still something that you choose to do. Or do you leave it up to chance as to which editor will act as your proxy (which BTW is not the bad word that many make it out to be)? ``` Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is for Gandydancer, to follow up the discussion following my April 19 statement: "It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light." I hesitated in following up because I am not asking for an apology or for you to defend yourself. My comment was influenced by the current difficult tone of the discussion, and also your suggestion that my requests didn't need to be looked at soon, while I have to respond quickly to others' questions. In looking back through our interactions, I've noticed that we have worked very well together at some times, however when things go wrong, I find that your tone sometime changes sharply, which can make the situation more difficult.
I was specifically responding to your comment the same day that I "took several weeks, (or was it months?) to get back" about Prudhoe Bay, and I appreciate that you've now acknowledged the confusion with the DOJ and CFTC charges. I also had in mind your complaints about the initial delay, including calling this "disturbing" on January 12 and bringing it up again in reply to Silverseren on March 24. Regarding the delay in that case, I'm sorry I wasn't more communicative in the time I was waiting for a response, which I now realize would have helped.
I was thinking as well of our discussion surrounding the Prudhoe Bay section on March 27, after we improved it, when you found new information which we hadn't included because we didn't know about it. At this time you suggested that I was "deceived by BP" while implying that I may be deceiving you, and you disagreed that the section was more accurate than what was there before. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it that I wasn't aware of those developments and I didn't ask the right questions to get information about it from colleagues in the company, but a simple before and after comparison of that section shows that we corrected serious distortions, even if it was not exactly complete. (Which of course Wikipedia never is.) Later, on April 19, you said about the Prudhoe Bay section: "I am still trying to untangle that mess and expect no assist from BP." But I did in fact seek out more information once you asked, and I presented more information on April 1, and continued to participate after it was decided that this should be added to the article.
We've had positive experiences working together, but also some obvious tension. Your comment on April 19 made it sound as if you were no longer interested in working with me. I hope that's not the case. My comment expressed frustration with these tensions, and hopefully by addressing it we can continue to work successfully together in the future. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
...for seperating your most recent requests into individual sections. ``` Buster Seven Talk 04:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Interior (Talk) 15:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the reference as per you suggestion from the BP website to the Business Journal reference. Thanks Blackrock36 ( talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Arturo, your name was mentioned in this comment. Could you please comment this? I know you have commented this also earlier, so maybe you could provide also a relevant link. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please comment this and this issues. Thank you Beagel ( talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arturo. Thank you for you message. I just finished writing the Steve Cuozzo article and have room for a new biography project. If Geoff Morrell is looking for something like the Steve Cuozzo biography article, I'd be happy to expand the Geoff Morrell article. However, I'll need some things from you since you have direct contact with Geoff. First, I would like you/Geoff/someone to upload more photos for the Geoff Morrell article into Commons. It's a biography, so the photos that would be nice are Morrell's early life/environment photos (childhood/family through college) and two or three photos that show his career/environment. I'm also hoping to receive early life information - date of birth, parents names, occupations, brothers/sisters names (order of birth), birth place, elementary, junior high, high school names, year graduated from high school, year entered Georgetown University, one or two extra circular things he did/experienced at Georgetown University (or very early in his life) that someone might see as fitting with being a spokesperson. Having this information and a copy of his resume would help guide me on searching for independent reliable source information to support adding such information to the article. Geoff Morrell is a very common name, so it will be difficult for me to find independent/reliable sourced biography information on Geoff Morrell without his assistance. Also, if you can provide me links to article that discuss his life, that would help out. -- Jreferee ( talk) 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arturo As you may know, your Wikipedia editing exploits were discussed in a March 2013 blog post by CIPR member Stuart Bruce - see http://stuartbruce.biz/2013/03/pr-wikipedia-and-bpa-sorry-tale.html. The CIPR has been updating its Wikipedia best practice guidelines and, as a Wikipedian and - like Stuart - a member of the CIPR's Social Media Panel, I was asked to help, along with a fellow member of Wikimedia UK. I hope you don't mind but I have included a mini-case study about your efforts on behalf of BP, citing this as good practice in managing COI. If you would like to know more, please let me know. Paul W ( talk) 12:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BPLogo2015.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Lawler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lawler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi - Please can you use the {{ request edit}} template in future when requesting edits. Thanks, Dormskirk ( talk) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your message. Yes happy to help out. Rangoon11 ( talk) 02:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Arturo, you may have noticed on the BP talk page that we are working on a "stock history" section as per the "company articles" guideline you shared with us in the DRN. You certainly don't need to, but if you feel to help construct that section, we would most welcome any input. Thanks, petrarchan47 t c 20:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
DES (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Arturo. I've tried to unravel the BP 2004 DoJ finding as stated below:
A criminal penalty of $100 million, a payment of $25 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Consumer Fraud Fund, and restitution of approximately $53 million, plus a civil penalty of $125 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as part of an agreement to defer the prosecution of a one-count criminal information filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging BP America Inc. with conspiring to violate the Commodity Exchange Act and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.
Then they go on to say:
In addition, a 20-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Chicago today charges four former employees of a subsidiary of BP America, Inc. with conspiring to manipulate and corner the TET propane market in February 2004, and to sell TET propane at an artificially inflated index price in violation of federal mail and wire fraud statutes, along with substantive violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and wire fraud.
However, in 2011 it was decided:
This court decision has been used as a reason to remove mention of the 2004 information from the article by both Connolly and Beagle. I've read the same information but come away with the idea that the 2004 court finding was not at all nullified by the 2011 court decision as that was a separate matter. More info here:
Hopefully you can clear this up. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
References
Hi Arturo, I appreciate the request, but I am away for awhile with some health issues. Hopefully someone at BP talk can take care of the editing needs soon. The removal of outdated information is simple enough, and I'm sure in time we can get the alternative energy section worked out. Sorry I can't be of immediate help. petrarchan47 t c 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For making constructive contributions to Wikipedia while respecting conflict of interest guidelines. Drm310 ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
RE: "As that request has not received a response." [3] When an article talk page request is posted, it may go unanswered because the page does not receive enough traffic. To address this, If you post a request on Talk:BP, select the history tab, select External tools: Contributors, and then consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors letting them know that you posted on the Talk:BP page. Then, look at the list of contributors to the article page itself, [4] and consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors. By looking at the contributors list for both the BP article and BP talk page, looks like Rangoon11, Beagel, Petrarchan47, Gandydancer, Binksternet, and BozMo are the most active in the topic and likely would be interested in responding to a talk page request at Talk:BP. You also can use {{ request edit}} for conflict-of-interest edits. Generally see Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arturo. Congrats with you Barnstar. It shows that you are a very good expert in Wikipedia by contributing good content and balancing the BP page. Would you mind having a look at the Atos page? How can we ge in contact with you? Thanks in advance. ( tim362729| t ) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you left some requests for assistance at my talk page and WP:COIN but I have been a bit busy. How do things stand now? Are you still in need of help? -- Drm310 ( talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren C 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren C 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem. Silver seren C 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arturo. Could you please clarify little further your involvement with BP? Does your editing in Wikipedia is related to your paid job with BP, that mean you are dealing BP's PR, information, etc in the broad sense? Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Has Bell Pottinger ever issued a statement coming clean on its former wikipedia sanitation efforts? Geo Swan ( talk) 13:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For the total integrity which you have shown in your declaration of a connection to BP, and the respect which you have demonstrated for Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. And for providing draft text of the highest quality. I hope that you will continue to be involved in this project. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For the undue and ill-informed criticism you'll have to endure for your policy-guided contributions towards improving BP. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For correctly following our WP:COI. Thanks for helping us improve our coverage. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Olive Branch Barn Star | ||
Because there is no conflict and you have done nothing wrong. Keep up the good work and thank you for your contributions. Amadscientist ( talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Arturo,
By way of introduction, my name is Phil Gomes and I am a co-founder of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE). A Facebook group serves as our base of operations. We are (mostly) PR folk and interested Wikipedians who see value in dialogue rather than the well-worn tactic of public shaming.
Our mission statement:
This case has been a topic of active discussion and we'd love to have you join us and participate.
-- Philgomes ( talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your impressive work, above and beyond the COI policies, even in the face of frequent challenges and criticism -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. I am trying to find out more about COI etc on wikipedia. I was wondering if your job description (duties etc) is publicly available somewhere? Perhaps the job was publicly advertised for example. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the first part of a statement we gave to the press that addresses my role:
Thank you for being completely transparent about what you do here. We hope to see more editors like you! Please know that the Wikipedia community is openly with you!! :)
[Would it be possible to run a news story that revealed the hoax of the previous one? Mal-informed articles like those damages both BP's and Wikipedia's credibility] TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Arturo, as the BP rep could you please read my new section re TNK-BP environmental concerns and give feedback. Does this pipeline remain in disrepair or has it been repaired or replaced as needed? Also, could you provide information re the recent changes in the ownership of TNK-BK? Who is now responsible to do the repairs and pipeline replacement that the Minister of Natural Resources said need to be done? Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The No Spam Barnstar | |
Your work in ensuring neutral, uniquely-accurate coverage of BP-related articles is admirable. You've shown that entities with a "COI" can still contribute neutrally and effectively to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. dci | TALK 01:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
Accept that he doesn't have a COI since he isn't placing his outside interests above the aims of Wikipedia. But its still a nice gesture to give the barnstar!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a question. Would you object to insertion, at the top of the BP article, the Wikipedia notice that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Wikipedia rules do not appear to require that this template be placed on the article. However, this appears to be the only way to inform readers that BP had and has a role in the formulation of this continually evolving article. In light of your active participation in the article, would you object to this notice, so that readers of the article would be duly informed of BP's involvement? I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge you, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way toward diffusing the situation. Thanks in advance, Coretheapple ( talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if you agree to a disclosure notice for the article but feel that the wording should be different than above, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on alternate wording that can be placed at the top of the BP article. Thanks again, Coretheapple ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The storm will die. I am an admin here and also an email response volunteer. What you've done is exactly what I'd have advised, and had I advised it then I would have gone to bat for you and taken any opprobrium myself. You have played a straight bat. Guy ( Help!) 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this has already been said, but life would be easier if you could provide more explicit independent (intellectually independent, not form press releases) secondary sources for content. I appreciate that you will ahve information from inside, but bear in mind that Jimbo Wales' article had (and probably still has) wrong information, because the reliable sources got it wrong and we can't take his word over theirs. To quite Douglas Adams, where we are inaccurate, we are at least definitively inaccurate. Guy ( Help!) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Arturo, thanks for the update. In the future, it might be more efficient to leave any content-related information on the BP talk page rather than my personal page. petrarchan47 t c 21:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Just curious...when you first started editing about a year ago, you were of the practice of notifying editors (of your choosing) that you had (or you were going to) make a request at the BP article and could they assist you in implementing them. I wonder if that is still something that you choose to do. Or do you leave it up to chance as to which editor will act as your proxy (which BTW is not the bad word that many make it out to be)? ``` Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is for Gandydancer, to follow up the discussion following my April 19 statement: "It may not be your intention, but your comments sometimes seem to contain inaccurate portrayals of my actions that place me in a negative light." I hesitated in following up because I am not asking for an apology or for you to defend yourself. My comment was influenced by the current difficult tone of the discussion, and also your suggestion that my requests didn't need to be looked at soon, while I have to respond quickly to others' questions. In looking back through our interactions, I've noticed that we have worked very well together at some times, however when things go wrong, I find that your tone sometime changes sharply, which can make the situation more difficult.
I was specifically responding to your comment the same day that I "took several weeks, (or was it months?) to get back" about Prudhoe Bay, and I appreciate that you've now acknowledged the confusion with the DOJ and CFTC charges. I also had in mind your complaints about the initial delay, including calling this "disturbing" on January 12 and bringing it up again in reply to Silverseren on March 24. Regarding the delay in that case, I'm sorry I wasn't more communicative in the time I was waiting for a response, which I now realize would have helped.
I was thinking as well of our discussion surrounding the Prudhoe Bay section on March 27, after we improved it, when you found new information which we hadn't included because we didn't know about it. At this time you suggested that I was "deceived by BP" while implying that I may be deceiving you, and you disagreed that the section was more accurate than what was there before. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it that I wasn't aware of those developments and I didn't ask the right questions to get information about it from colleagues in the company, but a simple before and after comparison of that section shows that we corrected serious distortions, even if it was not exactly complete. (Which of course Wikipedia never is.) Later, on April 19, you said about the Prudhoe Bay section: "I am still trying to untangle that mess and expect no assist from BP." But I did in fact seek out more information once you asked, and I presented more information on April 1, and continued to participate after it was decided that this should be added to the article.
We've had positive experiences working together, but also some obvious tension. Your comment on April 19 made it sound as if you were no longer interested in working with me. I hope that's not the case. My comment expressed frustration with these tensions, and hopefully by addressing it we can continue to work successfully together in the future. Thanks. Arturo at BP ( talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
...for seperating your most recent requests into individual sections. ``` Buster Seven Talk 04:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Interior (Talk) 15:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the reference as per you suggestion from the BP website to the Business Journal reference. Thanks Blackrock36 ( talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Arturo, your name was mentioned in this comment. Could you please comment this? I know you have commented this also earlier, so maybe you could provide also a relevant link. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please comment this and this issues. Thank you Beagel ( talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arturo. Thank you for you message. I just finished writing the Steve Cuozzo article and have room for a new biography project. If Geoff Morrell is looking for something like the Steve Cuozzo biography article, I'd be happy to expand the Geoff Morrell article. However, I'll need some things from you since you have direct contact with Geoff. First, I would like you/Geoff/someone to upload more photos for the Geoff Morrell article into Commons. It's a biography, so the photos that would be nice are Morrell's early life/environment photos (childhood/family through college) and two or three photos that show his career/environment. I'm also hoping to receive early life information - date of birth, parents names, occupations, brothers/sisters names (order of birth), birth place, elementary, junior high, high school names, year graduated from high school, year entered Georgetown University, one or two extra circular things he did/experienced at Georgetown University (or very early in his life) that someone might see as fitting with being a spokesperson. Having this information and a copy of his resume would help guide me on searching for independent reliable source information to support adding such information to the article. Geoff Morrell is a very common name, so it will be difficult for me to find independent/reliable sourced biography information on Geoff Morrell without his assistance. Also, if you can provide me links to article that discuss his life, that would help out. -- Jreferee ( talk) 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arturo As you may know, your Wikipedia editing exploits were discussed in a March 2013 blog post by CIPR member Stuart Bruce - see http://stuartbruce.biz/2013/03/pr-wikipedia-and-bpa-sorry-tale.html. The CIPR has been updating its Wikipedia best practice guidelines and, as a Wikipedian and - like Stuart - a member of the CIPR's Social Media Panel, I was asked to help, along with a fellow member of Wikimedia UK. I hope you don't mind but I have included a mini-case study about your efforts on behalf of BP, citing this as good practice in managing COI. If you would like to know more, please let me know. Paul W ( talk) 12:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BPLogo2015.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound ( talk) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Lawler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lawler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi - Please can you use the {{ request edit}} template in future when requesting edits. Thanks, Dormskirk ( talk) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)