Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hanvanloon (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 18 March 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 ASQ use editors to carefully check all articles published - they do not publish 'a crackpot's pet theory' as Penfield alleges, because it would damage their reputation.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) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality management page

Sbowers tagged the page requesting citations. I added several inline references and you deleted them. I am confused, can you please explain what was wrong so I can correct the problem? --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)