User talk:Emmanuel Lebot

Welcome!
Hello, Emmanuel Lebot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of 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

Original research
I have reverted your edit to Procurement, because it appears to be an attempt to publish your own original research on the matter. Wikipedia does not publish original research: publish your findings elsewhere, in a peer-reviewed reliable source, and then you may reference this work for adding information to Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Emmanuel Lebot", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lebot is my last name !


 * No problem then. It happens that an automated process flags names ending in 'bot' first time they appear. -- Alexf(talk) 15:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Spam
Please do not use Wikipedia to promote your particular brand of Procurement Performance Process, as you did in this edit to Procurement. Doing so is considered spam, and may well get you blocked. Your additions are unsourced, and serve only to promote this particular brand. If you would like to submit this process to a proper peer-reviewed journal, that article might then be useful as a source for this content, but until then, this content really has no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, My post strongly complement and enhance what is mentioned above in the procurement performance paragraph. We don't try to promote our brand, we share an information that has to be present in wikipedia considering its large support and use across the globe.

Please tell me what is the real reason for not supporting this? Various international consultants, professionals and users are mentioned in my proposal and they all use this method professionally, as companies or to teach with it, etc...

What is the problem exactly? Why is this post different from the one promoting Ardent Partners or other brands for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.62.93 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You were asking for sources, backup, ... I provided all and more with names, ...

I would like to add also that you do a mistake by mentioning that we promote our particular brand of procurement performance process. 1° This is not a process but a universal method 2° We don't talk here only about procurement performance, but a specific theme that is of global interest which is the financial performance of procurement.

This is key and you might take this in account in your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.62.93 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The mention of Ardent Partners in the Procurement article is a citation of one report that Ardent published that supports one of the facts mentioned in the article. While this may not be the most reliable source I've ever seen at Wikipedia, citing this report does not promote Ardent's business, it merely mentions them as a source of information that was used in the article.  On the other hand, the additions that you have made document an entirely new method (method, process; really what's the difference?) for measuring the impact of procurement on the overall financial performance of a company.  This new method has not been peer-reviewed, which means that the method is your (or your company's) own original research.  If you don't like the fact that Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, take that up with the powers that be.  (You could try raising the subject at the Village Pump.)  However, the policies in place today do not allow such additions.


 * You claim that you have provided sources and backup. You have not.  What you have done is dropped a bunch of impressive corporation and consultant names, but with no verification that these organizations have actually adopted or benefited from your method.  Your writeup also makes many claims and recommendations, presumably based on the research that your firm has performed, but since that research has not been subjected to peer-review in a recognized journal or even a reputable textbook publisher (who might be presumed to have editors reviewing manuscript submissions), your research is just that: your research, and is not valid for publication at Wikipedia.  (Again, if this bothers you, take it up with those who might be able to change that policy.)


 * I apologize if this seems harsh, but Wikipedia has its policies in place in order to make sure that the information presented here is as factual and neutral as possible.


 * If you feel that my actions in this matter have been inappropriate, please feel free to seek redress. There is an entire dispute resolution process that you can undertake.  I would welcome the scrutiny of third parties in this matter.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your explanations. All references and names, etc..., provided earlier, are using in a way or another the method and therefore fulfill you peer-reviews criteria as they all did so publicly. How would you like this to be backed-up? Please advise me. Videos are available on the web with users, ..., talking about this method. There are also articles in the written specialized french press and also articles made by thought leaders or interviews and testimonials available on the web.

Should I be the one providing you with this material or should you make your research on your side to verify what I propose? I can definitely send you links, etc, if you so wish, in order to support the fact that this method description should be present in wikipedia considering its level of adoption.

Thank you for your kind help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.62.93 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Use of this method by any particular company does not constitute a peer-review process, as there are no published results of the method. Acceptance by these organizations may be more a factor of excellent salesmanship rather than an excellent method.  Peer-reviewed journals refer to professional technical journals to which an author submits a fully documented research paper or thesis, which is then reviewed by competent members of the journal's review board, who are generally recognized experts in their field, prior to publication.  In a case such as this, where the method involves an improvement to the measurement of procurement performance and its effects on the overall financial health of a company, the appropriate journals would be of a management or economics nature, and the reviewers would want to see verification of the method's efficacy by actual measured numbers.  As such a study would likely take several years to complete, it is unlikely that such an article will be published any time soon.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)