Keesbleijerveld

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article European Air Group, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User page

Although you are welcome to develop new pages in you own user space it is not normally done on your main page, typically users create a sandbox like User:Keesbleijerveld/sandbox to work in. It is likely that your user page could be deleted if it seen as page that it not being developed. Please read our guidelines at Wikipedia:User pages. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

European Air Group

We appreciate your efforts at trying to improve the European Air Group article but replacing the current text with your own version is not how Wikipedia works. As you have declared [1] that you are working for the organisation you have an obvious conflict of interest with the subject. Editors with a confict of interest are discouraged from editing pages concerning those interests but I appreciate that you would like to improve the article. Can I ask that you discuss the changes that you want to make on the article talk page and gain the consensus from other editors to the changes. If you have any questions then please ask either here or on the EAG article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:European Air group

I understand your concerns about conflict of interest, but i do not agree. EAG is a non profit organisation and also a non fund raising organisation. It is an multinational intergovernmental military organisation. So to explain the history of this organisation and how it works, I think, only someone who works for this organisation can do it as there will be nobody else familiar with this knowledge. Our simple aim by putting this information on wikipedia is to let the world know that we are here and why we are here (after all: it is their money that is spent in this organistaion).Of course, before editting I will try to get in touch with the editor of the original article to discuss my alterations or better replacement.Keesbleijerveld (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Promotion is promotion; we are not here to facilitate your public relations efforts. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Keesbleijerveld

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Keesbleijerveld requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. John of Reading (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I put an article that I wish to publish on wikipedia on my userpage. Volunteers from wikipedia told me that I could use my userpage as I wished. I understood from them that the use of a userpage is not bound to a specific format. That is why i put this article on my userpage; later I understood that putting it in a so called sanbox would have been a better idea. I did not know that a userpage was also visible to others; I understood the word:' userpage' according to its proper meaning: this page is for the user only. Now the reason for your block: the text seemed to be copied from the website form EAG, being: www.euroairgroup.org. This statement is totally correct. Large parts of my not yet published article are also part of the website. This is because we (being the European Air Group) want to make our non-profit organsation known to a wider public. Not only to people who visit us on a website, but also to the wikipedia public. You must understand: I am also the publisher of the European Air Group website. Some parts of my article are not part of the website. sS the two articles are not completely the same. Our website contains much more up to date information and is meant to be our main means of communication. But we want to use all means, that's why. I am autorized publisher for the EAG; the deputy Director of EAG, Brigadier General Laurent, personnally tasked me to develop a wikipedia article on the EAG. Because the excisting article which is now visible on wikipedia is totally not up-to-date and it's contents is wrong and an affront to our organisation. I put this also on the discuss-page of the existing article but no reactions from the original publisher, who is not known within the organisation. I think this is the world upside down: leave the article that is wrong and totally outdated and uncomprehensive in place and block my verified and completely up to date article from being published. I want to do everything that is needed to publish my article. Please ttell me what to do to get it published. It seems to me that everything is done to stop me from publishing it. My meanings are integer and honest.Keesbleijerveld (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The unblock rationale shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place for companies/organizations and their representatives to place information/materials about themselves as a "means of communication"... it is an encyclopedia. The statements "we... want to make our non-profit organsation known to a wider public" and "I want to do everything that is needed to publish my article" indicate that unblocking this account would result in further attempts at using Wikipedia for advertising and further introduction of copyright issues. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Kees, the general ordered you to do something you cannot do: edit this article in violation of our rules on conflict of interest. That's not your fault; officers do that sort of thing all the time. But it doesn't excuse you from following our rules here in the real world.. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Orange Mike, Still no answer on: why is it possible that an incorrect article on the same subject can exist without problems since 2007 or so? I think this not really the intention of wikipedia either. The writer of this article has obviously no clue, beacuse he does not work here and so does not know anything of the organisation; besides that he does not react on the discussion forum. One reaction on your remark: Promotion is promotion: what I intend to do is the same as someone from a country or city who writes an article on this country or city. Or someone who practices a hobby or sport and writes an article on that subject. If I publish bullshit in my proposed article, people who know better will correct me, I hope?Keesbleijerveld (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• If someone from outside an organization would be presumed to know nothing about it, then perhaps the organization is not a notable topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Content must be sourceable to reliable, third party sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The way to do this would have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article, fully disclosing your own conflict of interest and offering links or citations to reliable external sources with more current and correct information about the topic. As Kinu says, if no such citations exist, then perhaps the subject is not notable. We need impartial sources, not the unit's own perception of itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)