User talk:HEDONNetwork

In response to your feedback

The new article wizard should help you get started.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of HEDON Household Energy Network

The article HEDON Household Energy Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organisation, fails the WP:ORG guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:39, 27 February 2013 (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.

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

Requested username:

ChristopherHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I volunteer for the charity, whose page I was trying to add to wikipedia in an informative, factual and non-bias way like numerous other organisations similar to ours. There were multiple wikipedia pages referencing our charity, but there was no indication of the organisation's existence on Wikipedia. I am willing to make constructive edits to other page on here to prove I am not spamming if you unblock my account. I'm very confused by the whole process and am disappointed by how difficult the whole process has been, and I would say I'm extremely experienced with online issues. Please advice on how I can progress further.

Decline reason:

Your responses to the questions below all indicate that you have not read, or have not understood, the three policies linked to. Since it does not appear that you are sufficiently aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding your editing, I am declining this appeal. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Max Semenik (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your uninformed response.

This is not a business, and almost every single charitable NGO exactly like this one appears on Wikipedia without any problems. Practical Action, GVEP International, the list goes on but I don't have time.
I have read and fully understand a conflict of interest, which is why I am writing this page rather than an employee of the organisation. I was unaware that the username I used to sign up needed to be different to the organisation; I must have missed that information what with the sheer number of other pages I had to read before even beggining to submit an article.
I would consider one of the biggest household energy networks pretty notable considering; one of their publications has a readership of 15,000 across the world, they have the only stoves database in the world, and have over 4000 members. I would question whether some of these other articles are 'notable': Pope Lick Monster, Shadow people and the completely impossible Head transplant.

Christopher Hughes (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over complicated editing process. I am fully fluent in HTML and PHP and still find this way of editing primative. Time for a redesign.
Robotic like responses which direct the author to ridiculously long pages of guidelines and un-concise content that would confuse 99.9% of people. Firstly, what the hell am I writing on, a profile? A discussion page? I can't imagine who understands there bank-like processes.
What started as great enthusiasm to add valuable content to one of the worlds best websites has turned into confusion, annoyance, and left me feeling like this online encyclopedia isn't actually driven by the public, but only added to and edited by those who know the system. Deeply disappointed.

Hiho there Christopher,

I have no idea if you are still around or even likely to read this by now, but who knows, maybe you will still see this sometime.

For most part i am afraid to say that the issues you point out are all too familiar - the rather 'interesting' editing syntax, the help pages that are exceptionally long, the templates messages. Most of these issues are actually being worked on - a WYSIWYG editor is being worked on, but due to the sheer amount of capacities it needs that is a fairly slow process. The help pages are a bit of a similar problem - there is a lot of ground to cover in them and as a result quite a few pages manage to be so bulky it is unlikely anyone will do more then skim over them. That is also-being worked on trough pages such as the cheat sheet which try to cover the information one really needs in as few words as possible.

As for the templates and the account issues - it is a result of Wikipedia being to large to manage otherwise. There are about 300 edits a minute (5 a second) on the English Wikipedia alone, and due to the open nature those can be (and often are) anything ranging from decent information to vandalism. Throw in a bunch of SEO agencies promoting customers and a few users adding spam links or malicious content and the result is a situation that is nearly impossible to manage without using pre-written templates. Just imagine - in the 15 minutes it will likely take to write this manual reply there will have been 4.500 edits. Even if only 0.1% of those needed a hand somewhere that would still be 4.5 editors to respond to.

Now finally, the rather cold response you received when you started editing. I won't make up any excuses, this is simply a result of writing about an organization you are fairly closely related to, and having a username that indicated that. Promotional editing by SEO organizations or people writing about themselves or their own just founded band tends to cause a major amount of cleanup-work which is not the most fun or helpful work to do in the first place. There are several thousand instances of that every day, and cleaning those up for a couple of years left quite a few editors with a low tolerance for CoI editing. Is that your fault? No. But unfortunately it is still possible to run into the backlash that causes.

As a final suggestion - assuming your not do disenchanted with Wikipedia already that you moved on - i would personally suggest to put writing a new article on hold while seeking an unblock. Once you know the requirements for an article those are fairly simple, but writing a new article as a first activity is often one of the hardest possible starts (If only for the simple reason that that you are already being bombarded with new information at every step). It is a lot easier to improve existing article's or look around, so i definitely suggest that. You may also be interested in the teahouse, which was set up to help new editors make sense of everything that can go on around them. (ps: What you are writing on is a user talk page, essentially a discussion page for your use as a user. Some actions such as the unblock templates flag a page as needing attention, since it is unlikely people will see it otherwise. If you post a question here, just add {{Help me}} above it. That fags the page as having a question that needs an answer.

Kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Excirial,

Thank you so much for your reply, it's extremely reasuring to know that there is someone like you behind Wikipedia, I'm even starting to feel slightly embarrassed about my rather angry responses previously, apologies. You've explained the situation perfectly, and answered all my grievances. I understand that most experienced Wiki writer would look at my mistakes and simply dismiss them as amateur, but I greatly appreciate the time you spent to reassure me, I do not have a renewed faith in Wikipedia and would like to carry on contributing to other articles as you have suggested. I'm not sure whether you are a volunteer or employee, but if there is a process in place I would recommend you to your senior. It's great to hear that hopefully in the future these problematic editing processes might be ironed out, and I appreciate the links you've given me, I will visit them now.

Kind regards, Chris Hughes 11:53, 01 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of HEDON Household Energy Network

The article HEDON Household Energy Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any independent, reliable sources in any language offering more than a trivial mention.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —swpb^T 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]