Talk:David Ross (businessman)

This article in the press

"Mystery of the Wikifixer: who is the secret image-cleansing agent?", The Telegraph, 10 June 2011:

"..the entry for David Ross, and deleted the final six lines on his personal life, which recorded that Ross has a son with Michelle Ross, a former lap dancer, and was now dating Emma Pilkington, a 22-year-old he had taken to a party hosted by Prince William on a yacht owned by the Getty family. When another Wikipedia editor restored the missing material, the mysterious computer user in Clerkenwell deleted it again, this time at 8.12am on a Wednesday, in the first of several cyberspace duels fought with that same computer. In November 2010, the computer was used three more times to edit the entry on David Ross, until a warning was posted that "in the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to... report abuse". After that, there were no more edits from that computer.

Someone is astroturfing a series of Wikipedia articles on high profile wealthy Brits. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

can the CPS 'clear' people? Isn't that why we have courts? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Pluralisation of Ross

Have we forgotten the rules for pluralisation? "This appointment was made by Ross friend". There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ross's. Thank you. Regnerps (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of Definite article

I removed The because it not part of the formal name of the Carphone Warehouse chain, or the holding company, nor is it being used as a singular like The Taj Mahal. Although some sources use the definite article, I suggest it is an error for the reasons stated and my edit should be restored. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre paragraph

The opening paragraph of the "Prior to Carphone Warehouse" section makes no sense to me. There is definitely some repetition in the thing but the phrasing is atrocious even if that is ignored. Can anyone improve on it? - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone with more interest in business articles than myself should perhaps also look at Cosalt. In fact, there seems to be quite a network of articles that simply don't seem to follow our policies. I can't make my mind up if it is praise or a hatchet job, so muddled is this entire situation, but either way there is a lot of cleaning up to do. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Private Eye

We are citing Private Eye in the Cosalt section. I like the thing, when my eyesight is up to reading the incredibly small print, but it is fundamentally a satirical magazine that sometimes does exposés that are (commonly) then picked up by news sources with greater circulations etc. I really don't think we should be using it for this section, when there really should be far more mainstream sources out there. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

May need page protection

The disagreements between users on this article has caused many problems. If this keeps up, I think this page should be fully protected. Any opinions? -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 02:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support A mix of discussion on ANI and diffs i have seen here shows that it's a great idea to protect this article. At the very least, it should be semi'd. Lor^Talk 07:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment How is semi-protection going to achieve anything? The two most disruptive accounts would not be affected by it. Full protection might be necessary in due course but, really, there has been almost no discussion by either "side" regarding recent edits - I've probably contributed more words to this page in the last few hours than everyone else combined in the last few years. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What breathtaking arrogance. Sitush you have not contributed a single fact to this page, all you have done is delete other's comments and rewrite. It is you and others that consider themselves Wikigods that are the threat to free speech. If you don't like something, block the author. Why do you think it is that ordinary editors do not bother with the talk page, what is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.85.64 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh? I haven't mentioned a block and I'm querying how semi-protection would assist. Although, oddly enough, now that you have turned up there may indeed be a case for it in due course. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I was talking about full protection, meaning administrators only. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 20:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

PwC and Cosalt

This reinstatement is bizarre. The source is effectively dead, auditors do not usually give reasons for their resignation in their formal notices, and it is perfectly normal for auditors to do their work at all of the companies controlled by one person or family.

If there is a complaint lodged with ICAEW, please provide the evidence for that here and please explain the relevance of it. We do not do "guilt by association". - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you do not understand ICAEW rules regarding the independence of administrators and potential conflucts of interest, there is no point explaining it here, you will just ignore it. What a waste of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.85.64 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you do not know my background. Either address the issues that I have raised or desist from reinstating the material. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)