User talk:Julien Schmid

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Skema Business School has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/user/skemabstv (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Skema
The article is more and more looking like an advert, we are looking for independent references from third party sources, it should not be an advert cited to the companies own website, please take care not to create that situation...Would you please declare your connection to the company? Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have been editing this article in the past days and I am a former student from the ESC Lille which is now SKEMA Business School. My intent is to present the new school and to stay objective. Although I have indeed cited SKEMA own press releases and website as you can see in the references, I have also cited external sources as The Economist and the Financial Times. I just find it hard to speak about SKEMA mission or values without citing SKEMA itself, what would you do? --Julien Schmid (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for commenting, you clearly have a COI and the article is becoming nothing more than an advert, we require third party sources to support its notability, adding all of this content from the companies own website is actually making the article worse. The wikipedia is not an advertising station, in truth the school has little notably, has not been reported by many others reliable sources than the company itself adding all the content from there may seem to make the article better but in fact it may read better but it is actually weaker if mostly sourced to its own website. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Ok thank you for your feedback. I will clean-up the article from the school own content and please review it afterward, otherwise please proceed. Although I must disagree on one point, the school has been reported by the Economist and the Financial Times as you can see in the references. Don't you consider them as reliable sources?--Julien Schmid (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Clean-up of the content coming from the school own website and press release has been done, please review.--Julien Schmid (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment by User:Off2riorob. I think the  notability is clear, not the least borderline. It's an established verifiable  institution of higher education that offers degrees, which is enough for notability -- and there are external RS references to it. As for the contents, even  the present contents is too promotional, and I can best explain what I mean by editing it, which I have just done--for example the section on values is a collection of promotional platitudes and must be removed, and it would not matter where it was sourced from. Sources from the school can be used, but for facts, not opinions.  Opinions must be explicitly sourced as opinion by a 3rd party RS. Language merely asserting how good it is, or how noble its aspirations, is promotional, even if it were quoted directly from a  major newspaper.  I worked on this article before, & removed such material; it has been restored, and I will remove it once more.  . Additionally, the section on notable alumni must contain only those people who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article or are clearly notable  enough for one -- the President of a major company is clearly notable enough; the VP is not.  If you want them included, try to write an article and get it accepted. All this is according to our normal practices, and, as, Off2riorob said, will improve the article.


 * Julien, please read WP:COI and   our FAQ  about businesses, organizations, and articles like this.  Your addition of outside sources was very helpful; please confine your future edits to things such as this, and updating  of facts, and adding links to articles for other notable alumni.   DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much I have learned a lot and I better understand wikipedia principles and I will of course respect them in the future. --Julien Schmid (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)