User talk:Solferino

Legitimate pension research sources, not "spam"

Please stop. If you continue spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Will,

Frankly, I'm not sure you've effectively read the source in question- the one you (very hastily in my opinion) qualified as "dubious"

For your info, Dr. van Nunen was elected pension personality of the year by Investments & Pensions Europe (IPE), the pension journal of reference back in 2010... and pension personality of the decade by Global Pensions magazine- the jury being composed of 20 top-notch pension academics from Europe and the Americas...

In all honesty, I don't understand why/how this qualifies as "spam"???

Can you please take the required time to read the reference in question, make an informed judgement, and then rule on its validity once and for all?

Thanks for your editing help.

--Solferino (talk)

Thanks for your reply. My particular concern is about the large number of links to articles by M. Nicolas Firzli. Please stop adding those. I'll review the van Nunen matter.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply: that's highly appreciated.

Please note that the 2 page article in question by V. Bazi & MN. Firzli was actually publised in the Q2 2011 Issue of the Revue Analyse Financiere, France's leading financial research journal

+ The said article simply recaps, compiles and expands upon reviews of Dr van Nunen's ORIGINAL presentation- materials also quoted (under different formats) by Global Pensions, the OECD, Investment Pensions Europe and Dow Jones Financial News.

Cordially,

Solferino

--Solferino (talk)

Please do not restore the material until we've agreed on this. I have looked at the Revue Analyse Financiere website and do not find the article in question. If the article is only available in print then we don't need to link to it. The website you're linking to is dubious. Please do not add any more link to it or other Firzli projects. If more links are added to those we may need to blacklist it to prevent the promotional edits that have occurred in the past.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"RE: Revue Analyse Financiere...If the article is only available in print then we don't need to link to it." ?????? Like I said, this is France's leading financial research journal, and online access to individual articles isn't free i.e. they have opted for a restricted, "pay-per-download" system, JUST LIKE MANY ACADEMIC REVIEWS the world over.

"The website you're linking to is dubious" ????? This is your (highly biased) opinion: The website in question owns all copyrights for articles published by WPC authors, hence their being allowed to display them in free download/access- you might not understand it or not like, but that's the way things are normally done in law-abiding, civilized jurisdictions... For the record, contrary to what you've insinuated, the articles in question were actually published in leading economic, financial and political science ACADEMIC REVIEWS & JOURNALS in Paris, Vienna, Ankara, and Beirut...

But I'm starting to think your "anti-spam" drive might be malevolent, or just overzealous... anyways, it goes against the essential tenets of Wikipedia- you even recognized you hadn't bothered reading the articles in the first place!!! But, anayways (bis), I won't argue with you any further as I lack the required amount of time, and I'm under the impression I'm arguing with a narrow-minded (possibly malevolent?), Philistine censor. So, so long & goodbye.

--Solferino (talk)

If the article is available behind a paywall, please provide a link to that page. I don't see where Firzli has done anything except post some blogged articles on that website. The WPC site is dubious, and appears to be a one-man operation. The linked PDF file is not a conventional reprint, and there's little indication that Ferzli is regarded as an expert by independent sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"If the article is available behind a paywall, please provide a link to that page."

Past 'paywall' links for articles by the same author include

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=120&category_id=14&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Fonds Asie Pacifique", RAF, Q2 2009

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=476&category_id=21&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Les Leçons du Glass Steagall Act", RAF, Q1 2010

AS INDICATED (but it seems you never read the pieces in question), the last article you have deleted will be published in the Q2 2011 Issue of the Review -> available under 'paywal' format end of March- a standard publishing procedure for most academic reviews...

"The linked PDF file is not a conventional reprint" ?????? Like I said earlier, you might not (not want to) understand it or not like, but that's the way things are normally done in law-abiding, civilized jurisdictions -> if they ask to, academics and researchers can keep the copyrights attached to their publications, and are thus allowed to make them available for free if they deem it advisable.

"there's little indication that Ferzli (SIC) is regarded as an expert by independent sources" ??? Well, once again, that's your (rather biased) opinion: the articles in question were actually translated in 4 different languages and quoted by academics from INSEAD, the HEC School of Management...etc.

"....except post some blogged articles on that website" ????????? Once again, you're either VERY malevolent, or you really haven't bothered to read any of the articles you've deleted so hastily: For the record, contrary to what you've insinuated, The REVUE ANALYSE FINANCIERE (Paris), ISAK-ISRO (Ankara), GLOBAL PENSIONS, EUROMONEY and FINANCIAL NEWS (London), AN-NAHAR (Beirut) are all LEADING journals/reviews in their respective JURISDICTIONS/DOMAINS. That's a fact.

But, anayways (BIS N°2), I won't argue with you any further as I lack the required amount of time, and I'm under the impression I'm arguing with a narrow-minded (possibly malevolent?), Philistine censor. So, so long & goodbye.

--Solferino (talk)

Accounts

I do not understand why you are replying to edits made by user:StatPak. Are you using more than one account?   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please reply.   Will Beback  talk  05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

'm at loss for words here. I actually didn't reply, because I wasn't aware you had asked the question in the first place- it was deleted inadvertently yesterday while I was replying to another question of yours at the bottom of the same Talk Page

I've read your question. I'm not using more than one account- why would I? I know StatPak- he's a collegue of mine & we share the same server. What difference this makes evades me;

I have replied to all your questions.... But you haven't replied to mine- see above. Like I said: all articles quoted were actually published in leading academic reviews & journals in Paris, London, Ankara... Your remarks ("unpublihsed blog postings"???) were all proven to be unfounded and misleading; likewise for your lack of knowledge of STANDARD publishing practices in (most) academic journals & reviews and the standard procedures pertaining to copyright ownership (FYI authors often republish their articles elsewhere when e-access to the journal is restricted by paywalls, subcriptions...etc.)

I have nothing against you personnally, but I can't stand censorship, even when it's unintentional, and had to refute your misbegotten pronoucements. Like I said, you didn't check the sources in question and didn't bother to read the titles of most articles you deleted: this might have been fine in the Soviet era, but not in a free, open, scholarly-oriented society.

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk)

PS: Just realized you had also erased a ref/ an article on the Glass Steagall Act (the said article was widely quoted + translated in 5 languages), qualifying it as "some blog posting" (???).

For the record (bis), the Revue Analyse Financiere is France's leading financial research journal, not "a blog"

The CEE Council is described as a "leading European economic think-tank" by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY (Washington), the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO (CLEA Center), USAK-ISRO's JTW REVIEW (Ankara), the VIENNA REVIEW (Austria), and EUROMONEY, EUROPE'S LEADING BANKING JOURNAL, ... etc.

I have nothing against "aggressive" editing, provided the editor takes the required time to assess the validity of the reference/article at hand.

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moorehaus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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 could 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) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of multiple accounts, in violation of WP:SOCK. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Legitimate Academic articles vs. “blog posting”

Thanks for your note. You're making a lot of assertions without evidence to support them. The citations you've added do not include the names of the publications, just the links to Firzli's webites. There's no indication that those websites belong to actual "think tanks" that employ people besides Firzli. I see no indication that the journals you've mentioned are "leading" in their field. There is also a problem with the promotion of Firzli's views. From now on, please restrict yourself to adding Firzli's views which have been referenced by other authors in independent publications. See WP:SOAPBOX.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Will,

Well, anyone who works in the fields of economics, finance, pension research… in Europe (be it Mainland or the UK) knows these are leading reviews & journal! … But, if you insist, I’ll try to find you some official ranking(s) when I have time (probably not before the end of the week though)

I understand you have to spend a lot of precious pro-bono time cleaning and editing intensively (sometimes wholesale) tens of articles every day, and thus might not have the luxury of reading/pondering the relative validity of each and every source… BUT you had said: “If the article is available behind a paywall, please provide a link to that page. I don't see anything…except post some blogged articles…on some dubious site….The linked PDF file is not a conventional reprint”

I had replied: Past 'paywall' links for articles by the same author include

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=120&category_id=14&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Fonds Asie Pacifique", RAF, Q2 2009

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=476&category_id=21&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Les Leçons du Glass Steagall Act", RAF, Q1 2010

You have to understand that, as far as Europe is concerned, most academic authors and researchers tend to retain (and/or share) the copyrights of their published pieces, and thus tend to make them available under open-source format/PDFs on independent academic websites (often small think-tanks bringing together a handful of academics and researchers). That’s a STANDARD publishing practice when e-access to the original source = leading academic journal is restricted by paywalls, subcriptions...etc.

This being said, if you insist, I will link directly to the leading academic journals in question- a shame really as interested readers (not everyone reads a footnote/ref.) will in most cases (e.g. some institutions such as USAK-ISRO still offer free, unlimited access) face pay-walls.

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk)

Article Co-Written by 2 European Researchers + Relevance of Bibliography

Please stop adding gratuitous references to Firzli.[1] Also, all sources need to be published according to WP:V. Please read that policy carefully before making further edits.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Will,

I wrote this Wikipedia article in its entirety- and gathered all the corresponding refs/footnotes and bibliography material.

Once again, I understand you’re very busy..., BUT before saying it’s “gratuitous”, can you please take the required time to actually read the topical + relevant article in question co-written by two European authors?

Vincent Bazi [Vice-Chairman of EFFAS- the European Federation of Financial Analysts and Chairman of the World Pensions Council] & M. Nicolas J. Firzli, “1st annual World Pensions & Investments Forum”, Revue Analyse Financière, Q2 2011, pp. 7-8

Here is a link to the European review in question:

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=488&category_id=2&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3

I decided not to include this link to a useful/topical article amongst footnotes because it’s only available to subscribers or through a pay-wall, and chose to include it in the bibliography instead.

Recall: I had sent you a link to the free-access PDF file (available on the website of the authors’ think-tank) earlier

Likewise for another article co-written by Dirk Broeders & An Chen, “Pension regulation and the market value of pension liabilities”, DNW Working Paper N° 183, Sept. 2008 Equally topical and relevant to the subject at hand.

Why did you delete it?

And why did you decide a bibliography wasn’t needed?

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk)

Bibliographies are not needed. Anything that is used as a source is best cited with a footnote. Please do not add any more articles written by Firzli, unless you can show that they've been cited by other reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Diversification (finance) / Examples

Dear Duoduoduo,

Thank you for your editing my little contribution on (the benefits of) Geographic Diversification- removal of unnecessary disambiguation

Best,

Solferino (talk)