User talk:Hanvanloon

Welcome!

Hello, Hanvanloon, 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 discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sbowers3 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username block

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.
This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

  1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Rudget. 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Decline reason:

Despite the use of the template above for the block, it's apparent the real problem with this user is COI and the username is a subsidiary issue of that. Allowing him to change it won't solve the problem. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

please read text below

Decline reason:

Based on your comments below, you still fail to understand the guidelines for conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and understand that Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote yourself/your interests. — IrishGuy talk 01:15, 23 March 2008 (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.

Editors and Administrators - trying to solve the Username block issue

Rudget has decided with several editors that I am an untrustworthy editor. I believe that there is inconsistent judgment as I have highlighted links to sites that have greater WP:COI concerns that still remain in Wikipedia (i.e. the linked pages directly sell/advertise items) to these editors and administrator, whereas my links go to GNU Free document license pages. I would like to propose that editors who are subject matter experts review my edits for the Quality Management, PDCA, Process capability and ISO 15504 pages over the past 3 months. If they believe that the edits have been beneficial in improving the quality of the pages, then please write me a note here. After a period of at least two weeks (and less than a month) to allow for comments, if editors believe my contributions are valuable, then perhaps an administrator may allow me to edit. On the other hand, if no editor believes that my contributions have been beneficial, I politely request that Rudget rollback these pages to the state they were in before I started editing them. This means for example, that the PDCA page will no longer have the Problems with PDCA section (which should please Penfield as this appears to have started his campaign against me), the Quality Management page shall have PDCA as the only quality improvement method, and the ISO 15504 will refer to the superseded TR (Technical Report) form and not the current IS (International Standard). I certainly do not want my work to be represented and misrepresented in Wikipedia when my editing rights have been rescinded. --Hanvanloon (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly here to promote your work, as shown in your last sentence above, and this is prohibited. Your account is clearly a single purpose account, who's sole aim is to represent its editor on the project. Your current editing falls under the username block criteria as you are actively engaging in promoting yourself or another company, especially in the STARS methodology article. I provided you with a copy of the deleted article over at User:Rudget/STARS methodology, yet you made no changes, even after I prompted you to change the article when you wanted a reasoning for the deletion. I do not think you are an untrustworthy user and would ask you to reconsider your standing here on wikipedia. At the moment, I am not willing to unblock and IrishGuy & Daniel Case agree above. Rudget. 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to my editing work on Quality management, PDCA, ISO 15504, process capability. I am not trying to edit the page created by Isabel de Pablo. That is for her to edit, not me. Sorry if you misunderstood my meaning.--Hanvanloon (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reply further to your comment, I think that editing the content of the page created by Isabel de Pablo would be WP:COI, although correcting a spelling mistake (as I did once) would not. I would therefore prefer that Isabel de Pablo is contacted on her talk page and asked to edit her page.--Hanvanloon (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

I am preparing a report hoping to demonstrate that you have made valuable contributions and that a conflict of interest is minimal and manageable. I think that will help get you unblocked. You could help me prepare that report if you would look through the history of the articles you have contributed to and tell me if any of the IP editors are you when you forgot to login. E.g. Did you make these edits:

Please let me know if you made these or any other edits while you were not logged in. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sbowers3, First thank you very much for your help. I did the first two edits but not 3 and 4. I also edited ISO 15504 page quite some time ago without logging in, that is before I knew this was the preferred method. They should all be the same IP address in Switzerland. --Hanvanloon (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Hi, your block was discussed here and there seems to be consensus that you are who you say you are (we are serious about preventing people from pretending to be others, to protect real life reputations, we've had our fingers burned once or twice now) and that, beyond the forgivable newbie error of creating an article on something where you have a conflict of interest, your contributions are of clear and obvious benefit to the project, so please accept our apologies for the inconvenience, and happy editing. A friend will be along soon to help you avoid other elephant traps that are littered about the place. Do take care to understand the comments made above in good faith by others, we can be a supicious bunch but sadly this is the result of bitter experience. Oh for the days when life was simpler. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy. Thank you. I hope you are not referring to the page created by Isabel de Pablo. If so, I would to find a way that I can prove to you that she is not me. I offered to try to get a three way discussion to show via IP addresses that it cannot be me but I don't know if that is considered reliable. If there is a way that can satisfy you I would like to try to clear this matter up. --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I have (re)inserted a welcome note at the top of this page because it has some useful links. I strongly recommend that you read the first link - Wikipedia:Five pillars. From there you might read some of the other policy/guideline pages. We have our ways of doing things, and it take a LOT of time to learn them all. You don't have to try to learn all of them before contributing but it helps to read some of the more important ones.

  • Although you are not required to change your username, it might be a good idea. If you do, please let me know the new name.
  • If you find yourself in conflict with any other editor, do NOT revert. Leave a gentle note on the other editor's talk page, or on the article talk page, and/or on my talk page and just ask for an explanation.
  • The one best way to stay out of trouble in Wikipedia is to make sure that everything you write is referenced to a reliable source and it is best to use inline citations. On some articles we'll add a footnote to every sentence, on most articles, just a footnote on every paragraph. Footnotes are a little tricky so if you have any questions, just ask me.

That's it for now. I think that you can be a good contributor. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Hanvanloon (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

It's good to see you are back. I saw your notice on Talk:PDCA. Yes, I was somewhat disappointed when another editor removed lots of material from PDCA. The way to get it back is with copious footnotes to verifiable, reliable sources - which I think you can do but I didn't have the knowledge to do myself.

It might be easier if you are willing to start back on the ISO article. When we were interrupted a couple of weeks ago you were adding footnotes. If you can add references to page or section numbers within the ISO documents I can help you format them. Regards. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the references as footnotes. Please let me know if I made any mistakes. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]