User talk:Morganeeacb

Welcome!

 * }

May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page European Association of Co-operative Banks has been reverted. Your edit here to European Association of Co-operative Banks was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://twitter.com/#!/eurocoopbanks) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). 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) 14:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Question copied from User talk:XLinkBot
Dear sir madam, I would like to know why you do not publish my editing on the page of the European Association of co-operative Banks as I work for the European Association of Co-operative Banks and knows the right data about our banks?! Could you please help me solving this issue? Many thanks for your cooperation on this URGENT matter. Morgane Moreau. m.moreau@eurocoopbanks.coop
 * Your edits were reverted by a "bot", an automatic system because, as explained above, you were trying to link to Twitter, and that is on the list of links we discourage - see External links.


 * More seriously, as you work for the Association you have, from Wikipedia's point of view, a WP:Conflict of interest and should carefully read that guideline and Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not a site like Myspace where people and organizations write about themselves; in order to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view, editors with a COI should not directly edit the relevant articles, but confine themselves to suggesting changes on the article talk page.


 * One reason for that is that Wikipedia is extremely resistant to being used for any kind of promotion, and editors closely involved with a subject often find it difficult to know when they are editing in a promotional way. Indeed your edits to the EACB article would probably have been reverted anyway, as they were turning it from a factual statement of what the EACB is and does into a boost for the co-operative sector: "'contributes significantly to growth, stability and competitiveness... this sector demonstrated its robustness and resilience... ability to act as a key driver... integral and well-established part of the financial system... " etc. That is not an encyclopedia article, that is a manifesto, written in PR-speak (see WP:PEACOCK) - fine for your website, not for Wikipedia.


 * Please suggest on the article's talk page any factual changes you think would improve it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, the previous wikipedia article was written by a colleague of mine ( who left ages ago)and all I'm asking for is for the CORRECT DATA about our banks to be changed which after all are facts and a pure defitnion of what we represent. Please see our website for the correct data which is the only reference point for our particular sector in the entire world. http://www.eacb.eu/en/eacb.html?cat=1

I do not understand why when editing you ask if it is our profession. I am entirely transparent on the editing of the text and that's what your are reproaching to me? If I understand correctly with your system anyone is free to edit and challenge what has been written. Why is this so complicated when all I want to do is change DATA?

As for what you consider as PR, those facts have been proved by external studies led by external organisations ( also recognised by officials of the European Union etc http://www.eacb.eu/en/cooperative_banks/what_they_say_about_us.html ). If you don't like it, I can withdraw it or soften it but those are facts.

As from now, I just want the data to be changed as our members and we are not satisfied with the erroneous content of this wikipedia page.

Moreover, I do not know if I should address this request to you but your wikipedia page is also display on facebook which disseminates your wrong data and hides our own page. As this wikipedia exercice is quite new for me, i would appreciate if you could tell me to whom I should address my request ( deletion of your facebook page with the wrong data, other solutions...). I assumed that editing the current content of wikipedia was the shortest and most efficient solution but I might have underestimated the timing of this process.

I did not like the tone you used to answer back to me. I am a new user and would expect more support/indications/advises than reprimands and reproaches. It is true that i work for the Coop banks but outside of my job I could also contribute a lot to wikipedia and this kind of reaction is not very constructive and encouraging ( this is my personal opinion of course)

Please indicate the process to follow if my indications above are not sufficient ( be it to rewrite entirely the article...but the data will not change!)

Morgane Moreau.


 * I have tidied up the article a little and inserted the new figures into the "overview" section, and removed many references which had become deadlinks. Is the statement about 23 countries in the lead sentence still accurate? I only count 15 countries in the "Key statistics" table on your website. I have also not time tonight to check whether the "Leading member" statements are still accurate.


 * I have not inserted the rest of your text because, despite what you say, it is by Wikipedia's standards opinion and advocacy rather than fact. No doubt you could cite sources for these opinions, they are still selected by the organization to provide a favourable view of its members and their work. It is fine for them to do that on their website, but Wikipedia is not here to repeat it.


 * It is unfortunate that, because Wikipedia does not want to erect barriers or walls of text that new users must read before editing, we do not do a good job of explaining in advance that Wikipedia is quite unlike other anyone-can-edit sites like Myspace or Facebook. In a way, the difference is like that between the advertisement and editorial sections of a newspaper: in one advertisers can say more or less what they like, and the reader knows who is addressing him and can treat it with appropriate scepticism; in the other, the statements have the backing of the editor and the "system". Wikipedia tries to be like that, so that the article on an organization is not the organization talking about itself, but the encyclopedia's view of it - hence our restrictions on COI editing.


 * That means that we have to spend a great deal of time saying new users, as I am saying to you: "No, it is not your organization's page, it is Wikipedia's page about your organization, and anyone can edit does not mean anyone can put in whatever they like.". You may find User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard helpful, which I wrote because I have this conversation so often.


 * Something the article urgently needs is references about the organization from sources independent of it. Wikipedia article subjects need WP:Notability which requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - see also WP:42. I am sure you can provide some of those.


 * I am sorry that you find my response unfriendly: I am certainly not intending to reproach you, because all this has not been explained to you in advance; only to explain the rules that keep us a useful encyclopedia. Bearing in mind that everyone at Wikipedia is a volunteer, I do not think you can really complain of lack of support and advice.


 * I was puzzled by your remarks about Facebook, given the Association's Facebook page here, but after some searching I found this, and I guess that is what you meant by "our" Facebook page. Wikipedia did not post that. Many "mirror" sites copy from us, and that is perfectly legitimate under our CC-BY-SA license, provided only that they acknowledge the source, as this page does. I did not know that Facebook were in the mirroring business, and we have no influence or control over them; indeed I do not know whether it is the Facebook company or some user who has posted that copy of our article. I can only suggest that you approach Facebook to see whether they will allow you to take over that title for your own page.


 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the update of the data, it is already a lot better! I do not have the same opinion as you do on what you call the PR thingie! anyway, I check the wikipedia page of the other banking federation and to be honnest this does not meet the criteria you are imposing on us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Banking_Federation But let's close this chapter as we will never find a consensus and in the end I just want this article to be accurate( data wise)

you are right the first sentence is not correct. i would suggest the following one instead: The European Association of Co-operative Banks (EACB) is an international non-profit association which was founded in 1970 and is based in Brussels. As the voice of co-operative banks in Europe and at an international level, it is a leading trade association in the financial sector, representing 28 national associations and their member banks.

--> when I write leading trade association you must be aware that we are only 3 association representing different type of banks in Brussels. This makes us part of the top 3, so a leadig trade association in the financial sector.

Another point: could you please simlply delete the part with the leading members as this is not accurate at all.

As for the Key statistics : you went on the cooperatives indicators page. The correct one is the following which is the general statistics ( assets etc) https://www.globalcube.net/clients/eacb/content/medias/key_figures/Key_Statistics_2010_Financial_Indicator.pdf .As you might notive those data date back from 2010 and are not quite up to date. ( getting and checking the data follows a very strict process which is performed at the national level according to the national legislation--> this varies depednding on the country and takes ages to be given to us) Anyway, just to say that the correct number of members will be always displayed on our website on their dedicated page: http://www.eacb.eu/en/eacb/member_organisations/full_members.html and http://www.eacb.eu/en/eacb/member_organisations/associate_members.html

as for the "about" us question : what people say about us is on our website and if this was not right I can insure you that they would sue us http://www.eacb.eu/en/cooperative_banks/what_they_say_about_us.html. if you want to verify the correctness of our data ( key statistics etc) you can check it one by one on our members websites ( everything is displayed in their respective annual report which is check by external audit). Also we are also displaying external studies not only of our members but also of independent bodies ( IMF, CEPS notably...)onto our website. So if you need external opinions about us feel free to check it out.http://www.eacb.eu/en/publications.html?cat=15&MaxR=5

Thanks for the info about facebook.I've already been in touch with them last week and explained to them that it was not the correct page ( duplicate). It apparently takes time to undo this wikipedia mirror page. that is why in the meantime I prefer to amend your current page so that at least the people have the correct figures about our banks.

Thanks for updating/correcting the article, hopefully our members will now be satisfied with the result and the accuracy of the data.

BR, Morgane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.8.240 (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have been sow to respond to this. I see that you have removed the out-of-date "leading members" section, which I came back to do. If you need any further changes made to the article, please suggest them on the article talk page. If you do not get a quick response, you can put helpme (two curly brackets each side) with a question or request below it, which should attract a response.


 * There are groups of users interested in particular subjects, called "WikiProjects." One of them is WP:WikiProject Co-operatives, and I will post a message on their talk page abut this article, which may bring interested editors to help improve it ("editor" means just the same as "user").


 * With regard to your suggestion of editing Wikipedia on subjects outside your job: please do. The WP:Welcome page has useful links, WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles have good advice, and A Primer for newcomers is a one-stop guide.


 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)