Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 19 March 2008

Quality management page

Sbowers tagged the page requesting citations. I added several inline references and you deleted the lot. I am now confused. Can you please explain? --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between citations and spam. The sooner you learn that, the better for all of us. As has been suggested by several people already, go read Misplaced Pages:Spam, Misplaced Pages:No original research, and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You've been doing this for about 3 months now, and the patience of the other people editing this subject is running very thin. I'd say this is just about your last chance to learn these lessons before we no longer assume good faith.Helixweb (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanvaloon : DO NOT edit changes I make to my own talk page. You can add, but don't delete. Helixweb (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted just after, my mistake.

STARS methodology

Browsing your history of this page, I see that Daniel Penfield wrote the following:

1. What's the point in having a WP:SPAM policy if you're just going to roll over when a spammer complains that vigilant editors have removed his website/publications for sale from articles after repeated warnings? 2. What's the point in having a WP:NOR policy if you're just going to give in when a crackpot complains when his pet theory is challenged? 3. What's the point in having a WP:COI policy if you're going to look the other way when a spammer complains when sham articles set up by his crony/sockpuppet/shill account are deleted per Misplaced Pages policy (viz., Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion).

I would like to inform you why I believe that Daniel Penfield's arguments are incorrect, and honestly seek a dialogue with an editor/administrator who can correct the problem. I have found his attacks to be rather offensive at times. To answer his allegations:

1. The STARS methodology is published under GNU Free document license, it is an openly accessible methodology. Users can take what they want to use without having to buy anything from me, the web pages make this clear. I do not deny that I provide consulting services if people want to use them, but there is neither obligation nor restriction. Furthermore there is collaborative output of many people (from knowledge cafés) also freely available under the same GNU Free document license on the site. As I understand WP:SPAM, providing free and factual information cannot be considered SPAM.

2. Articles on the STARS methodology have been published in the American Society for Quality (ASQ), Quality Progress magazine as well as other acknowledged sources. I think it is reasonable that ASQ are considered to be a reliable source from an NPOV and I have asked other editors/administrators to clarify how such a body cannot be so considered (without response so far). ASQ use editors to carefully check all articles published - they do not publish 'a crackpot's pet theory' as Penfield alleges, because it would damage their reputation. In addition, the university at which I teach would probably dislike having their reputation damaged. So I find Penfield's allegation of breaching the WP:NOR policy to be unfounded.

3. The person who wrote the page (Isabel de Pablo) is a user of the methodology, so yes she has an interest (obviously otherwise she would not have written it :-). She has clearly stated on her talk page that she has no commercial interest with me, which I can confirm. We are not related, married or have any other intimate relationship. Yes she told me she was writing an article and made sure I had placed no restrictions on her. Yes she used some material from the ASQ articles and my web site and what she knows about me. If you can check IP addresses you will find I cannot be in Switzerland and in Spain (her address) at the same time, so accusations of sockpuppetry are clearly false. I find Penfield's allegations not only to be incorrect but to be offensive to her. I cannot see any breach of WP:COI policy.

I do find it interesting that Daniel Penfield has authored only one page, which is about a person of the same name (a relative?). I have not tried to attack him in the manner he has attacked me and Isabel de Pablo.

I would appreciate your considered response as I am sure Isabel de Pablo would like to know how to resolve this issue in a fair and equitable manner. --Hanvanloon (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For ANY site you have a vested commercial interest in, or any site that you own and operate, you should not promote or link to on wikipedia. You DEFINITELY should not campaign for its inclusion and serve as its cheerleader. That's just common sense. I will continue to remove any links to your sites that you put up, or are put up by any other account. You are free, however, to share your knowledge by contributing content to the articles you have an interest in.Helixweb (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will not try to link to my site. My last edits were only references and did not link anywhere. I also responded in detail to Daniel Penfield's allegations because it has been him alone that started the flaming and deleting page content and lastly triggering the rapid page deletion of Isabel de Pablo's page. If she makes the page self standing does that breach any policy? At the end of the day it is her work and page, not mine. (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to correct what I perceive to be a incorrect perception on your side about me linking to my web site. I only ever did that on pages in my initial editing 3 months ago - e.g. on the PDCA page to a page discussing PDCA and its shortcomings, and on the ISO 15504 page to a page discussing ISO 15504. On both pages were multiple commercial site links (there is still one on the ISO 15504 page) and I know that at least half were done by the web site personnel (because I know them or when subsequently deleted, the owner put them back). Even the current link from PDCA to the ASQ goes to an ASQ page where they try to sell a tool at the end of the page. I consider that to be also breaching the commercial interest policy you mention. You probably have another perception because of Daniel Penfield's postings. So while I acknowledge that I am powerless to stop you believing and acting otherwise, I wanted to set the record straight. --Hanvanloon (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI Editorial policy of ASQ

Hello again, I am not sure that you know the editorial policy of the American Society for Quality (ASQ). Every article is first reviewed by a minimum of two people (sometimes 3) to decide whether the article is a serious, factually accurate item and of interest to its readers. For articles they accept, there then follows an intense editing regime, the editor works closely with the author. Finally it is reviewed again by another reviewer and any additional edits made. This is a very rigorous process. It takes at least 6 months from submission to publication. It is why I believe quoting any article published by them is a reliable source and meets the WP:SPAM, WP:NORand WP:NPOV criteria. That is why I find Daniel Penfield's attitude to be enormously offensive. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with him but he just used policies as hammers, and has changed his position/interpretation several times. While I am not a long term contributor to Misplaced Pages and acknowledge I have made some mistakes in my early editing, it is people like him that make me questions whether I should bother anymore. --Hanvanloon (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)