Talk:Corporate appointeeship

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content dispute

In Special:Diff/1206847537, Zadarach has almost reverted Corporate appointeeship back to their last revision from 2023, with the only difference being the removal of an external link to https://moneycarer.org.uk/appointeeship/corporate-appointeeship-transfer-service/. This has caused the article to be re-added back into the unreferenced articles category from January 2008, forcing the article to have to be sourced for WP:FEB24 again by Egeymi. Seeing that Zadarach did not give a reason why they reverted the changes by Bearian and 2.98.4.130, I have restored those changes in Special:Diff/1206958816. But then Zadarach reverted my edit in Special:Diff/1207387115 because of the following reason: Reverted to historical entry to counter link farm attempts.

Apparently, then, there is a content dispute. But I am not going to edit war over this, so instead, I am going to start a discussion on the talk page.

Should Bearian's changes be restored or not? If there is consensus that those changes are justified, then Zadarach's last edit should be re-reverted.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing everything in the appropriate manner. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no link farms. Every source is from a government website, except one that was a private corporate website, which I have since removed and place a tag on the sentence that needs a citation. This is a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." So I rolled back and edited the offending citation out. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Corporate appointeeship

Content dispute

Navigation menu

Search