User talk:IStryker

Employee relations

Employee Relations refers simply to the direct relationship between an organization and its employees.

A significant part of the practice of employee relations involves investigating things that happen in the workplace leading to the prevention and resolution of the problems. Areas of interest include productivity, motivation, and morale. This is a subarea of Labour Relations and Industrial Relations

Speedy deletion nomination of Employee relations

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 Employee relations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 or image 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "StrykerEnterprise", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or have the appearance of shared use. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to change my name to iStryker (or Istryker) has been made

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. 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, 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 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. See WP:FAQ/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. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

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.

--Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Employee relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Employee relations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employee relations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Employee relations

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Employee relations. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Industrial relations. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Industrial relations – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Chose a username that was company relate because the username I wanted was too closely related to someone else. Name has been change. I plan on providing expert advice to help this website and not for my own promotion. I quoted someone I know for Employee relations because the article distinguished between Industrial Relations, Labour Relations and Employee relations. CLEARLY I needed to quote an article like this because people like Tijfo098 didn't understand the difference (this if after the fact my reference was deleted). If you need me to expand on my answer then ask. I'm very frustrated as the moderators are quick to delete and block, rather than to give me time to explain myself.

Decline reason:

Although provided the chance to make this unblock request WP:GAB-compliant, the editor has continued to state that others (who know Wikipedia policy and requirements) are wrong, and on some type of vendetta against them. Although guided towards policy, the editor appears to intend to continue in the same vein that led to this block. As blocks are preventative, I believe the current block continues to prevent future issues. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 22 October 2012 (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.

IStryker, rather than act on the unblock request above, I'd like to provide a bit of assistance.

1. The username block was unfortunately necessary: your username matched an organization, and you agreed to not have such a username when you joined this private website.

- I am sorry, it has been changed.

1. You may wish to read WP:EXPERT - your "expertise" does not trump the 5 pillars of Wikipedia: reliable sources are vital, and anyone can edit. You (or your colleagues) are not personally considered reliable sources.

- I have read WP:EXPERT and WP:Third-party_sources. I will not try any self promotion in the future - Regarding 'not personally consider reliable sources'. The source came from someone who wrote 7 books, and 475 articles. Is a SHRP member. http://www.hrpa.ca/officeoftheregistrar/shrp/Pages/default.aspx http://www.hrpa.ca/OfficeOfTheRegistrar/SHRP/Pages/shrpregister.aspx. I realize the reference was to a webpage and you did not know this beforehand.

1. Please read WP:NOTTHEM - your unblock request above will certainly fail as you're blaming others for your actions, and your unfortunate misunderstanding of Wikipedia. You're welcome to amend as per WP:GAB

- Regarding this issue. All I wanted to say the administrator thought the article was poor. Then someone thought the topic should me merged into another term. Meanwhile the article was about the difference between the terms.

Please understand, your contributions to Wikipedia will be appreciated if you contribute as per community norms. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try to contribute as the norm. IStryker (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC) IStryker

There is no need to have a separate article. They all fall within the same field, with only minor differences. As such, there is no need to have a separate article - merely explain the difference inside the main subject (merge) and use a redirect to get to it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly, I am astonished that your username request was accepted. Anything with "Stryker" in it seems too close to the name of your business. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)