This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County 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.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles
I have removed the offending content. I restored content from revision 551181331 by MZMcBride (talk·contribs) at 20:02, 19 April 2013 and updated it with information on the reorganization of the subsidiaries. --Ahecht (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Looks like a single-purpose account is attempting to whitewash sourced material and insert a bland corporate propaganda piece in place of this article. While that obviously cannot stand, I think the current "History" section is also written in an inappropriate tone. Wikipedia should be, in general, presenting sourced facts, not leaping to conclusions. Someone with more knowledge than I on this subject should take a look at how this can be approached. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Seems to be two separate single-purpose accounts, one inserting bland corporate-speak and another that wrote the POV abomination about Santa Teresa II that I just deleted. That project is still in the feasilibity study phase -- only Santa Teresa I has been built -- and can be mentioned without WP:UNDUE problems as long as it is in the context of Sempra International's many other current and proposed projects. As it was, it was almost the whole article. Antandrus(talk) 04:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
