Talk:Andrew Regan

message: There is a constant removal on this article of any mention of Regan's three trials for fraud by the Serious Fraud Office. Furthermore, it is being done by people who are not logged in as wikipedia users. This is information that can be verified by numerous resources (SFO website, the BBC to name but two). There is no reason why this information should continuously be deleted  —Preceding dfutter comment added by Dfutter (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. There is something very funny going on here! I just had a completely legitimate edit undone by an anonymous user with no given reason. All I did was change the article to use surname rather than first name terms and paste in a very small section on the CWS issue from the main Co-op article. The text makes no accusations against Regan (in fact it states clearly that "Regan was cleared of charges" and yet it was removed. I see that the same IP also reverted you without explanation. I am going to add some unimpeachable references to back up the paragraph. If it disapears again we may have to apeal to the admins for page protection. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now added references (and reverted another attempt to whitewash the article). The link to The Independent article is not great as it goes to an agregator site with pop-ups on it. If anybody can find a better link for the same article then please replace it. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference to SFO prosecution 

message: Somebody (not me) has nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and I agree. The article seems excessively friendly to its subject, even after my edits, and is keen to gloss over well documented controvercies. I am not suggesting for one moment that it should become a "hatchet job" but it is not ballanced as it stands. We need a few people to cast an eye over it and help the article find the right ballance and tone.
Please discuss the neutrality of the article here. We need to hear everybody's opinon, discuss it sensibly and reach a consensus. This will be a much more constructive way to proceed than the current low level edit war. If the reverters can explain their objections to the new text then we can start to move forwards. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but it must not read as an implication that he was guilty just because he was tried three times. We may have our own opinions about the matter but that should not influence the article. If I understand correctly, it was the same case on all three occasions and the second two trials were retrials. If that is the case then maybe it is adequate to leave that bit as it is. I understand that there was a separate civil case afterwards. If so, then we could have a sentence or two explaining what came of that. The block expires soon and I think it might be a good idea to wait for a few days and see if the reverters come back before adding anything that might be even slightly controversial. --DanielRigal 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I know what you mean but we must not have anything with a "Nudge nudge! Know what I mean?" subtext. Acquitted is acquitted. We have to respect the courts, and the neutrality of Wikipedia, irrespective of what we personally think about the case. If a way to explain the events without a "Nudge nudge" subtext can be found then that would be fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated to be checked for its neutrality 

message: The reason for protection has been changed from vandalism to something I don't quite understand. Can anybody explain what is going on? Has there been a complaint about the article as it stands? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection reason 

message: Please review WP:EL. The plethora of links at the end of the article was removed per our guideline. -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: There has been a flurry of editing today (2008-02-19) and while most of the edits are OK there has been a substantial and unjustified reduction in the coverage of the CWS case and an increase in coverage of Corvus which seems only partially justified. Do we really need to know about their specific investments? If they are notable then they should have their own article for this sort of detail.
I am concerned, given the article's history of being whitewashed, that we are heading back in that direction. I don't want to just revert today's edits as most are OK, and I don't have time to unpick the good and bad edits, but somebody needs to look at this and rebalance things correctly. Please remember that the CWS coverage has been reviewed for neutrality and hence should not be changed without good reason. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reduction has to do with the removal of the information relating to people OTHER than Andrew regan (solicitors, Hobson execs, etc.). As for the addition of Corvus info, it may be too much. I think that should be removed for now too. Regan should not be used as a coatrack for Corvus. -- Avi (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 2008-02-19 

message: All the SFO says is "who was residing in Monaco." There is no mention if the residence was of a transient, temporary, or permanent nature, and for how long that residence occurred. Furthermore, that piece of information adds nothing to the article. Please explain what purpose it serves and what sources can be brought to substantiate the claim. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monaco 

message: How the company has done is irrelevant to the article on Regan unless you have sources claiming that he is the cause. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will replace the link to the defence costs, but the value of commoditrade/corvus is irrelevant to Regan himself, unless you can bring a source here that links the two. If you do, I'll reinstate it. -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think market capitalisations tell us anything at all as they reflect speculative stock valuations rather than anything real about a company. The company would be better described by its current turnover. I don't see any point in mentioning the change for 2007. I would also like to see the Polar Traveller section put back at the bottom. Unless Regan retires from business to make travelling his main activity, it makes no sense to have this as the lead item. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no problems with the edits you have just made from a BLP perspective. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commoditrade value 

message: Please note that User:DRigal, who blanked a section here is NOT me!!! He has also copied my user page. Admins, please help! --DanielRigal (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, this is all resolved now. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation 

message: Why were the citations changed to older, less accessible ones? That does not make any sense. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing citations 

message: The out of court settlement is referenced to an article on The Grocer. It is about Regan and it makes it clear that the defendants of the civil case paid money to the Co-op as part of the settlement. An anonymous editor is trying to suggest that Regan was not part of the group that made the payment and remove reference of it from this article. This is counter to the way I read the reference material. If Regan wasn't part of this then why is it mentioned in an article about him? The whole thing is styled as the "Regan matter". While the article as a little vague about exactly which member(s) of the group paid the money, I don't see any problem with saying that Regan, as part of the group, paid money. He was seen as the central and defining member of the group. I would welcome views from other editors on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The out of court settlement 

message: I mistakenly suspected copyright infringement when text was borrowed from the Trans Antarctic Expedition website.
I apologised to User Jiminy12345, who drew it to my attention that it is not infringement, as there is a grant of licence:
However, unfortunately, this kind of licence grant cannot be accepted at Wikipedia, which normally only accepts CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, and Public Domain contributions.  The reason is that it is our aim, as an encyclopaedia project, to produce articles that can be freely re-used, even for commercial purposes and in derivative works (such as books, CDs and other websites).  The words "reproduced accurately" in the expedition website licence grant mean it does not permit derivative works.
If the expedition website were to be re-licensed under an accepted Creative Commons license, the material could be considered (as long as there is consensus that it is encyclopaedic, and not, for example, promotional.)  We would, of course, have to credit the author. 
This is covered in more detail at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
There are also concise explanations at 
#:foundation:Terms of Use (see the second section, headed "Importing text") and
#Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Using copyrighted work from others
So, regretfully, I again deleted the section on the Bio-Inspired Ice Vehicle.  To restore it, any volunteer may write the information from scratch in their own words.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Is it appropriate to mention the number of children or the name and occupation of Regan's father? A source for the latter is http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/apr/13/1 .
An unregistered user has changed six children (sourced in 2008) to seven without a source. Anyone have a source for seven? This article has enough well-sourced things the Regan family wouldn't want to read: a rumoured 7th child would rub in salt.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: Someone please research this more deeply. I can't easily reconcile this edit summary "Corvus Capital Limited never listed on AIM. Corvus Capital Inc was listed on AIM and was put into voluntary liquidation"[] with the 2007 Telegraph article.
As background, OpenCorporates.com lists only a couple of registrations named Corvus Capital: an LLC in Delaware, and an SA in Panama 
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIM listing? 

message: Substituted at 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Regan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314131342/http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/future/ to http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/future
*Added  tag to http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/latest-press-releases/press-releases-2003/andrew-regan-acquitted-of-theft-of-%C2%A324-million.aspx
*Added  tag to http://news.coop/news/Miscellaneous/562
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010215622/http://corvus.com/index.php/overview/people/andrew_regan/ to http://corvus.com/index.php/overview/people/andrew_regan/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621085456/http://www.juniorpolartraveller.com/sponsors-andrew-regan-foundation/ to http://www.juniorpolartraveller.com/sponsors-andrew-regan-foundation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128092753/http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/ to http://www.icechallenger.co.uk/
*Added  tag to http://www.leaderpost.com/story_print.html?id=4902937&sponsor=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified