User talk:SecurityScholar

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, DIIG CSIS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Try to provide an edit summary with each of your edits. You can remove this messge when you no longer need it.

-Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest note

By your user name, it appears that you represent a company or organization. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines as well as our FAQ for businesses. We welcome your contributions here, but please refrain from writing about your own company's services and personnel. Thanks, and happy editing! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

---

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not sure if either of you can see this page, but if so, I'm wondering about changes to my edits on the COTS page. I realize that I made a mistake the first time by citing my own organization as a source in my first edit, but the second time I did not do so, and the source I cited was a non-partisan research group (the DoD's internal think-tank, the Defense Science Board) which is not associated with my organization. I wrote a brief paragraph on the huge relevance of COTS to government procurement. With President Obama's emphasis on contracting reform, this is an important issue and worthy of public consideration--especially on Wikipedia--as it is often the first stop for people trying to make their way through the sea of acronyms that is Washington DC. If I've overlooked something else, I would look forward to your advice on how to improve my usage.

At the same time, I see that a citation of one of our articles (from a bi-partisan research group that provides neutral analysis on policy issues) has been flagged because it may be construed as advertising of a "product." The intent of this piece is to show that that LUH was a successful case of a COTS acquisition. At present, the LUH article notes this, but does not have a source.

I would also appreciate if you could overturn the block you put on the account. I will refrain from making any more edits pending your suggestions but my primary concern is the block on our IP address, which prevents some 250 people from accessing Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm not sure if either of you can see this page, but if so, I'm wondering about changes to my edits on the COTS page. I realize that I made a mistake the first time by citing my own organization as a source in my first edit, but the second time I did not do so, and the source I cited was a non-partisan research group (the DoD's internal think-tank, the Defense Science Board) which is not associated with my organization. I wrote a brief paragraph on the huge relevance of COTS to government procurement. With President Obama's emphasis on contracting reform, this is an important issue and worthy of public consideration--especially on Wikipedia--as it is often the first stop for people trying to make their way through the sea of acronyms that is Washington DC. If I've overlooked something else, I would look forward to your advice on how to improve my usage. At the same time, I see that a citation of one of our articles (from a bi-partisan research group that provides neutral analysis on policy issues) has been flagged because it may be construed as advertising of a "product." The intent of this piece is to show that that LUH was a successful case of a COTS acquisition. At present, the LUH article notes this, but does not have a source. I would also appreciate if you could overturn the block you put on the account. I will refrain from making any more edits pending your suggestions but my primary concern is the block on our IP address, which prevents some 250 people from accessing Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not sure if either of you can see this page, but if so, I'm wondering about changes to my edits on the COTS page. I realize that I made a mistake the first time by citing my own organization as a source in my first edit, but the second time I did not do so, and the source I cited was a non-partisan research group (the DoD's internal think-tank, the Defense Science Board) which is not associated with my organization. I wrote a brief paragraph on the huge relevance of COTS to government procurement. With President Obama's emphasis on contracting reform, this is an important issue and worthy of public consideration--especially on Wikipedia--as it is often the first stop for people trying to make their way through the sea of acronyms that is Washington DC. If I've overlooked something else, I would look forward to your advice on how to improve my usage. At the same time, I see that a citation of one of our articles (from a bi-partisan research group that provides neutral analysis on policy issues) has been flagged because it may be construed as advertising of a "product." The intent of this piece is to show that that LUH was a successful case of a COTS acquisition. At present, the LUH article notes this, but does not have a source. I would also appreciate if you could overturn the block you put on the account. I will refrain from making any more edits pending your suggestions but my primary concern is the block on our IP address, which prevents some 250 people from accessing Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not sure if either of you can see this page, but if so, I'm wondering about changes to my edits on the COTS page. I realize that I made a mistake the first time by citing my own organization as a source in my first edit, but the second time I did not do so, and the source I cited was a non-partisan research group (the DoD's internal think-tank, the Defense Science Board) which is not associated with my organization. I wrote a brief paragraph on the huge relevance of COTS to government procurement. With President Obama's emphasis on contracting reform, this is an important issue and worthy of public consideration--especially on Wikipedia--as it is often the first stop for people trying to make their way through the sea of acronyms that is Washington DC. If I've overlooked something else, I would look forward to your advice on how to improve my usage. At the same time, I see that a citation of one of our articles (from a bi-partisan research group that provides neutral analysis on policy issues) has been flagged because it may be construed as advertising of a "product." The intent of this piece is to show that that LUH was a successful case of a COTS acquisition. At present, the LUH article notes this, but does not have a source. I would also appreciate if you could overturn the block you put on the account. I will refrain from making any more edits pending your suggestions but my primary concern is the block on our IP address, which prevents some 250 people from accessing Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}