User talk:Alainklarsfeld

Welcome!
Hello, Alainklarsfeld, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

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).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more explicit as I did not write about myself, nor do I get paid for doing this. I am not a consultant and do not sell a service or product. I appreciate your guidance, but I would like to have more precise feedback. Alainklarsfeld (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. One of Wikipedia's core policies is neutrality. One way this is applied is that we determine relevance by reliable sources instead of individual editors' expertise, which is regarded as original research. We welcome expert editors, but when you cite your own work, it blurs the lines somewhat between those two categories. This isn't necessarily a major issue, but it does mean this needs to be handled with caution. Including a reference to a working paper which is not specifically supporting any one statement (as you did here), is implying that the paper is important to the entire topic. This may be true, but you are not neutral in making that call. It's generally better to either propose such an addition to the article's talk page with an explanation of why it's important.
 * There are other issues with some of your additions. Saying that something "is important" or "should be noted" are a form of editorializing. See Manual of Style/Words to watch (specifically WP:EDITORIAL) for an explanation of why these are red flags. Hopefully that helps. If you have any further questions, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)7

Dear Grayfell, thanks for your response. Our working paper did support a statement (to be more precise, in the page on corporate social responsibility) : rules that appear as 'binding' leave a room for decisions to comply or not as witnessed by many labor law rules that are deliberately not followed by employers in many countries (typically, gender equality). Therefore, saying that there is a binary choice between 'following the law' and 'going beyond the law' is a simplification. 'Not following the law' is all to often a choice, too. So my link to the working paper did support a statement by I wanted to be efficient in terms of wordcount. Maybe you want me to write this more precisely in the body of the article as I have above ?


 * I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. The article Corporate social responsibility has a history of editors adding their own works (published or not) with minimal additional context or improvement. This is a form of what's known as WP:REFSPAM. While not always commercial, it's still questionably ethical (the irony of unethical behavior in an article about social responsibility is clear). Your willingness to continue to work harder to improve the article speaks well of your motives, so thank you.
 * In this edit you did not provide the reader with any way to know which point was being supported. If you are talking about this edit, the claim being supported is unclear. I do appreciate your efforts at a low wordcount, but in this case, it's cryptic. The edit was this: "In other models the act of compliance itself is of an ambivalent nature as it appears that many 'hard' laws are 'weak',i.e., poorly enforced." This is difficult to understand, because it's not clear why complying with a poorly enforced law is ambivalent or what "ambivalent" is supposed to mean in this situation. Is this saying that merely complying with the law can be a form of CSR? I think there must be a clearer way of saying that, right? Even removing filler words may help: "In other models compliance itself is ambivalent, as many laws are poorly enforced." If that's not what you're trying to say, you need to start over from scratch with the sentence. Since the concept of a 'weak law' is not mentioned again or further explained in the article, it seems more confusing than helpful, and places undue emphasis on your work, but perhaps I'm just totally missing what you're getting at. I've restored the content for now, perhaps you will edit it to more clearly explain what is meant. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell for your remarks, I will definitely take them into consideration. 212.99.31.8 (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Grayfell, I have tried to find a more explicit formulation. Do let me know if needs other improvement. Alainklarsfeld (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)