User talk:Cgayner

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 Business' FAQ and 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  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. WilliamH (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

 * Rename performed, as per the unblock requirements. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Indirect procurement
Please see WP:Reliable sources. This article is sourced only to two reports from the same research firm. I think there can be an article here, as it is discussed in a number of books listed in even Google Books as a very cursory search, but it needs to be sourced to standard published works and peer-reviewed articles. And these citations must document the specifics of the article, including individual documentation for everything which is in any way an opinion-- see WP:Original research forthe relevant policy.

Additionally, the material is not written like a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is written in prose paragraphs, like an encyclopedia, not in outline format. Wikipedia also avoids jargon, like "skillsets" or "engaging and advising" and vague phrase such as "it's not uncommon" And, as a matter of style, we do not use internal capitalization.

As reviewing administrator, it would have been very easy for me to mark this article for speedy deletion as promotional for the business research firm in question, but I think we need more coverage of business topics; therefore, I urge you to do the necessary rewriting. And I advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process by one of the many people here who have much less sympathy for articles on this sort of subject. In its present state, it would probably get deleted by consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG, the reason this research only has a limited number of sources, is that it is primary research conducted by a research firm for general public distribution and dissemination i.e. the information was made freely to everyone. The 300 page report also covers the area of Procurement Outsourcing which, by looking at the current page, is simply outdated and dare I say misleading (according to our research and general industry experience). Following your previous reasoning, I won't be able to update this page with more current, relevant and correct information given there is a limited number of sources? Seems like a very unrealiable way to keep the content fresh (particularly in this very niche area). I take your point about the writing style, which I need to polish a little more for thie particular format. Let me know your thoughts on the Procurement Outsourcing page.