User talk:HoulihanLokey

Houlihan Lokey / Houlihan Lokey Howard Zukin / Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin

This article has been rewritten to comply with Wikipedia standards.

Wikipedia administrator edit

I've formatted and tried to remove jargon/ad-speak. Assuming that HoulihanLokey has no problem with my changes, it's at a stage where I would not consider it a speedy deletion candidate. That isn't to say that a user sensitive to corporate astroturfing won't try, but it'd probably get a full deletion discussion if that happened. So I'm fine with moving this into the main namespace, though {{NotableWikipedian}} should be added to the talk with a link to this account so readers know of the potential conflict of interest. Also, I would appreciate it if Anonymous Dissident would do a read-through to make sure that it's still not to jargon-ish, requiring {{technical}} or a similar tag. I have a few friends who are economists or who work in hedge funds so I may be a bit more familiar with the terminology than the average reader.

I recommend that HoulihanLokey confirm that this is an official public relations account of the company on Wikipedia by sending an email to either myself, Anonymous Dissident or to WP:OTRS from a Houlihan Lokey email address. A confirmation note can then be left on this talk page. I also suggest reading the unofficial essay User:Jmabel/PR. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Identity confirmation

I have received an email from an hlhz.com address stating, "Houlihan Lokey confirms that User:HoulihanLokey on the English language Wikipedia website is the official account of the company. Editing done through this account is approved by Houlihan Lokey." - BanyanTree 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest, author of cited book

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bankruptcy, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. While your book is certainly reliable, please use it sparingly and provide page numbers when doing so. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the best way to address the banner requests for citations and verifications without the reference? HoulihanLokey (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When editors add requests for citations and verifications to an article, they are requesting them to support material already in the article. In this edit, you added a new statement and cited it to a book authored by your company. The statement, "Current law in England and Wales derives in large part from the enactment of the Insolvency Act 1986", seems unnecessary to the article and in any event is already well-supported by its internal link to Insolvency Act 1986. In my opinion the statement is only a peg on which to hang a reference promoting your company and your company's book. Besides the apparent conflict of interest on your part, the reference fails WP:CITE because it doesn't provide a page number, necessary to allow a reader to find the source and verify that it supports the material added.

To get back to your question, "the best way to address" such requests is to not address them at all, due to your conflict of interest. However, one approach that would probably be acceptable is to propose an edit on the article's talk page for discussion and consensus, then wait for an uninvolved editor to make it. --CliffC (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on Epicadam's suggestion, I entered in page numbers.

The reference to the Insolvency Act 1986 is not unnecessary to a section on bankruptcy in the United Kingdom, especially in a larger article regarding bankruptcy that mentions "law" over 20 times.

Under every edit screen this appears: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." Which likely means that those rules are intended to apply to all edits -- not just those already in the article.

If an uninvolved editor will make an edit based on information provided, there should be a proper citation to a reliable source and Epicadam pointed out that this book is certainly a reliable source.

If you would like to expand the bankruptcy article as Tempshill does here, the book I've referenced contains in-depth chapters on legal analysis of bankruptcy in England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. But please give proper attribution to the expert information. HoulihanLokey (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HoulihanLokey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Citing oneself is not prohibited in the policy WP:COS which states: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." (Which is why I added the book that seems to be causing this block, it is a citation of a verifiable source.) The policy continues to say: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." (I believe the tone of the edits I made were neutral. If not, we can modify them to be neutral rather than completely blocking this user - please indicate if that is the case. Also, under username policy it states that "editing an article about your employer, is not disallowed" which can be interpreted to mean it is allowed.) HoulihanLokey (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Agree with the block. This appears to be a WP:Role account, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Orphaned non-free image File:Houlihan Lokey logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Houlihan Lokey logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)