Talk:RELX/Archives/2021
 | 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. |
Tortoise Media Source
I noticed this rankings list was removed because an editor mentioned: "partial rv. per source ranking was by CSRHub of the S&P not by S&P. UN is unsourced. Tortoise index would need secondary sourcing to merit inclusion."
The rankings list was created by Tortoise Media, not CSRHub as mentioned by the other editor. "The Responsibility100 Index, developed by Tortoise, has been established to examine how much each of the FTSE 100 companies are doing to ensure a safe, fair and sustainable world." - From the site.
Tortoise Media is a reliable source in itself and this rankings list was based on the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. The list was created by Tortoise Media & shouldn't be disallowed on the page. 76.127.85.100 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid edits
Please, see Talk:Elsevier § Undisclosed paid edits. This undisclosed paid editing company is also quite active in this article, both with their usual IP socks on proxies as well as (now blocked) accounts. MarioGom (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- MarioGom Thanks for identifying this. Is it possible to list the offending edits (or editors) to the RELX article so the relevant material can be systematically removed? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I have listed the likely candidates which follow a similar pattern to the edits you identified in the Elsevier article i.e. one off IP edits or edits by an identified sock (User:PatStarIsHere):
- 14:19, 15 April 2021
I updated the numbers in the boycott section to be more relevant.
(reverted) - 21:07, 7 April 2021
WP:NPOV content in Defence exhibitions. Talking about RELX's subsidiary here seems like a stretch.
(reverted) - 18:48, 6 April 2021
Not relevant. Belongs on the Elsevier page.
(reverted) - 17:05, 1 April 2021
Cost of Knowledge Boycott with updated information.
(reverted) - 14:55, 30 March 2021
Defence exhibitions has irrelevant information on the page - cleaning up.
(reverted) - 15:41, 26 March 2021
Unsourced content has been removed. I've replaced it with more specific information.
(reverted) - 14:48, 24 March 2021
Only 8% of revenues from print in 2020.
(reverted) - 13:35, 19 March 2021
I added info around RELXs performance on the FTSE 100 index.
(reverted) - 15:03, 11 March 2021
ops and market segment background.
(reverted) - 15:30, 2 March 2021
STM information belongs in STM section.
(reverted) - 14:50, 1 March 2021
2020 acquisitions.
(reverted) - 20:16, 11 February 2021
research4life/covid 19 research center.
(reverted) - 15:56, 4 February 2021
owns Law360.
(reverted) - 15:32, 26 January 2021
Tortoisemedia Responsibility ranking with secondary source to confirm.
(previously reverted) - 15:33, 20 January 2021
Britain’s most admired media group in 2019 by managementtoday.
(reverted) - 19:06, 18 January 2021
Corporate strategy in 2019.
(reverted) - 19:35, 5 January 2021
Corporate affairs: Rule of Law.
(previously reverted) - 17:55, 4 January 2021
Social responsibility: Tortoise responsibility100 index.
(reverted) - 14:16, 23 December 2020
Became a data/information company by reducing print.
(reverted) - 15:10, 22 December 2020
unsourced information replaced with sourced information in Operations section.
(reverted) - 14:22, 18 December 2020
FTSE 100 and recent corporate strategy wraps in old info.
(reverted) - 14:59, 8 December 2020
database #s have increased over time. I've updated the #s with sources.
(reverted) - 20:49, 7 December 2020
exhibitions updated. wasn't accurate with #s in annual report.
(reverted) - 17:19, 25 November 2020
updated operations 'Risk' w/ sourcing.
(reverted) - 19:23, 23 November 2020
updated operations info/numbers.
(reverted) - 19:10, 16 November 2020
acq info.
(reverted) - 14:51, 13 November 2020
adjusting the initial paragraph
(reverted)
MarioGom I have reverted all the above edits accordingly. I have gone right back to the start of January 2020 and I cannot find any other edits or earlier edits following a similar pattern. If you are OK that I have caught all the offending edits, perhaps we can remove the tag now? Dormskirk (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Page protection.
Should there be page protection for this article? I am suggesting this as I am seeing a lot of reverts relating to possible paid edits.