User talk:Bhstamm
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, celebrity or other well-known individual, 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 it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use 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. See WP:FAQ/Organization 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, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
- What can I do now?
You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on 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.
--Orange Mike | Talk 04:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Bhstamm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
I did not mean to try to sell my "product" which is a psychological test that is in the literature although I do understand how it unfolds to be that way. The content that I added was from the scientific literature. I struggled with how to improve the science of the entry and after I completed the work, even as I was doing it, I could not figure out how to do it. I always feel awkward citing my own work, even when it is peer-review, because it feels like I am saying "look at me!" Still, my work is out there and it is part of the body of literature. Because of my unwillingness to "sell myself" my work is used but often not cited. For example, there is a whole book based on data from the ProQOL but never cites the ProQOL. It came out several years ago and I did not say anything because that is my nature.
The occasion of me trying to add to the compassion satisfaction entry was because I have been working on a literature review of the field. It is the 20 year anniversary of the initial paper on vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue. Charles Figley, Laurie Anne Pearlman and I have been working on a new article for journal submission. If you look at the entry, I spent time improving and updating their work also. It was because we were working on the paper that I even tried to edit in new information. In the peer-review scientific literature the originators of theories are encouraged to write about them but there is the protection of peer-review. I guess in my mind I was imagining that since Wikipedia could be edited by others that there was an aspect of peer-review process that way. Perhaps it is more appropriate to have someone who did not originate the literature write about it.
To compound my mess. I created a new account when I already had one (7623330). I signed in under the username proqol since this is the name of my email account that I deal with the scientific and psychological program request that I try to support for free outside of my regular job. At the time I was so brainless that I did not even think to check to see if I already had an account--which I did.
All in all I am heart broken and don't know what to do. I support Wikipedia with my whole heart. I have been online since the 1980s and think this effort is one of the things that best exemplifies what we, together, can do in the world and the value of collective effort.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
I would like to be unblocked but honestly probably not ever make any future contributions. The only things that I am knowledgeable about enough to add would cross with the policy of non self-promotion. The best answer that I can give is that is that I would not ever add to Wikipedia again.
It is mortifying to me to be blocked, I try hard to be an honorable person and I feel that I have made a horrible mistake that has left me feeling ashamed and miserable. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my curriculum vita if that will help.
It makes me feel very sad to think that I would be blocked from Widipedia. It is important to me. I plead with you to consider unblocking my account.
ProQOL (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Accept reason:
I'm a little confused - what is this (7623330) account you mentioned? Is this an IP address? There is no User:7623330. Anyway, besides that, here are some important points.
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 three important principles above. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so quickly. As I indicated in my previous post I was very distressed to have made this error.
In response to your first question, The number came from my bhstamm my preferences page. It is listed as the User ID (7623330) under my user name. I did see that you were able to link my accounts anyway. I am pleased that you were able to find the account using the information I sent to you.
I have responded to your other questions below under the cited policy. I have re-read policies and read posts of people with similar concerns and understand more.
- Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
I do understand that. I had no intention of trying to sell my product, even though I see now that it was an unintended consequence. After digesting some of what I have read I would not choose not to put links to websites at all. It seems from what I read sometimes this does happen and other times it does not. In the case of linking to a website that contains my own research, it clearly was inappropriate. I In reality, my website is a collection of public domain materials that I maintain as a volunteer effort. I try to provide information that can help people. For example, I posted this week a bibliography of over 1000 articles on the broad topic. Still, I do understand that this is not appropriate.
* Do you understand conflict of interest?
Yes. I do. I believed that I was following the guidance of being particularly cautious to be evenhanded and not include any information that could not be cited. I considered carefully each of the references I made and very carefully included other important authors and programs in the field.
* Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be considered to be notable?
I do understand that this is an encyclopedia article. I also believed that adding to an entry that was already present, and had been for some time, gave some indication that it was notable. Perhaps I misunderstood the concept.
At this point I can make a sincere promise never to post anything to Wikipedia again. As I noted in my original message I am not sufficiently expert to add anything that is not in my field of research. I have also learned that since my research is linked closely with others in my field I should not add to any entry that is broadly in my field. This is something I did not understand. I did not understand one is prohibited from adding content if they were directly linked to the content in any way (this is in addition to the website error). I also did not understand that one should refrain including scientific references if they were from someone with whom a person had worked. I also did not understand that I should never add any information to an entry that includes any colleague with whom, or content with which, I have worked. Taking all of that into account I have nothing to offer. This incident has sufficiently shamed me that I will never forget this point.
I do not know how to provide you with anything other than my promise. Clearly that is in question now because of my error. I hope that my sincerity conveys at least in part, my promise to you. I would like to ask again to be removed from the blocked list. I am happy for you to remove my accounts and I will never create another one. I am having a hard time bearing the shame of being on a blocked list forever for what having inadvertently violated policies. I know inadvertently violating them is no excuse for doing it but I do beg leniency based on my contriteness and my promises to not edit any entry at Wikipedia every again and ask that my name not be included in the list of people blocked in perpetuity.
Your unblock
[edit]I'm quite satisfied with your promises. However, before unblocking you, I (or other administrators) would have to await the go-ahead of the administrator who blocked you. I'm leaving a note on his talk page. But irrespective of your unblock coming through, you would have to change your username in order for any future issue to be avoided. Kindly do give a quick look to our Username policy to understand why promotional names, per se, are not allowed. Don't worry - I think OrangeMike would consider your case logically. Once (and if) you're unblocked, drop into my talk page for any assistance. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't beat up on yourself, really. I've got no problem with an unblock here. I do hope that once you're renamed you will in fact edit here in areas where COI is not a problem. The humblest of tasks, my religion teaches, are the most honorable as well. Simple cleanup of grammar, tone, formatting, etc. is a sadly under-rewarded task, but nonetheless most satisfying to the spirit. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked temporarily
[edit]- I have unblocked you for some time to allow you to request a change in user name at Wikipedia:Changing username. Please follow the instructions noted on that page. Kindly note that the relevant links to finally request a change in the username come somewhere at the bottom of the page that I have mentioned. In case you need any assistance, contact me on my talk page. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you absolutely sure you want to go through with this?
[edit]Are you absolutely sure you want to change your username? You are only temporarily unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcsprinter123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand this question. It is my understanding that I am being asked to change my username and that I am complying freely.
Status
[edit]You were unblocked 12 days ago to change your user name to bhstamm. This has not happened. Your request to change to V`483*0g21 cannot be done. Please respond to your username change request ASAP, otherwise we will have to re-apply the block. I will also send this by e-mail. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note, and sorting out your user name. I see you have not had a welcome template - there are lots of links to the various policies which will hopefully assist you in your future edits - I will add one below this note.
Welcome
[edit]
|
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Thank you for granting my usurpation request from progol to Bhstamm. I also very much appreciated seeing the Welcome message. I wanted to ask if there was anything else I needed to do to complete this process. I do not plan to be on Wikipedia again but my assumption made Dec 12 of having meet the requirements for bringing to conclusion the error I made as, as you know, incorrect. I do not want to repeat any of my previous errors. Do I need to monitor my account any more? Thank you again for your long suffering assistance. Bhstamm (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your all good for now and free to edit :) -- DQ (t) (e) 22:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)