User talk:Johnadonovan

Hi Johnadonovan. I've noted you've made a couple of edits to the page about Royal Dutch Shell. Can I point you to the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines page? Although the link to the court documents is relevant, can you please change the URL to one on an official (primary) source, such as a court service? Mnbf9rca 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johnadonovan. Thank you again for your latest post to the article about Royal Dutch Shell. You included a lot of information which would (probably) best be described "original thought". Unfortunately, the articles on mondaq.com aren't really in the category of "primary sources" described by WP:RS as they simply contain content from a personal site shellnews.net, and as you're aware, we can't publish anything in Wikipedia unless it has been published externally by a source considered authorative. If you can find quotes on, say, BBC, CNN, FT.com or some other source that would be considered acceptable as a primary source by WP:RS, then please re-add your content. Mnbf9rca 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As you will have realised I am very much a learner as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have reinserted a cut down version, this time with citations to information published on the Tell Shell Forum. I am not suggesting that the forum is an authoritative source because that would obviously be nonsense given that it is a blog. However it is a matter of fact that the quoted posting (Slow Death of the Tell Shell Forum) with the quoted extracts can still be found on the Forum via the forum archive search facility (not the Shell.com search facility). As proof positive of this fact I have provided a link to the relevant Tell Shell Forum web page. All Tell Shell Forum users have to be pre-registered and are required to supply a verification email address. This means that Shell knew that the postings were bona fide. With regards to timings, I do have an exchange of email correspondence with “Tell Shell” (reprinted below)which confirms the approximate date from which the forum was suspended and that Shell was unable to give an indication of when, if ever, it will be restored. I will happily forward a copy if so desired. My intention is to provide a balanced account of the Tell Shell Forum - the positive and the negative. It is of course in your hands to decide if this objective has been achieved. I do in any event appreciate your patience.

royaldutchshell

You addition of so much info to sucks.com has somewhat unbalanced it. I think there are two courses of action open:

• Start an article on this website which contains this information. It may then have to prove its notablilty through AfD.
• Separate out the general encyclopaedic content including case law etc from the rds name. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise sites, but you can write about the issues in general face with references to reports about instances from your site.

Stephen B Streater 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the options you have constructively provided. I will tranfer the RDS content into a separate article. The WIPO decision was an important one. The decision was delayed after we were notified by the WIPO that it was an "exceptional" case.

John Donovan

Royaldutchshellplc.com

Greetings,

I noticed you're a major contributor to the above article.

I'm not quite convinced of the notability of the article, but thought I'd offer some help to you to try and improve it once notability has been established. As it stands, the article does not, in my opinion, currently represent a balanced encyclpædic article.

If you want any more help, feel free to use my talk page!

	WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA!	EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE
	Hello Johnadonovan and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopædia anyone can edit! To get you started, I've included some of the very basics of Wikipedia and some useful links and guidelines for you in the box below. Meanwhile, if you need any more help, please feel free to ask on my talk page or, if I'm not around, try asking at the help desk. Regards, EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Here are some of the basics I wish I'd known when I started: Sign your posts on article's talk pages using four squiggles- ~~~~. Use double brackets - [[ and ]] - to create a link to another article on Wikipedia. For example, to link to the Wikipedia article Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight, enter [[Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight]], which should produce Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight. Alternatively, you can use [[Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight|other page name]] to produce other page name. Use single brackets to create an external link. For example, to link to Google, use [http://www.google.com] to produce [1] or [http://www.google.com Google] to produce a link to Google. Use an accurate edit-summary - this helps distinguish your edits from vandalism and is a useful reminder to you later! Don't revert a page more than three times - this is known as the three revert rule, and is designed to prevent edit wars. There are some exceptions to this, such as reverting blatant vandalism, but be prepared to apologise if you revert a genuine edit! See the Counter-vandalism Unit and vandalism for more information. Most importantly, be bold, remain civil and enjoy yourself! USEFULLINKS The Five Pillars, a guide to the basic principles behind Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia Tutorial, the place to go for a brief overview of how to edit Wikipedia. How to write a great article, a summary of how you can help write a great article for Wikipedia. The manual of style (MOS), a guide to what Wikipedia articles should contain and how to format them. Help pages, useful information to help get you started with Wikipedia. Help desk, the page to ask any questions about how to use Wikipedia (replies may be a little slow!). The glossary, the page to look up abbreviations used on Wikipedia. Esperanza, a great place to go for some community support and fun. You need quite a few edits (over 150) to become a member, but you can still join in the fun now!.

---

RDSplc.com

You asked for advice on the AfD. My advice is just wait. If there is no consensus to delete, the article will be saved and as you say it could be resurrected later. In general AfDs where an article writer (especially a conflicted one) starts posting pages of stuff start to irritate people and go wrong. It is pretty marginal and I am sure when the AfD nears closure (the last 24 hours gives lots of votes) we will get more interest. --BozMo talk 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues

Thanks for your re-contribution to this page. When I first saw the page, I was quite annoyed at the one-sided (anti-Shell) presentation. I became more annoyed when I listed a number of good things about Shell all quite true, only to have them either deleted or spun against Shell. However, I didn't get completely ticked off until I checked out the BP article, and saw people fawning over them. What the heck? All I could think was, "God damn, BP has an effective PR campaign!" BP's record is no better than Shell's; they just promote their "green" credentials more. If these people want to go after an eco-unfriendly oil company, why don't they target Exxon-"Global Warming Is Just A Myth"-Mobil?

Anyways... thanks! I'm sure people will accuse you of astroturfing. They'll probably do the same to me. I'm only editing here because I've done a good bit of research on various oil companies, esp. Shell, and that only so that I could get after my father whenever Shell does something "not nice", so to speak.  ;) (he's a Shell exec). -- Rei 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

C'mon

What has IT outsourcing got to do with "Whisteblowers!" it is hardly illegal etc. --BozMo talk 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Drop the flattery! I was a senior Shell exec once (I even walked past you when you were picketing Shell Mex House and as I recall you were better looking than me). Mind you there would be a pot and kettle side to condemning people who once worked for Shell. In fact the guy you sued about a marketing thing (not going to name him publicly) ended up working for me in Gas before he moved to Capital One... On the outsourcing story maybe if there is more to come then that is the time to mention it, or tighten the language to improve it? You are familiar I guess with the phrase "damning with faint praise"? I suspect we are in danger of "praising with faint damnation" as it were, especially in the main article where everyone will assume only the most serious stuff gets a mention. --BozMo talk 08:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

COI WARNING

Not withstanding the chitchat above PLEASE STOP adding links to your own website or material from or about it. Linking to articles on your own website or adding material to it is a blatant violation of WP:COI. You HAVE to put the material on the talk page for other people to add. --BozMo talk 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned at WP:COIN

Hello John Donovan. You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Royal Dutch Shell. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general what is absolutely clear is that your contributions to the talk pages of all these articles would be welcome. It is a policy grey area (the policy keeps being edited too which is another WP problem) so I suggest we get someone neutral to rule. Another admin has got involved in most of the articles in the last few days so we could ask him. If you are looking for anything in particular tell me and I will try to track down the relevant section on policy. --BozMo talk 07:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment: Wikipedia is not a news archive

Hi John,

Just to comment that Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell is getting rather long. I don't think making it a list of all negative news stories about Shell is sensible: to be a good encyclopedia article it needs to be punchy and not a news list. It is also hard to argue that "done wrong pleaded guilty got fined" is in any way a controversy? --BozMo talk 11:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You are welcome to do what you suggest until someone else queries it but "interesting for someone" doesn't necessarily mean we need it here. There will always be a role for your website and I think there is a valid argument that unless we try to keep a complete log of every positive piece of news about Shell (say, every investment which makes the news) as well we are not maintaining a neutral point of view. Sooner or later someone will come and propose some serious deletions and I don't want you to feel upset when they do. My own feeling is that Shell scales to the economic size of Belgium and we miss the point if we include real trivia. --BozMo talk 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues

Hi there. By now I guess you've figured that you're treading dangerous ground by editing a lot in areas in which you have a conflict of interest. As the Wikipedia guideline implies, this is fine, and in fact I think your interests can do Wikipedia a great service by providing quality in this area. The caveat is that your contributions need to conform to all the usual standards on Wikipedia. I popped by to point out an issue with Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues. As I have said on the talk page, it currently looks totally unreferenced although there are a lot of supporting external links. A lot of this content risks deletion if it looks like it's not sufficiently backed up, so you would do well to properly reference it out. All the best. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to your new message on my talk page. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Royal Dutch Shell initiatives, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. —Eustress ^talk 22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

COIN

For matters of full transparency, you are invited to WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan_and_Royal_Dutch_Shell. —Eustress ^talk 23:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your patience and clarifying responses during the investigation. I try to be prudent in presenting cases on noticeboards, as they can be quite exhausting for those involved, but I hope you know my inquiry is in Wikipedia's best interest. The evidence seemed too overwhelming to ignore, and I hope that the COI thing turns out to be a manageable issue because I value your contributions and hope to edit alongside you in the future. Kind regards —Eustress ^talk 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Royal Dutch Shell initiatives

A tag has been placed on Royal Dutch Shell initiatives, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

General catch up

Hi John,

Just put a vaguely supportive note on the RDS article. BTW yesterday I found a blog item you had written in 2007. It was rather kind to me but wrong in implying I only revealed my identity as Andrew Cates after someone from inside the company had told you who I was in 2006. Please see: [2] My first contribution here at WP was to say that BozMo was Andrew Cates and it was within 5 days of leaving Shell 1 April 2004. The same edit gave my new employers website and my homepage. I always had my real name here. I had used BozMo anonymously in other contexts (anonymous cartoons on company noticeboards for example) going back a decade before that, but I have never been anonymous at WP. --BozMo talk 13:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, in your case I do not need to check back on what happened. I accept what you say without reservation and apologise for getting it wrong. Best Regards. John. Johnadonovan (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful, please

John, your recent edits to royaldutchshellplc.com appear acceptable (providing more citations in WP:Cite web format), but please be careful. Saying that you "will give 4 weeks notice here" and then take matters into your own hands is not acceptable. You need to follow WP:COI, which instructs you to do as follows:

Action
Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment.

So you are to suggest fixes on the talk page, and if no one responds, you are to request editors take a look through the forums available, but you are not to edit it yourself. —Eustress ^talk 02:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Eustress, are you in a position to issue imperial commands on behalf of Wikipedia? Quite frankly, whatever your role, I do not like your tone, especially when you hide behind a pseudonym, as unfortunately Wikipedia editors are entitled to do. I find that people are much more polite when making comments in their own name. When the subject of COI was brought up, I suggested giving 4 weeks notice of any proposed changes - it might have been a months notice. That seemed to be accepted as a sensible compromise solution bearing in mind that the article would never otherwise be updated. As far as I know, no one else has ever added new content, only edited or deleted existing content. If you are, as you say, of the opinion that the suggested changes are okay, why don't you make the changes? That would be a far more constructive approach rather acting like a dictator, self-appointed or otherwise. Johnadonovan (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Eustress, you are young and bright. I am old and find it increasingly difficult to learn new tricks. If you are not prepared to make the changes yourself, please insert in the appropriate place in the text the request edit tag which is required and then I can replicate that format next time I propose content. Johnadonovan (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my frustration too harshly emerged in my comments above, as I try to remain collegial in all my interactions—on Wikipedia and in real life. The fact of the matter is you should not be editing that page and I am tired of editing it myself. I would like to step aside for a while, and I hope your behavior will permit me to do so. That is, if you feel a change should be made to the RDSplc.com article, either (1) go to WP:RfC and follow the instructions on how to solicit editor assistance or (2) copy and paste {{Request edit}} on the talk page, as instructed on WP:COI. This has nothing to do with me, as you say, not being "prepared to make the changes" or "acting like a dictator" but me wanting to take a break from this article. Kind regards —Eustress ^talk 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette

Please don't notify me every time you make an edit to an article that I have watchlisted. Similarly, with regards to user talk, it is preferred to keep the conversation centralized where it started; i.e., if I initiate conversation on your talk page, you should reply there as well—I will have it watchlisted if I wish to respond, or you can use {{tb}} if a reminder is needed. —Eustress ^talk 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to do the right thing by notifying you directly, but note what you say. I think it would be better if any future discussion between us is confined to the royaldutchshellplc.com user talk as you seem to be conveying conflicting messages on different pages. I am just as frustrated with you, as you are with me. I cannot understand why instead of putting time into tidying up my content proposals, you did not instead make the changes to the article which you find acceptable. We do seem to need a break from each other. I will not contact you further except for responding to any action on your part. Johnadonovan (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiwa_family_lawsuits_against_Royal_Dutch_Shell

Can you provide some more detail about what case was presented? I cannot seem to find much which is substantiated --BozMo talk 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

John,

I have been cleaning up some articles that you have been working on. Please try to follow Wikipedia style for your edits. There is a lot of information available in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In particular, I ask that you:

• italicise the names of newspapers, magazine, academic journals and television programmes (see [[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)]]);
• do not italicise direct quotations (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics_and_quotations); and
• do not link the same articles repeated (see WP:OVERLINK).

Thank you. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Johnadonovan and Royal Dutch Shell

WP:COIN

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Shell articles cleanup

Hello I refer you to Talk:Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell#Cleanup concerning that article and the other related articles mention in that section. As you have been a major contributor to these articles I thought I should point out some issues with the article style. The main problem is of readability, references, and consistent style. In particular please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for guildines, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) for info. about headings etc. One big issue is that the articles you have been contributing too consist entirely of a linear list of sections (like a verbose bulleted list). I've made a vague suggestive start at indicating the sort of way the article could be constructed to make it easier for readers.

Also I noticed that the articles Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues , Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns contain some duplicated material at Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell - usually it is good to use Template:main or Template:See also and not duplicate information. Any section linking to a bigger article could contain a summary of the information.

Also please note the guildines at Wikipedia:Citing sources - in particular references should be in a consistent style, appearing in the reference list section, and with a good description eg title, author, publisher, date . eg Air transport and the environment (United Kingdom) as an example of an article with reasonable structure and references, in a consistent style.

Please note this isn't a demand for you to rewrite the article - there's no requirement for you to do that.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

copyright

The other issue I want you to be aware of is copyright violation - this applies to section headings eg you used Shell admits blame for near disaster at Stanlow an article title from the liverpool daily post as a section heading in the article with only a very simple change - using newspaper article titles as section headings is not a good way to write articles - it's very close to a copyright violation, and others you have added are copyright violations. Please do not do anything similar, and if possible rewrite the section headings.

On the same page [3] you also borrowed heavily from the newspaper articles in quotations - this is not acceptable at the level of usage you have used.

Please see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, also Wikipedia:Quotations for when to use quoatations, and when not to.

Writing articles by borrowing (and copying) heavily from other copyrighted sources is not acceptable Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As you have not attempted to write these articles using your own words I have reported you at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Requests (see below) Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright notice

Hello, Johnadonovan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The relavent section is Wikipedia:Copy-paste#What_about_quotes? "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited even if correctly cited." Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns

An article that you have been involved in editing, Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Beagel (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shell article copyright problems

I've added a copyright problem template to Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues and Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation cases for the reasons mentioned above at User_talk:Johnadonovan#Shell_articles_cleanup.

If you are interested in re-writing / fixing the problem please see Talk:Royal_Dutch_Shell#Related_article_copyright_problems. Thanks. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette

Regarding your initial post at Talk:Royal_Dutch_Shell#Related_article_copyright_problems. Your comments are well beyond what is acceptable, specifically see Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Editors are not required to reveal personally indentifiable information to you to prove that they are acting legitimately.

If you have a problem with other editors on these articles or the other problems you describe you could contact and adminstrator, see Wikipedia:Administrators.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and my position on copyright problems

Please note when you write You also accuse me of making a personal attack on you. How is that possible when you choose to use an alias to conceal your identity? that you are wrong. If you think that because an editor uses a psuedonym you can make personal attacks without censure you are wrong.

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, quote: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Frankly I have got the time to deal with this sort of thing. Writing stuff like this "Contributors who act in a completely transparent manner are at a disadvantage and open to abuse and dishonest manipulation from people hiding behind aliases, which allow them to conceal their background and true motives" and "Those remarks, coming from someone using an alias, attacking a contributor who has always posted information under my own name and declaring my background, are offensive and cowardly." do nothing to help anyone. And make it less likely for people to want to help you.

I have no intention of fixing copyright problems you have introduced. If an article can be got into a state where it does not require copyright cleanup I will help if there is something I can do.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that someone who has openly declared their identity and background has a license to attack or abuse someone who uses an alias. What I was pointing out is that there is a vast difference between posting information under your real name and posting using an alias. As to copyright issues, I have already pointed out that the relevant issues which appear to be glaringly obvious to you have not been commented on previously, not even by administrators who at times have paid very close attention to my contributions. Exactly what help are you offering? What can I usefully do when you have already rubbished the contributions I have made? I also note there is no apology in respect of your allegation that I am lazy. No comment at all and no denial, because it is on the record. I don't think you have a clue about the amount of time I put into gathering the information over a long period to properly source the information which appeared in the articles. I have explained why I deliberately used brief extracts in line with Wikipedia guidelines, so that I could not be accused of spinning that information. I have published over 26,000 articles on the Internet without ever receiving a complaint concerning the length of a featured quote. I have received advice from leading specialist legal counsel in chambers many times over the years and received written opinions, sometimes on behalf of blue chip clients such as Shell. There is no breach of copyright on any information I have posted whether in the use of brief extracts, or the associated text I have composed, based on information in the articles. --Johnadonovan (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can link to where I called you lazy I could offer you an apology, but I don't remember and can't find it. ok you pointed to it on the Royal Dutch Shell talk page- sorry to offend you.

I've linked repeatedly to the guidlines on copy-paste edits for you. For example: see User_talk:Johnadonovan#copyright and at Talk:Royal_Dutch_Shell#Related_article_copyright_problems where I have tried to explain the issue to you.

Please read the comments and deletion discussions about the articles you have contributed to: (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns, for example read this comment:

I thought a quite long time how to improve this article; however, having a painful experience with cleaning-up Sakhalin-II article overloaded similar stuff from the same editor..

- you owe other editors who don't have WP:COI problems an apology, not the other way round. It's as simple as that, that may be painful to accept, but it's true.

It all stems for the conflict of interest you seem to have. (Which has also been repeatedly pointed out to you). Nobody else has anything to answer for in respect to problems with these articles except you.

Why not try contributing to articles in which you don't have a conflict of interest in - ie something not about Shell. There are many editors on wikipedia who can deal with Shell articles without the perception of bias you are obviously feel in danger of being accused of.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) It has come up before see the archives of WP:COIN here, I agree with Sf5xeplus and think that you should consider a voluntary topic ban on all matters Shell, as it is getting close to the point where a community one may need to be considered. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 is self-evidently trying to use intimidation to bully me into voluntarily giving up contributing to articles about Royal Dutch Shell. I have openly declared my name and background from the outset. I have never taken the option of hiding my name and background and possible motive for an interest in Royal Dutch Shell, which commonsense suggests brings most contributors to these pages, otherwise you would not be here. My interest has always been openly declared and I have always strived to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Naturally, I do not like being described as "lazy" because people that know me, know that the reverse is the case. --Johnadonovan (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly that is another unacceptable comment regarding another editor. To be honest with you the only reason I haven't recommended that you be given a topic ban, or site block at (see Wikipedia:Topic ban , Wikipedia:Blocking policy) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is that it would seem unfair not to give you a chance to fix it, and probably confirm the types of conspiracy you have been suggesting about editors using pseudonyms.

Once again please don't do stuff like that, ie claim to be being bullied or intimidated by other editors, with no real justification: Codf1977's suggestion was quite reasonable, and would almost be certainly supported by the vast majority of editors. It is true that if you continue like that you would be blocked from editing - best to focus on any good contributions you can make.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(possible help) It could be worth considering posting on the talk page of Royal Dutch Shell information that you have noticed is missing, and relying on another editor who is not subject to conflict of interest complaints to add it; there are mechanisms to help with this - possibly Wikipedia:Mentorship (see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User) - it's clear that some of the information that has already been deleted was probably notable. Also consider Wikipedia:Editor review - this should prevent a build up of edits that gives the wrong impression. If you want to use either of these methods I will say something in your support in an attempt to get useful help (there may be a shortage of helpers). Additionally consider if there are any articles not related to shell you could contribute to - it would have helped if you had experience of general editing rather than jumping in at the deep end (where edits can stick out like a sore thumb). I believe that your edits are in good faith despite your past history with shell which you have been very honest about. It's clear that your knowledge of this topic could be helpful to another editor - though finding one could take time. Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that I am "trying to use intimidation to bully [you]" is both false and IMO contra to WP:NPA, furthermore WP, affords me the right to edit using a pseudonym without any inference being made, this is not the first time you have attacked me for so doing, please make sure that it is the last. I therefore ask you to withdraw your above comment please. Codf1977 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977, I have reread your comment and can plainly see a suggestion with a related implied threat. You want me to voluntarily cease editing WP articles relating to RDS and mention the possibility of a topic ban if I do not take up your suggestion. As to your right to take up the option of using an alias - it is not compulsory to do so - I have never said that you or anyone else are not free to choose the alias option. The vast majority of contributors choose to do so. I prefer to be completely transparent. That is my choice. If you intend to take some action, I suggest that you wait until Monday when I will post further relevant information here. But that of course is entirely up to you. --Johnadonovan (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE BE ADVISED: I AM CONSULTING WITH SPECIALIST LAWYERS CONCERNS ALLEGATIONS PUBLISHED ON WIKIPEDIA AND ASSOCIATED WEBSITES CONTAINING COMMENTS ABOUT ME WHICH ARE FALSE AND DAMAGING TO MY REPUTATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR A HATCHET JOB ON SHELL. THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTACK PAGES AGAINST SHELL. THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR "A BIASED ATTACK PAGE". THAT I HAVE CONSTRUCTED ARTICLES BY CUT AND PASTING COPYRIGHTED INFORMATION FROM OTHER PUBLISHERS ON A BASIS BEYOND FAIR USE. OTHER COMMENTS OF A MORE PERSONAL NATURE HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE WHICH ARE EQUALLY UNFOUNDED. THE PUBLISHERS OF WIKIPEDIA WILL BE MADE AWARE OF THIS SITUATION SO THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT ALL LIBELOUS COMMENTS AND ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME ARE REMOVED FORTHWITH AND NOT REPEATED. THE COMMENTS HAVE ALL BE MADE BY PERSONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO REVEAL THEIR IDENTITY. --Johnadonovan (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding making legal threats (per WP:LEGAL). The thread is Johnadonovan making legal threats. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

royaldutchshellplc.com

I have proposed the above article for deletion, primarily to establish from the wider community (including those not associated with any previous issues) whether or not the article is notable.

As you are currently blocked I believe that you can only respond here, If you wish I can copy any comments you would like to make if you have any accross to the relevant pages concerning this.

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to do this. Please note that the article may not necessarily be deleted - but I think some input from editors that have not been involved is sorely needed.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind invitation which I would like to take up. A lot of what has been said is simply untrue, but I will confine myself to just a few comments. The royaldutchshellplc.com article was completely redrafted by Eustress well over a year ago. I believe he will confirm that the current version is his work, not mine. I have not edited it at all since his redrafting. From the point of view of notability, kindly direct attention to these web pages: http://www.shellnews.net/blog/links.html ; http://www.shellnews.net/blog/LINKS2.html They contain links to numerous articles relating to the Donovans and/or royaldutchshellplc.com. Basically extensive UK and international news media coverage of our dealings with Shell, with at the very least, a reference to royaldutchshellplc.com. The articles are evidence of the impact the website has had on Shell. I draw attention in particular to the article published by The One World Trust, an independent research organisation affiliated with the Houses of Parliament. Many thanks again. --Johnadonovan (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had been leaving to leave another message, but forget. Luckily I had your talk page on my watchlist and your post here reminded me. The conclusion seems (currently, may change) to be to keep the article, but to expand it to cover both royaldutchshell.plc as well as covering the court case with shell AND the people behind the site (ie you - the Donovans). The reason for this is that many (reliable) sources appear to have found both the leak site and the history and people behind the site of interest. The article will not (currently) be a biography of any Donovan, but will (continue and possibly expand upon) details of your court case with shell, as well as the functioning of the site.

One possible consequence of this is that the article should be renamed : if you can suggest a title that covers both topics that would be appreciated, I can't currently think of a suitable concise one.

If you have any issues or queries please leave a message here, or, you can contact wikipedia directly. As I mentioned there is no suggestion of a biography article, but there may be some personal info in the article. If you have any issues of queries about this please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If any issues arise concerning personal info. the there is a direct contact available at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When I say personal information in the article this should be only already publically available information relavent to the article, such as your name, details of the court case, and possibly other contextual info, such as the area of UK you inhabit, etc. However there is the possibility of errors in the article (as well as your right to privacy). If you see anything you feel needs correcting or removing please use the email link given in the first paragraph Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Possibly posting here may get a quicker response, but there is no guarantee of that. Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not making an application to unblock. I am drawing attention to the fact that the article is out of date. My father Alfred Donovan passed away on 27 July 2013. Reference to his death is contained in an article published by The Observer on 11 August 2013. Many other articles etc that are openly available on the Internet i.e. no question of self-publication, that have been published and are not covered in the Wikipedia article. I will supply a list in case anyone is interested in updating the information about royaldutchshellplc.com

Shell braced for massive job cuts in Berlin summit: London Evening Standard 27 May 2009 Johnadonovan (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Shell to cut 350-450 senior managers in overhaul - web site: Reuters Sat May 30, 2009

Oil giant Shell prepares to cut jobs: This is MONEY 8 Sept 2009

Shell to cut jobs in core exploration unit-website: Reuters 4 Sept 2009 Johnadonovan (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

92-year-old's website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked: The Guardian 26 October 2009

Shell 'defers downstream IT investment' - report: Reuters 30 October 2009

Shell critic says oil major targeting his website: Reuters 2 December 2009

Natural resources – they haven’t gone away you know: The Mayo News (Irish Newspaper) 7 October 2011

L’homme qui fait trembler Shell: myeurop.info: 29 March 2012 (English translation)

John Donovan, Shell’s nightmare: presseurop 27 March 2012

Britain: Shell’s Enemy No. 1: DW European Journal 2 May 2012

Zo hield Shell Khadaffi te vriend: Vrij Nederland 1 August 2012 (English translation)

Shell Oil Axes Exec For Alaska Drilling Fiasco. Will More Heads Roll?: Forbes 26 March 2013

Strange tale of Shell's pipeline battle, the Garda and £30,000 of booze: The Observer / Guardian 11 August 2013

Shell welcomes Garda examination of alcohol claims: The Irish Times 13 August 2013

Garda deny booze bribes: The Mayo News 13 August 2013

END OF LIST: There is much more source material, but not openly available e.g. FT, Wall Street Journal articles behind pay walls. For the record, it is not my intention to sue Wikipedia. However, I have no wish to edit on Wikipedia, hence no application to remove blocking. Johnadonovan (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to any admin considering any unblock request.

Please see : Censorship of Wikipedia Articles (or WebCite archive version here). Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Royaldutchshellplc.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Royaldutchshellplc.com 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/Royaldutchshellplc.com (3rd nomination) 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.

thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 13:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)