User talk:Olcoispeau

Welcome!

Hello, Olcoispeau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like MAVERLINN, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of MAVERLINN

A tag has been placed on MAVERLINN, 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. Passportguy (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Mergers and acquisitions, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is too narrow in focus and the link to a shopping page is too promotional. If the book contains relevant information it could be used as a source for specific content in the article, but as an additional reading link it's far too much like WP:SPAM. Please discuss on the article's talk page before restoring. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot

I'm not a bot. I have assessed your edit with my own eyes, and think that it's too spammy. Please self-revert and discuss, either here or on the article's talk page, otherwise you are WP:EDITWARing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Mergers and acquisitions‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

======== I do not understand ============ did you get my last message ?

Hello Grayfell,

Nice to meet you. I can remove whatever link to the publisher you think appropriate to remove. This is no problem.

I believe this book is useful, as an add-on to the bibliography because M&A in China is different from M&A in the ROW (say Europe or USA). Emerging countries have different rules. In addition, China is now a very big economy and M&A in China is an important topic for corporate development.

I do not think this subject is too narrow.

Looking forward to reading from you. I cannot find my previous message.

Best, Oliver

PS. I sent a previous (quite similar) message on a talk page but it may be lost somewhere as I am not too familiar with this process.

I managed to recover it finally :

I am not a bot

I'm not a bot. I have assessed your edit with my own eyes, and think that it's too spammy. Please self-revert and discuss, either here or on the article's talk page, otherwise you are WP:EDITWARing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello !

Nice to meet you, even if do not agree, and nice to see you are not a BOT. I added this book but I can remove whatever link you feel inappropriate with the publisher, this is no problem.

If you want to address M&A issues seriously: M&A in China is different from many other countries. It requires a specific adjustement to classic skills. And as you know, China is a very big economy and a very complicated country, so I guess, this book in useful in the bibliography.

Looking forward to read from you.

Best, Oliver

Hello, Oliver.

The book may be useful, but it's much better to use sources to expand the article. Alas, adding books into the 'see also' section is a technique used by authors and spammers to promote works. For example, it appears that something similar may have happened to the article about half an hour after you added that book the first time. Because you created a page that was deleted as spam, and because you've added the book to other pages (on the French Wikipedia), I am concerned that this might be what's happening here, but I hope I'm wrong. World Scientific is an established publisher, but these problems are unfortunately wide-spread and should not be dismissed simply because of that. Publishers/authors/editors have done it before, but again, I hope I'm wrong.

Adding a source to a statement gives readers the chance to verify if a statement is valid. Adding a book to a 'see also' section is much broader. It acts as an endorsement of the book. If you would like to use that book as a source, that would be great, but 'further reading' links should be used with restraint. At the very least, please leave out the link to the publisher's profile of the book. The ISBN number, or a Google Books link, would serve the same purpose in a less promotional way.

Sorry if this was unduly harsh, and thanks for bringing this to discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=============================================================

Hi Grayfell,

Thanks for your message, this is really appreciated.

I started to read this afternoon a few wiki-articles and I felt like filling some holes, in fact I realized that this M&A practice in China and emerging countries was not well covered at all, as this is really a different type of M&A due to imperfect markets, fast growth, culture gaps for example.

This is why I wanted to add this M&A in China book as a reference and later submit an add-on for the article on M&A in emerging markets, and China in particular. But I realized I needed a few days to produce a good concise draft. Of course, if you are happy to add the book, I will remove the link or anything that worries you: my intention was just to add it as a proof that the book does exist -- not for promotional reasons. Also because I noticed that some other authors were indexed with a link so I felt it may be needed.

On the French side, I already added :

~ material to the introduction about M&A which needed a bit more flesh, I plan to review and add stuff to other sections later, ~ bibliography to M&A (which was very thin, including an early version (2012) of M&A in China in French), ~ and did the same on the Bourse (Stock market), because the bibliography was so thin too (2 books only with one quite unrelated to the core topic) and the name of one author in need of a correction.

Of course I have no intention to spam anyone, only add a few things which may be useful. I was convinced that deletion was related to some patrolling bots, testing if I was spammer/vandal, this is why I reverted the changes. I am really sorry for this, and certainly lacked editing "finesse".

When you write that authors/editors are trying to push books to you ... now I can easily understand your concern ! so to make sure there is no misunderstanding I must tell you that I am one of the co-authors of some of two books. I added them (Dictionary 7th print, M&A in China - new international version), well ... because I know them well and feel they fill a gap in the bibliography. As there is no real equivalent book on their respective markets, these two luckily became references (unlike some earlier works), but perhaps I should rather not mention them at all.

Best, Oliver

I greatly appreciate your honesty. It sounds like you understand why this is a cause for concern, and are acting in good faith, which is the best place to start. You should look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (specifically WP:SELFCITE). Simply put, citing yourself is fine when done carefully and within certain limits. I recommend using the book as a source for specific points, rather than as a general "see also", but I will leave it up to you how to do that. I've changed the link to a Google Books one, which is slightly more useful for research, and slightly less commercial.

It may be helpful to remember that different language's Wikipedias can have different policies, also. What it acceptable for the French one may not be acceptable here.

I am not alone in feeling that Wikipedia has a systemic bias (Wikipedia:Systemic bias explains this more), so I am glad to see efforts to expand coverage of non-Anglophone countries and topics. Wikipedia is confusing and sometimes very messy. Thanks for sticking with it in spite of that. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=====================================================

Hi Grayfell,

Many thanks for your kind reply and for ajusting the reference. I will draft a specific paragraph on M&A in emerging markets as mentionned and suggest it as an add-on to the article, then connect M&A in China as one of the source for this point. I keep in mind what you mentionned as different rules in different country, will try to continue to improve a bit the French side too.

All the best, and Season's Greetings. Oliver

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Olcoispeau. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Please do not add references to sources you are affiliated with. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Singapore. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Your additions seem to be promoting one particular book. Please refrain from citing sources you are affiliated with. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

===========

Well I have no intention to self promote but I am trying to fix a number of omissions in the economic presentation of a number of countries. I can cite many underlying sources but I think it is also honest to be accountable for what I cite, especially since this is based on numerous sources. If you prefer, I can go back to more ancient sources. But It seems to me that many of these additions are needed since many useful things have been omitted. You can remove the reference and I can try to find other references, but removing everything seems a bit extreme. Best OlivierOlcoispeau (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFCITE

Hi. I see that you have been adding citations to a number of article. However, you additions are giving the impression that you are trying to promote your book. Although in some cases the references might be useful, in other cases there are already enough references available. Personally, I think it would be helpful if you propose changes to the talk page in cases where you have to cite your own book. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I will research and find other sources, this is no problem for me. I will also rephrase some sentence since they have been extracted from my research ... and then I should probably spend my time on other things. Olcoispeau (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I will delete all quotes and reference to my work since this is inappropriate. Olcoispeau (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you want to add citations to your work and feel that it will benefit the article, simply suggest them on the talk page, declare your COI and let other editors decide. (This is essentially a way of peer review on Wikipedia). I would like to thank you for helpful attitude and for helping to improve Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I will remove everything which may be considered a possible quote from my work. If other people want to add something, I am sure they will be able to find plenty of references. Olcoispeau (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

PewDiePie444 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]