Talk:Victaulic

Copyvio

I reverted additions that violated copyrights from this site. PDCook (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

advert

this seems like more of a advertisement than a encyclopedia entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.157.72 (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It also fails to mention that whereas if a bad weld exists in standard piping, you'll have some water, when Victaulic fails, you have a goddamn flood. 209.183.153.178 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It almost certainly was mostly edited by someone working in the marketing department for the company. I've removed several of the worst offending sections and tagged the article as advertisement. But really, even the remainder is quite obviously pr and advertising for the company. This is the worst offense of Wikipedia's advertisment policy I've ever seen on Wikipedia. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's policy there should not be "name-calling" (talk). Please re-phrase your comment/concern, or give a suggestion on how to edit the text you are referring to. Also, according to Wikipedia's policy there should not be "Ad Hominem"(talk). Feel free to give suggestions on how to improve the article. If you do not know how to improve the article, post a note on the talk page to ask for help. Wikipedia suggests "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording." See there dispute resolution page for more details. Redapple1919 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Redapple - Wikipedia has rules against people within a company editing articles about the company. --Aflafla1 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Redapple1919 - I noticed this page still includes the Advert Warning Box but it seems (from the comments above that most of the promotional content seems to be removed). Do you think it is appropriate to remove the warning box at this time? --Bbazos (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article tone looks much better, so I have removed the banner, and also cleaned up the captions and page layout. There is another very nice picture of an extensive Victaulic installation on Flickr [1], but the user "frozen-tundra" there may or may not need to be contacted for rights clearance. I am not expert on permissions and uploading images, so I leave it to someone else to look into this. Reify-tech (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/contractors/thermal_insulation/victaulic/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Intro Copy & Sources

Hi DGG, just wanted to let you know that I removed the following sentences from this article: ”Director level leadership is helmed by the Bancroft family; Standard Oil heirs and former owners of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones & Company.[2] The latter half of Victaulic was controlled by Prince Pierre D'Arenberg of France, known for active involvement in several youth charities along with ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.[3][4]”. I included a summary for removal when I made the change but I wanted to go into a bit more detail on the talk page since I noticed this passage had previously been removed by another Administrator but you added it back in. For the first sentence ”Director level leadership is helmed by the Bancroft family; Standard Oil heirs and former owners of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones & Company.[2]”, the source: OpenCorporates.com (https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_hi/82689F1) includes several directors and officers. Why does this passage only include the “Bancroft Family” (which, based on the source is actually not correct, the source says Thomas M. Bancroft) and “Pierre D’Arenberg?” Also, the source doesn’t mention "Standard Oil heirs and former owners of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones & Company" so is it certain that Thomas M. Bancroft is part of the WSJ/ Dow Jones Bancroft Family? (additional notes: the Bancroft Family is not mentioned in the Standard Oil article and Standard Oil is not mentioned in the Bancroft Family article, I did not do an internet search for Bancroft & Standard Oil). If you strongly believe that this first sentence should be kept on the article, I recommend including all the directors and officers, as including just two seems biased; and if we can find a reliable source showing that Thomas Bancroft is part of the greater “Bancroft Family” maybe just link Thomas M. Bancroft to the Bancroft Family article. Lastly, do you believe that OpenCorporates.com is a viable enough source for Wikipedia use (WP:NOTRELIABLE)? I question it but am not positive. What do you think?

Regarding the second sentence “The latter half of Victaulic was controlled by Prince Pierre D'Arenberg of France, known for active involvement in several youth charities along with ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.”, I don’t see where in the sources it says that “the latter half of Victaulic was controlled by Prince Pierre D'Arenberg of France” on OpenCorporates.com. I see that it lists him as a director, but a director does not mean controlling ownership. Regarding the part of the sentence that reads “with ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.”, the first source (https://epsteinsblackbook.com/names/prince-pierre-darenberg) does not seem like a reliable enough source to create a tie between Pierre D’Arenberg and Jeffery Epstein based on the WP:BLP guidelines (especially since it seems to be in a negative context). The second source https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/bird-tells-mia-lark-starting-family-article-1.677923 is a gossip column and falls under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Originally, I wanted to work on this article again because of the bare URLs and link rot banner (thank you BrownHairedGirl), and it was directly associated with this URL before the citation bot fixed it in March. However, since it’s WP:NOTRELIABLE and I removed it, I also removed the bare URLs and link rot banner.

Thank you for your time!

Bbazos Bbazos (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bancroft family mentioned here is not related to the Wall Street Journal/Dow family. Thomas Bancroft was a director of Victaulic owned by a relative (Standard) and half bros.(titled) 69.127.209.189 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fpeman27, I received an alert that you undid my revision from last April. Can you please explain why you undid the revision. Please see my rationale for the April 2023 revision above. Do you have sources to support the claims added back in? I think before adding the statements back in it’s worth a discussion about the reliability of existing cited sources.

I look forward to your response. Bbazos (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/133/133740_Letter%20to%20John%20Malloy%205-23-2011.doc

https://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/business.html?fileNumber=82689F1

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html

https://epsteinsblackbook.com/names/prince-pierre-darenberg Fpeman27 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fpeman27, thanks for the additional links; however, two links are still considered unreliable (WP:NOTRELIABLE) for use as sources and the content of the other two does not relate to the topic of this article. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my original post on this thread, I don’t think they meet the requirements for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) or notability (WP:N), as another Wikipedian noted in their edit. I still don’t understand your rationale and why this is resurfacing again, especially since many of these sources are not reliable (gossip) or unrelated.

Please explain your rationale for why these sentences should be included in this article, including how these additions pass muster under the WP:BLP guidelines, and how your sources support them because your message only included additional links with no explanation.

If I don’t hear from you, I am going to remove these sentences. Please note that If you do respond thereafter, we can post to a message board to get feedback from other Wikipedians so we can avoid this from resurfacing again by getting a final resolution on this. Bbazos (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)