This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Whilst the content is good, it may be worthwhile, having convinced myself this site is notable, in re-styling the way in which the article is written according the the manual of style. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that I will be able to reinforce your conclusion that the article is notable. For the record, I do object to the article being deleted. In my humble, biased opinion, the content is notable and of interest to the public (and potential targets of gripe sites). The information it contains is true and verifiable.

I have mentioned in the reworked article that the parties involved in the WIPO proceedings were notified that the case was “exceptional”. I can supply verification and even a link to the official notification if deemed appropriate.

With regard to the Wall Street Journal article, I have written to the Dow Jones Company General Counsel so they are aware of the extract and thus far they have raised no objections. I included it because it provides a balanced account. The purpose of my email to Dow Jones legal department was to seek permission to publish a head cut image of Alfred Donovan (on the Wikipedia article) which is the copyright of the Wall Street Journal. They have already agreed that in can used on the gripe site under the “fair use” doctrine. Whether it would be acceptable within the rules of Wikipedia is another matter.

I have cited several organisations who have used the gripe site to communicate with Shell employers and/or Shell shareholders e.g. WWF. In each case, Alfred Donovan (my father) was approached by the relevant organisations. I can supply verification of this fact.

I hope that anyone who views the article and finds fault will please redraft as they deem appropriate. I am a novice as must be evident and although I have checked the information and wealth of helpful advice which is available on Wikipedia I am a slow learner so I would welcome any input. If ultimately the opinion is that the reworked article is still unsuitable (I will be continuing to make changes over the weekend), I will accept any such decision without rancour.

John Donovan

16.50pm 30 June 2006

PS. If it is decided that the article can remain, then ideally the page heading should be changed as there is no capital letter in a domain name. Perhaps the heading should be: Internet domain name: royaldutchshellplc.com or URL: royaldutchshellplc.com

This article contains many speculative, original research and POV statements. One of the worst appears in the global impact section:

"The use of the royaldutchshellplc.com website by so many organisations and the fact that the site is now recommended by Fortune magazine as a prime source of information about the Royal Dutch Shell Group, demonstrates the potential of a low cost gripe website to make a significant global impact."

What evidence is there for this? For starters, "significant global impact" is an extremely subjective statement, but also there is no evidence that the website actually has made a "significant global impact", whatever that is. The entire article however is littered with such encyclopaedic statements because of which I have added a citation request template until these issues can be sorted out. Canderra 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed two of the statements where citations were requested as I do not condiser them sufficiently important to remain. With regards to the list of organisations who have used the site, email correspondence is available to confirm each claim. Thus the statements are factually true and can be proven as such. The emails are available on request. Whether this is acceptable form of confirmation is another matter. I will study the citation page next week. JohnaDonovan: 16 November 2006.

I accept that more references are needed throughout the article. I will put some time in to doing this next week (as I am moving house over the weekend). JohnaDonovan: 16 November 2006

With regard to the section added about the Ogoni use of the website, I am happy to supply on request for verification purposes, copies of emails received from NUOS Int USA requesting publication of information provided. JohnaDonovan: 17 December 2006.

Moved the reference and link to a US News article about gripe sites to the Wikipedia "Gripe Site" article where it is more appropriate to be located. User: JohnaDonovan: 14 January 2007 22.00

Removed the "Advertising" notice posted at the top of the article by "Jacroe" who has not posted any comment on this discussion page explaining the reason for the tag. The following are extracts from the Wikipedia page "Advertising": "Advertising is paid communication through a non-personal medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled."; "Advertising clients are predominantly, but not exclusively, for-profit corporations seeking to increase demand for their products or services." In this case anyone is free to edit the article as they wish. There are no products involved. There is no service requiring payment or any consideration of any kind. There is nothing to purchase. The website which is the subject of the article is non profit and non commercial. There are no fees or charges of any kind. There is no advertising on the website. The company which is the focus of the website is free to edit the article to correct any inaccuracies and add any information if deemed appropriate to provide balance (as is anyone else). User: JohnaDonovan: 17 January 2007. 10.35am

With regards to the obviously important issue of balance, it is my intention to add a section or a link ASAP providing Shell's point of view about the owners of the website and the website itself. This will consist of comments already made in writing by Shell lawyers over the last 18 months. I will let Shell have advance sight of the relevant substantial remarks so that the compilation can be amended or updated as they wish. User: JohnaDonovan: 18 January 2007. 16.20

Wikipedia is not a source of campaigning material of this sort. Stephen Parnell 15:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, nominate the article for deletion or add a speedy deletion tag. Don't just blank it. Also, usually new topics go at the bottom of a talk page. Rawling 4851 15:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this. Could you do it for me? Self-evidently a nonsense... Stephen Parnell 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rawling. That's fine. So long as someone is on the case. It damages Wiki for this sort of cr*p to be on it don't you think! Stephen Parnell 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The description of the article as being "a nonsense" and "cr*p* does not seem appropriate within Wikipedia etiquette and with all due respect, the use of such intemperate and disrespectful language suggests a bias on the part of the person or persons using it. I note the total absence of any detailed or constructive comments on any section of the article. I will now pay daily visits to the article so that I can participate in any developments and offer my hopefully constructive and objective views. As the author of what is now described as “cr*p”, I have always been receptive, polite and constructive in respect of all comments made. I have also always being upfront about my identity so that this fact can be taken into account. User: JohnaDonovan: 22.14, 26 January 2007.

The bias, Mr Donovan, is entirely with you. You have, in my view, created a Wikipedia entry whose sole purpose is to give exposure to your personal campaign against Shell. You tried earlier to hijack the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues entry and now you have created your own platform with this new entry. It is tendentious, not remotely neutral in content or tone and seems to me to conflict completely with what I thought Wiki's values were. I am not a Wiki editor and am relatively inexperinced as a contributor so I will leave further comment and action to those who are. But I would hope and expect that those who run this excellent website would remove your trivial and prejudiced entry as soon as possible. Stephen Parnell 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot address you by your real name as you choose to use a pseudonym, as you are entitled to do. Your comments are based on inaccurate information and therefore unintentionally misleading. You seem to be under the impression that because I raised questions about your “editing” on the Royal Dutch Shell article, that I have “now” created this "new" article. If you check the records available on this website you will be able to confirm that in fact the article in question has existed since June 2006 and preceded the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues page by several months. You will also be able to confirm from the talk page assigned to me that the article “Royaldutchshellplc.com” was created by me as a result of options suggested by a Wikipedia editor, Stephen B Streater. You will also see that, like you, I am also a Wikipedia novice. In my case I am also rather ignorant in IT matters, as is no doubt evident. As for hijacking the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues article, my contributions after its creation have to the best of my recollection been relatively limited. When such matters were included in the single Royal Dutch Shell page, far from campaigning against Shell, I was solely responsible for adding a number of positive sections including one which you deemed appropriate to delete in its entirety, the section on Shell’s Shell LiveWIRE Programme campaign which has been a great success story for Shell and a boon to young people trying to start a business. I was also responsible for the sections on The Shell Foundation and the Shell whistleblower helpline. I added all of these sections to create a balanced article covering positive and negative aspects of Royal Dutch Shell. I note that you intend to leave further comment and action on this article to more experienced Wikipedia editors. However, I have no problem if you would like to redraft the entire article to see if we could reach a compromise on what you would consider to be a balanced article. If so, please post the revised article on the talk page assigned to me. I hope that I am not suggesting anything improper, just a possible way to resolve the issues in a constructive way, unless of course you are intent for some reason on seeing the whole article deleted. User JohnaDonovan. 13.55, 27 January 2007

If you do wish to take up the suggestion above, I would be prepared to supply evidence to you to support all or any statements made in the article which you feel require sight of proof as to veracity. I have documents and written communications including emails. You could then contact the parties concerned for further verification should you deem it appropriate. However, before supplying any such information I would obviously need to know your identity which, if disclosed to me, I would promise to keep secret. User: JohnaDonovan. 14.09, 27 January 2007.

A good place to start with any redraft might be the long article about the website authored by the senior correspondent of the Petroleum Economist, Derek Brower, published on page 12 of the February issue of Prospect magazine, a respected publication. It is currently on sale at Tesco and WH Smith. The article is also accessible on the internet. User: JohnaDonovan. 14.37, 27 January 2007

One final comment for the time being: I used the word "bias" because you moved to this article after the words between us on the discussion page of the Royal Dutch Shell articles. That rightly or wrongly made me suspicious about your motives and the associated rude comments. I recognise that you have invested a considerable amount of your time on the main and subsidiary Royal Dutch Shell articles. The offer stands. User: JohnaDonovan. 15.17pm. 27 January 2007

I would respectfully ask any person reading the above exchanges to visit the user page of "Stephen Parnell" to read his recent highly relevant discussion with "BozMo" who raised a vitally important and relevant point about "notability". This same materially crucial point was first made several months ago by another experienced Wikipedian. The notability of the website has grown even further since then, as is evident from the more recent various news articles, including the February 2007 Prospect article mentioned above. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it proper and polite for mention of this materially crucial point to have been registered on this discussion page by “Stephen Pannell” so that anyone interested in matters raised by “Stephen Pannell” could immediately be aware of the comment by "BozMo" and the response from “Stephen Pannell”. In view of this latest development, I withdraw my offer to "Stephen Parnell". This leaves “Stephen Pannell” in the same position as me or any other Wikipedia contributor. I guess that the "notability" point also applies to the McLibel case featured on Wikipedia. User: JohnaDonovan. 22.08pm 28 January 2007.

I note that “Stephen Pannell” has not placed an apology on this discussion page for injecting misleading and inaccurate information into the discussion initiated by him or her in an effort to get rid of the article without apparently taking the trouble to research the facts. Does he or she hold the same strong opinion about the McLibel case article? My impression is that “Stephen Pannell” is uninterested in any rewriting to remove the bias alleged by him or her, but wanted the whole article to be deleted. Naturally I resent the totally unfounded accusation that because of a discussion between us over editing of the Royal Dutch Shell article, I reacted by originating the Royaldutchshellplc article. There are a number of unpleasant implications which arise from that unfounded accusation. “Stephen Pannell” is at work today elsewhere within Wikipedia. I can only surmise that he or she has not revisited this discussion page. However, knowing the speed of reaction on other occasions, that seems unlikely. It is ironic that I have been accused of writing “campaign material”, “nonsense” and “cr*p”, which is allegedly biased. In fact the content of the article is founded on provable fact whereas the serious charges of hijacking the Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues entry and then starting a “new” article are untrue. They are a consequence of an intemperate campaign by an individual using a pseudonym who appears to be driven by malice. He or she knows a lot about me. I know nothing whatsoever about the person who uses the name of “Stephen Pannell”, other than by making an assessment based on their conduct in dealing with these matters. One advantage of using a pseudonym is that it is easy to switch to a new one if needed. User name: JohnaDonovan. 15.34, 29 January 2007.

In an attempt to reach an agreement on the fate of this article, I've listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy and trade. Hopefully we can get some editors with a clearer view of policy to decide what direction to take this. Rawling 4851 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed Stephen Parnell 18:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments under "blanking" section above. User: JohnaDonovan: 22.17, 26 January 2007.

I'm unsure about the "Appeals to Shell shareholders, Shell employees, and the public" which relies on primary sources. Could other editors indicate whether this section should be removed... Addhoc 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I came here in response to the RfC notice and found this talk page confusing to follow. At first I thought content had been removed, then I realized the sections were out of their normal order. I moved the newer "Website blanking" section down below the older 2 sections where it belonged. I also indented different editors comments using one or more leading colons (":") to better show who was saying what. Finally, I added date/time stamps to several signatures. The Talk Page Guideline discusses all this in the "Technical and format standards" section.

The guideline also makes it clear that folks shouldn't normally edit others' comments. I think what I've done here is OK, but I realize this discussion is "volatile" at times and nerves may be a little raw, so if I've offended anyone, feel free to revert.

I think formattting in line with the guideline will make it easier for outsiders to follow. -- A. B. ^(talk) 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added in a reference to a press statement issued by Shell in March 1995 which mentions our internet activities. There was an existing link to the press statement but no mention of the press statement within the article. I have found a Daily Telegraph report from 1997 about our Shell related gripe sites which operated at that time and will, within a few days, add reference to the article, plus a link to it. User: johnadonovan. 16.00, 10 March 2007. Johnadonovan 16:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is grossly bloated and needs a severe diet William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is indeed bloated, and bloated almost beyond repair. As I see it, the subject warrants perhaps 2-3 paragraphs at most; I agree the subject passes "notability". The article has become a running list of all mentions of Royaldutchetc ever mentioned anywhere on the web - note discussions below about adding yet more material, but no discussions about what should be taken out, in spite of a clear consensus as to the state of the article (Donovan obviously disagrees, but that does not upset the consensus). It is clear that Donovan needs to desist from editing this article for conflict of interest. I see there have been problems with "blanking", but indeed most of the stuff in the article should be removed. This is an encyclopedia. Its also clear that Donovan's strategy is to gum the subject to death - who wants to spend the time to clean this article up? Who wants to spend the time arguing with Donovan on these talk pages? Did Donovan start the article? In which case it is an immediate conflict of interest. I move that the present article be archived in its entirety, and a new, short succinct article replace it, drawing appropriate material from the archived article. Bdushaw ( talk) 08:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is plain that Bdushaw did not read the content of this discussion page otherwise Bdushaw would know the answer to the question "Did Donovan start the article?" I would respectfully request that people who comment on these issues kindly read or at least glance through the record of discussion which had already taken place, including on the important issue of adding new content. They will then be in a more informed position to provide comment. The content of the discussion page for the proposed deletion might also be of interest. Johnadonovan ( talk) 12:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add a new sentence to the opening paragraph of the article.

This is the proposed insert:

On 25 January 2008, Carl Mortished, World Business Editor of The Times newspaper wrote an article headlined: “Shell chief fears oil shortage in seven years” in which he described the site as “an independent website that monitors the company.”

Please insert if this is okay. Johnadonovan ( talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add a new section after item 15.

This is the proposed insert:

The Times describes site as “an independent website that monitors the company”

On 25 January 2008, Carl Mortished, World Business Editor of The Times newspaper wrote an article headlined: “Shell chief fears oil shortage in seven years” in which he described the site as “an independent website that monitors the company.” The article revealed that Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive had stated in an e-mail sent to Shell employees and reported on the royaldutchshellplc.com website, that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. In the leaked email, van der Veer stated: “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.” This was an important acknowledgement of a pending “Peak Oil” crisis. It was subsequently picked up by many other publications because of its global significance.

Proposed insert ends.

With regard to the last sentence, I have not included reference to the other publications but can do us if requested. Johnadonovan ( talk) 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the proposed insertons had been on display for 10 days, I decided to go ahead and add them to the article myself along with a section relating to a Wall Street Journal article published a few days ago. Since it seems highly unlikely that anyone other than me will ever add content to this article, I propose to carry on and do it myself leaving it to others to edit as they deem appropriate if I stray from what is required. Johnadonovan ( talk) 16:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with an owner of a website who maintains his own wiki-entry. I would prefer a more neutral person to edit the entry and not mr Donovan who cannot be neutral about his own website. Andre Kooy ( talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I make no comments about the website. I add information and comments from independent reputable verifiable sources. Others are free to check and edit as they deem appropriate. I left proposed postings on here for some time in the hope that someone else would come along and edit and add the material if deemed okay. Nothing happened. I would like the article to be kept up to date and anyone is free to edit any posted information which does not provide a balanced neutral account from the verifiable source material. Johnadonovan ( talk) 08:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating the article: Sakhalin II evidence submitted by the WWF to a House of Commons Select Committee in June 2008

I am giving 28 days notice of my intention to add the following information to the Wikipedia article royaldutchshellplc.com.

Proposed insert.

Sakhalin II evidence submitted by the WWF to a House of Commons Select Committee in June 2008

In 2008 the Worldwide Fund for Nature submitted evidence to the Environmental Audit Select Committee of the House of Commons. The published minutes of evidence included reference to an article entitled: “The Sakhalin-2 whistleblower warnings which proved to be 100% correct”. The article authored by John Donovan was published on the website royaldutchshellplc.com on 6 January 2006.

The evidence put before the House of Commons Select Committee by the WWF in a Memorandum dated 20 June 2008 said: “Allegations have been made by a whistleblower of inappropriate relationships between SEIC management and its contractors, in particular Starstroi and its subcontractor SU4.” A link to the article in question (item 22) was printed at the foot of the Memorandum.

A link to Annexe II was contained in the Minutes of Evidence relating to oral evidence taken by the Environmental Audit Committee on 8 July 2008. Annexe II contained the same allegations with a link to same article. The information and link was also published as part of: "Uncorrected Evidence published by Hansard Archives Research House of Commons and House of Lords Publication Committees."

Proposed insert ends.

Johnadonovan ( talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed insert

Proposed insert.

Letter leaked to royaldutchshellplc.com reveals 40% deficit in Shell Dutch pension fund – news hits Shell share value

The Financial Times published an article on 12 December 2008 under the headline: “Shell pension scheme value falls 40%”. The article was based on a “letter published by royaldutchshellplc.com, a website used to air complaints against Shell.” The Shell letter to employees announced investments in Royal Dutch Shell’s Netherlands pension fund had fallen by 40% since the start of 2008 and as a consequence had fallen short of the Dutch regulatory minimum. The FT article indicated that the fund would need within 3 years “billions of pounds to comply with Dutch regulations…” The article went on to say that although measure being taken “will only affect Dutch pension scheme members, the financing will have an effect on Shell, which is listed in London.” Shell confirmed to the FT that the fund had fallen into deficit and indicated, “the deficit would have no effect on current pension payments, but could affect whether workers’ pensions kept pace with future inflation.”

Reuters published an article on the same day covering the same news story under the headline: “Shell pension underfunded, contributions rise.”'' It reported that Royal Dutch Shell Plc's' Dutch pension fund has fallen into deficit as share market turmoil knocked 40 percent off the fund's value, forcing the oil major and employees to increase contributions. The article stated: "Shell's pension fund has commissioned a report to establish if its long-term strategy needs changing and will submit a recovery plan to the Dutch Central Bank, which is also the country's pension regulator, next year." The article also said: '"A full copy of the letter is published on activist website royaldutchshellplc.com.'" The Reuters syndicated article was published by several news organisations including the International Herald Tribune.

The following day, 13 December 2008, The Times published an article covering the economic downturn which said "Royal Dutch Shell A fell 49p to £17.50 after reports that its Dutch pension fund has fallen into deficit, with stock market turmoil knocking 40 per cent off its value."

An article about a Bernard Madoff alleged fraud published by The Times on 18 December 2008, under the headline "Allegations in America pose threat to UK funds" stated: "The pension fund operated by the Netherlands branch of Royal Dutch Shell said that it had a $45 million exposure to the alleged fraud. The fund, which manages the retirement savings of thousands of Shell workers, is in deficit."

End of proposed insert. Johnadonovan ( talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I propose to embed a picture of the website into the article so that it adds colour to the article and shows what the website looks like. Johnadonovan ( talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed insert

Series of Reuters articles based on Shell insider information and internal emails leaked to royaldutchshellplc.com

On 30 January 2009 Reuters published an article under the headline: “Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite”. It reported that because of a collapse in oil prices Shell had intensified its cost-cutting and also planned to improve its “mixed” [ safety record.] “Shell’s head of Exploration and Production Malcolm Brinded told employees in an email seen by Reuters that staff had to make “tough choices.” A Shell spokesman had confirmed to Reuters that the emails, from Brinded and Royal Dutch Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer were genuine. The article said: “Copies of the emails are available at www.royaldutchshellplc.com.” Brinded demanded “real action” on cost cutting: “Shed contractor staff, challenge requirements, eliminate consultancy work, reduce travel massively, cut overheads everywhere, he said." Addressing safety issues, “Brinded said Shell had a "dreadful start" to this year after 10 contractors and one third party were killed in three incidents.” The email from Jeroen van der Veer said “the company was intensifying its efforts on safety.” The article was published by London Stock Exchange Plc and a number of news organisations, including the International Herald Tribune.

On 9 February 2009, Reuters published an article under the headline: “INTERVIEW-Shell eyes Mid East growth, to cut some jobs” A Reuters interview with Raoul Restucci, Shell's head of exploration and production for the Middle East, on the subject of job cuts, resulted from leaked Shell insider information when “employees posted comments on Shell protest website royaldutchshellplc.com saying up to half the jobs at the Dubai operation could go.” The article also referred to the late January email from Malcolm Brinded “urging sharp spending cuts.” The article was also published by a number of news organisations, including Guardian.pdf GuardianOnline.

On 12 February 2009, Reuters published an article under the headline: Shell to stall hires, and get "ruthless" on contractors The article revealed the content of an email sent on behalf of Chris Haynes, Vice President Technical, Shell Exploration and Production. The content was in line with the cost-cutting drive detailed in the earlier leaked Shell internal emails, this time including the instruction to "Ruthlessly review third parties costs ... Review necessity of contract staff as contracts expire, renew by exception only." Shell declined to comment on the email. Reuters said: “A copy of the email is available on Shell protest site royaldutchshellplc.com to which Shell employees often post comments.” The article was published by many news sources, including the International Herald Tribune.

Proposed Insert relating to Reuters articles end.

Additional proposed insert

American newspaper describes royaldutchshellplc.com as world's most effective adversarial web site

On 7 February 2009, an American newspaper, the Santa Barbara News-Press, published an article by Robert Eringer under the headline: “Gripe sites are all the rage now” The article, as indicated by the headline, dealt with the subject of gripe websites. It said: “Alfred and John Donovan, a father and son in Colchester, England, several years ago established the world's most effective adversarial Web site. Feeling aggrieved by treatment from the oil giant Shell, they created their site under the company's name, www.royaldutchshellplc.com. It strives, on a daily basis, to expose Shell's underside through research, investigation and leaks from inside Shell, which earned $35 billion in 2008.” It went on to say in reference to the website: “Our David has already given Goliath -- with its 100,000 employees and business in 140 countries -- the PR equivalent of two black eyes." Johnadonovan ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This information is added so that it can be taken into account during discussions about the article and its content. Shell takes the Royaldutchshellplc.com website very seriously. It monitors the site and has set up a team to combat its activities. We know this because of Shell internal documents released to us by Shell following a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act. Shell lawyers have admitted in correspondence, available on request, that it contacted the hosting companies for the website to threaten action against them. This resulted in cease and desist ultimatums being issued against us. We regularly receive Shell employee whistleblower information and allegations against Shell from other sources. Whenever such allegations are made to us, before publishing any related article, we routinely write to Michael Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc setting out the information supplied to us and offering to delete any such information which Shell states is categorically untrue. We also invite Shell to supply comment for publication on an unedited basis. Shell has taken up the invitation on a number of occasions. We have also desisted from publishing an article when Shell has requested that we do so on compassionate grounds. We recognize that Shell is a great company and that the vast majority of Shell employees are hard working decent people. We have always published all news stories about Shell, positive and negative. As a long term Shell shareholder, I would like Shell senior management to abide by the core principles of Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles: honesty, integrity and openness. If Shell management had done so, the reserves scandal and many other controversies, such as the recent “Greenwashing” decisions by the advertising regulators in the UK and the Netherlands, would not have occurred. Johnadonovan ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed a polite and constructive comment on the talk page for "Beagel", the anonymous former Wikipedia editor, drawing attention to the comment immediately above and asking Beagel to glance through the content on this discussion page as it was obvious from a question raised by him that he clearly had not done so. I note that instead of replying “Beagel”, who put a conflict of interest notice on the Royaldutchshellplc.com article discrediting the content, has subsequently withdrawn from being a Wikipedia editor. No doubt this is just a coincidence. However, under the circumstances, I have deleted the notice from the article. As the record on this page shows, the article has been attacked in the past by an anonymous editor "Stephen Pannell". The relevant person instigated action to have the article deleted and made his hostility towards me plain. After failing to have the article deleted Stephen Pannell withdrew from Wikipedia and even went to the trouble of having his talk page deleted from Wikipedia. I have always been upfront in declaring my interest and using my name, not a made up name, in all contributions to Wikipedia. I am perfectly happy to place new content on the discussion page before adding it to the article. That will give other editors the opportunity to pass comment. If there is no hostile comment within 28 days, I will assume that it is okay to add the relevant new content to the article and will do so. I hope this will be viewed as a commonsense way forward. Johnadonovan ( talk) 08:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page contains a warning about autobiographical articles with the implication that in fact the article is about a single person, me. In fact the article is about a separate entity, a website which happens to currently be the subject of litigation brought collectively by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies in June 2004. No one directly involved in setting up or running the website is a party in the action going to trial in Malaysia. Legal documents available on request. This is proof that the website is a separate legal entity in its own right. The article is about the website and to a lesser extent, the background circumstances which led to its creation. Johnadonovan ( talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Further verifiable evidence that the website and by implication the related Wikipedia article are not autobiographical in nature is that the vast majority of news articles relating to the website do not even name the site owners, they only mention the domain name. The same applies to the Sakhalin II evidence published by The House of Commons. Also, the website features articles - positive and negative towards Shell - authored by high level former Shell employees including Iain Percival - Royal Dutch Shell Global Chief Petroleum Engineer; Bill Campbell - HSE Group Auditor Shell International and Paddy Briggs - Royal Dutch Shell Executive. This information can be confirmed by using the search facility on the website. Johnadonovan ( talk) 10:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a blanket statement saying that the article needs additional references or sources for verification, it would more constructive if the person making this judgement indicated to which items he or she is referring, then others could judge if the citation is warranted, rather then just being a device used under the cloak of a pseudonym to discredit the article, which has numerous sources of verification in every section. Johnadonovan ( talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed the tag with regards to sources. However, there are external links improperly formatted inline throughout the entire article, which merits a significant cleanup effort. Per Wikipedia:EL#How_to_link, the links that serve as sources should be properly formatted with WP:Cite web (etc.) and true external links should be listed in the External links section. — Eustress ^talk 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

←There have been requests for citations in the revised article. I can supply them and provide other links to support existing information without adding or changing any text. Does this qualify as editing? In other words, I would convert some existing text to hyper-links. Or would it be preferable for me to provide the link information on the talk page on the 4 week advance notice basis? Guidance would be appreciated. Johnadonovan ( talk) 12:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no response to above request I have today added three requested citations without changing any text. Unless anyone registers any objection I will in due course add more verification sources for information already in the article, again without changing any text. Any content changes and or added content I propose will be notified here, giving 4 weeks notice as previously stated. Johnadonovan ( talk) 08:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the citations, but don't take silence as a rational to edit it yourself. I don't have any problem with you converting embedded external links to proper inline citations using WP:Cite web; but any content modifications you desire should either be requested here, directed to another editor directly, or emailed to Wikipedia, as explained in WP:AB.— Eustress ^talk 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The organization of this article is horrendous...just look at the TOC! Category:FA-Class_Websites_articles provides a couple good examples of website articles with good organization. — Eustress ^talk 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to group the article into intuitive sections. Now, a lot of extraneous detail needs to be removed per WP:GACR. This is not a gripe site but an article about a gripe site. — Eustress ^talk 17:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to be critical because "Eustress" has self-evidently spent a great deal of time on the article no doubt with the very best of motives. Unfortunately there is now so much inaccuracy introduced into the article that I would not know where to start to correct the facts even if I was allowed to edit the article without a four-week time delay and had the time and inclination to do so. It may have been disorganised and long-winded, but it was at least an article containing an accurate account of relevant matters supported by the correct citations. What has the highest priority with Wikipedia, a properly organised well-written article, or one which provides an accurate account of the facts? I know what I would prefer when using a reference source. Accuracy should in my view be the overriding priority as the other ideal qualities can be achieved by the combined efforts of editors, provided the facts are not lost, as they have been for example in respect of the various legal actions. We actually brought six High Court actions and one County Court action against Shell. Contrary to the official press release following the 1999 High Court trial, I did not abandon the action but accepted a top secret settlement from Shell which included payment by Shell of all legal costs. I also received a secret payment. An independent journalist for a national publication verified and briefly reported the true facts as set out in confidential settlement documents and solicitors correspondence. That basic information has been deleted in the rewrite so readers now see the press release propaganda devised by PR experts rather than the true facts. As the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc has now confirmed in correspondence, the true terms of settlement were not revealed even to the trial Judge. One settlement document was without my authority withheld from him. I note the comment that this is not a gripe site but an article about a gripe site. I do not accept that analysis as there was no negative opinion expressed in the article but a factual account of events sourced from reputable independent publications. Since the website which is the subject of the Wikipedia article is a gripe site directed at Shell, it surely follows that information about its activities is negative rather than positive in relation to Shell. The site does act as a magnet for people and parties who righty or wrongly have a claimed grievance against Shell. I am still awaiting anyone providing an example of any comment authored by me which is biased against Shell on any Wikipedia Shell related article. Ironically I now have the distinction of having a Wikipedia article deleted because it was viewed as being a propaganda piece in favour of Shell. Only four people bothered to vote for its deletion. Johnadonovan ( talk) 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We can only go off of information from reliable sources, so if you notice a discrepancy that can be resolved with such an RS, please notify us here. Thanks! — Eustress ^talk 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following paragraph, which is only supported by a source from royaldutchshellplc.com. It appears to be a republishing of the original source, but there is not way to tell, so this source just doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. If the original Daily Mail link can be located, let's go with that. — Eustress ^talk 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to the original Daily Mail article: http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/DailyMail1stSept2007.pdf Johnadonovan ( talk) 07:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful for me to provide a link to a webpage containing a file of pdf links for a host of original articles regarding matters covered in this Wikipedia article: http://www.shellnews.net/images/imagesfile.html Johnadonovan ( talk) 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Eustress, reflecting back on my criticism, it must be frustrating, unhelpful and unpleasant when someone else is watching and criticising when you are investing a great deal of time improving an article so that it meets with Wikipedia standards. I appreciate that you take great pride in your editing and have been rightly recognised for your work. It seems to me that my best course of action is to leave this task in your capable hands until such time when you have finished the article and at that point, do as you suggest to provide RS sourced information here to correct any errors. Hopefully that will be a more constructive approach. Johnadonovan ( talk) 12:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would request that the important information about Shell employee safety be reinstated in a revised form with the new Daily Mail link and reference to a related Daily Telegraph article published a week later. This is only my suggested draft and it can of course be amended as deemed appropriate, including the heading: Johnadonovan ( talk) 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing more citations. Again, like more parts of this article, too much detail is provided, but I'll work on integrating it into the article and report here. — Eustress ^talk 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The following text is similarly based on an unofficial transcript published by royaldutchshellplc.com—not gonna fly. — Eustress ^talk 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The following text is also attributed to RDSplc.com. — Eustress ^talk 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The following text appears to be a circumstantial assertion, which would constitute as WP:OR. — Eustress ^talk 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And another one pointing to RDSplc.com. — Eustress ^talk 03:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The following text appears not to be related directly to RDSplc.com but merely to the Donovans, which would not belong here. — Eustress ^talk 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears this paragraph is attributed directly to RDSplc.com. — Eustress ^talk 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

I've been able to remove the cleanup and coi tags now that the article has been, for the most part, properly sourced and wikified. If they removed text can ultimately be supported, it may be reincorporated into the article if pertinent, but I feel the article now does a good job of concisely and encyclopedically educating with regards to the subject matter. — Eustress ^talk 04:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.