User talk:Khmarks

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Kenneth H Marks. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 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, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. 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 article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above - please read WP:COI and WP:EL - the type of material that you posted is a constant problem here, as you might imagine. So please don't take it personally if administrators don't look too closely at the details before they revert. Smallbones (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Edits

Hi - please note you have been repeatedly warned. You appear to be a Single Purpose Account focused on adding links to a book by Kenneth H Marks (very similar to your user name). When you add these links you violate Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest and promotional links. While this material may be interesting and relevant, your adding them to encyclopedia articles is not appropriate. This is why these edits have been undone / reverted and will continue to be removed. If you continue to make these edits your account will be blocked. Given your apparent expertise, your help would be appreciated in these articles but continuing to add these links is not constructive |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message - I appreciate your opinion but you are missing the entire point which is that you are not adding a section on further reading or a list of the most authoritative works - you are only adding your own work. That runs directly against the policies mentioned above. And because you are a co-author does not mean it is less meaningful or valuable it means that you have a very obvious conflict of interest on the subject. These are all valid and defensible reasons to remove your edits as many others have mentioned here already. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your book

Kenneth, I appreciate that you may be trying to 'help' rather than flogging your book (however I am not completely convinced). Regardless, it is not appropriate for you to just dump books in a further reading section unless they are either inherently notable, or are actually referenced in the article! The fact that you are doing it for multiple articles seemingly randomly and that you are the author of the book doesn't tip the scales in your favour - and i see that I am not the only one who has reverted your edits. If you really are a professor of finance, then you could make a far more meaningful contribution by actually editing the content of the articles, rather than spamming your book. Unfortunately the state of finance articles on Wiki is pretty poor and could use the help of some experts. Regards Mitsuhirato (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts

Mr. Marks - I would suggest limiting your contributions to subjects that are not tied to research you have conducted yourself in your book. As a start - look at all of the articles you added links to your book on. Are these articles up to your standards - you can add additional content to any of these. You can join WikiProject Finance or the [[Private Equity Task Force and follow up on some of the tasks there. You can also write about the town you grew up in UNC, Wharton, NC State, your hobbies, whatever is of interest to you. I think your view of wikipedia is very narrow. While I understand this is probably a frustrating experience, you need to look at the reverse perspective which is that your only contribution so far has been the addition of these links and references. I would look forward to your positive contribution - you look like a very intelligent and knowledgeable individual.

WP:COI Marks, Kenneth H http://.handbookoffinancinggrowth.com

While the book you are linking may or may not be notable, the fact that you have a conflict of interest with this title means that you should not be the one to add references to it in article space. You have been asked a number of times to refrain from doing so and if you continue in this course you may be blocked for increasing periods of time. Ronnotel (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Hello. Your recent edit to List of investment banks appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Khmarks. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article List of investment banks, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Certified Merger & Acquisition Advisor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Certified Merger & Acquisition Advisor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Merger & Acquisition Advisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. only (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Khmarks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please suggest correction vs. deleting or blocking. there is nothing inaccurate being presented

Decline reason:

There is literally nothing other than suggestions here, on this talk page. In particular, pay attention to the section, Managing a conflict of interest. This provides the information you need to understand and comply with, in order to be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Khmarks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i will re-read and request that someone other than me makes contributions. not to be smart, but the suggestions that i was requesting were edits to the content, not complaints that you don't like what is written about. i write books and articles and have editors work for me. they usually "make edits and suggested changes" vs. tell me what to do. apologies if i'm being difficult, but seems that everything that i've written is accurate and factual

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - keep it to one RFU open at a time. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

October 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid

Looking at your talk page comments, I wonder if WP:paid applies. Please read that. There may be ramifications you should consider and that should be taken into account before anyone unblocks you.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Khmarks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

thank you for the suggestion; i did read it. to be clear - I am not paid or compensated by any party to write or make contributions to wikipedia. my creation of the "Certified M&A Advisor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Merger_%26_Acquisition_Advisor post was to provide a factual reference to the credential...just like the CFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst credential or the CFP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Financial_Planner . I do hold a CM&AA and CFq, though that doesn't seem to be necessarily a conflict given the number of credentialed individuals . I really don't understand the conflict or issue being raise, regards, KHM

Decline reason:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems you were blocked for this edit which added High Rock Partners to our List of investment banks. While you may not have specifically been paid for making that edit, making an edit on behalf of an organisation of which you are a managing partner (according to yourself you were one in 2009; I assume you still are, since you are still here advertising them) still falls squarely into the area covered by WP:PAID and must be covered by an appropriate declaration. While any administrator is free to unblock you if you can convince them to do so, I will personally not do so without see a solid, fairly detailed plan of how you intend to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Adding links to your book or your company will not cut it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

<<post ec>

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Khmarks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

thank you for the suggestion; i did read it. to be clear - I am not paid or compensated by any party to write or make contributions to wikipedia. my creation of the "Certified M&A Advisor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Merger_%26_Acquisition_Advisor post was to provide a factual reference to the credential...just like the CFA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst credential or the CFP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Financial_Planner . I do hold a CM&AA and CFq, though that doesn't seem to be necessarily a conflict given the number of credentialed individuals . I really don't understand the conflict or issue being raise, regards, KHM

Decline reason:

Well, I'll take your word for it that you do not believe you meet the "paid" criteria. However, you would seem to stand to benefit from promoting your book. The reason for your block is you kept adding promotional edits about a book you wrote. The conflict of interest is your need to promote the book contrary to the need for you to edit constructively. Can't speak for the blocking admin, but I would expect you to affirm that you would not further mention your book in articles, no matter how important you might think it is to do so. As you clearly articulated not understanding the reason for the block, unblock is declined. Best hopes for the future.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]