User talk:Hvgard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Hvgard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Making Work Systems Better.pdf[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Making Work Systems Better.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Levels.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading Image:Levels.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 02:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Confluence Sensemaking Framework (June 25)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
Hello! Hvgard, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

You need to read WP:BRD together with WP:RS. If you want to connect a partial understanding of a single reference to a software product to draw a conclusion about the efficacy of a sense making framework then you need a source that makes that connection. WP:WEIGHT also applies as cheery picking one source when there are many others breaks policies, The self-evident fact that you are doing this for your own commercial purposes also breaks WP:COI.

Whatever your edit has been reverted so you now have to gain support of other editors to make that change, and in accordance with policy. If you revert without that its edit warring and can be subject to sanction. ----Snowded TALK 19:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, Hvgard. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Cynefn, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.

So you can read the policy. Suggest you reflect, otherwise I'm posting the issue to the relevant notice board for action ----Snowded TALK 20:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Its really funny that you who claims to have invented Cynefin accuses me of a conflict of interest. It is you who as that conflict and should have never reverted my addition. --Hvgard (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, read the policy and safe us all a lot of time going through the process ----Snowded TALK 20:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is this "all"? Thus far it seems it is just you. So if you would refrain from reverting edits that are not favourable to your commercial interest and leave it to the other to come to a balance view of the worth of Cynefin/Sensemaking it would all be so much more productive. So please restrain yourself a bit and let this clear up by itself. --Hvgard (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Only warning[edit]

As an established user, you should know that neither hoaxing nor original research is appropriate. When you made this edit, you were well aware that the statement "In 2014 doubts were raised regarding the solidity of the approach when the IRC" was not supported by, and you were also well aware that nothing addressing the concept of "Cynefin" was said in the other source: either that, like the first citation, is a hoax, or it requires original research. Neither will be tolerated: I have protected the page to prevent such editing, and if you persist after protection expires, you will be blocked as a means of enforcing our policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are serious about this I suggest to also prevent persons who have great commercial interest in protecting the contents of a page to be all over it in such a way that novel input gets no chance to be honed over time.Hvgard (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Harold - I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. I just finished discussing COI issues with Snowded, who has agreed not to directly edit the Cynefin article going forward due to his COI. He has said that you might have some conflict of interest with regard to that concept. I noticed that you added content to your User page recently (dif. Not being an expert in your field, I cannot parse if any of that adds up to a COI for Cynefin or to an realworld (RW) dispute with David Snowden. Can you please let me know if you have any RW disputes, commitments, or relationships that read on your editing here? thanks Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, THANKS for stepping in. I was hoping this would happen one day. Happy to learn that Snowded from now on won't edit the Cynefin page directly. This will greatly help to get a more balanced version of it over the next months.
On my COI. That is a good question. Like thousands on this globe I use the Cynefin model and my company uses it too. As you can see we use a selection of models. I think its natural that a diversity of practitioners write and improve pages like the Cynefin page so that a balanced view of its history, applicability-domain, related concepts, criticisms (or maybe just 'limits of usefulness'), etc. can emerge. It seems to me that Snowded has difficulty understanding that and seems to call any edit either vandalism or accuses someone of a COI.
On a RW dispute. If you would ask Snowded he will say I have. If you ask me, no I don't. Snowded has - as said above - the habit of assuming that when someone is not 100% on his side he/she is 100% against him. So I'm far from being the only one. Let me put it this way: if anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Snowded cannot edit the Cynefin page because of a RW conflict there might be too few people left to improve the page :-) On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there will be some 100% supporters that will step in now .......
So again, HAPPY to see this step and PLEASE watch me too :-) I'm not THAT experienced in this Wikipedia ecology, but when things get some time to mature, when others are allowed to build on each others work, nice things can happen.Hvgard (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I just walked through your contributions and as far as I can see all of them are related to the work that Story Connect does. On your Userpage, you don't name Story Connect nor say what it does, nor clearly name the articles where you have a COI. Would you please add something like. "I am a founder and principal of Story Connect, a company that provides contract research and consulting services that help our customers better understand their organizations, markets, and customers. I have a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia articles, since these are concepts and tools that Story Connect uses in as it provides its services or are otherwise related to its business: A, B, C." and please list them out. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, hope you like my additions to my user page and COI description.Hvgard (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks that is great. OK, now, hard part perhaps. Will you please agree to not directly edit the articles where you have a COI, but instead offer suggestions on the Talk page only? I note that you have been drafting articles about your work. Generally it is OK to do that (see this recent discussion) but a) please put them through the AfC process and do not directly create the article; and b) once it goes live, you need to stop directly editing the article. Are you OK with all that? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please reply. Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you mean the PNI and CSF drafts. Both are not my work. Like I created the Cynefin page in 2006 I'm now gradually creating these pages while references are appearing or in the making. Ofcourse, these will be published using the formal procedures.

Hvgard (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing warning[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing— messaging people outside of Wikipedia or leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Do not try to rally people to the Cynefin article using twitter or other means external to Wikipedia - see WP:STEALTH. Do not leave messages on the Talk pages of other editors - chosen selectively - about matters related to content disputes. Please read the entire Canvassing guideline linked-to above, and follow it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with the stuff you wrote about tweeting on my Talk page. please read my response there and reply there. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Do NOT discuss other editors[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Cynefin that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to carry out your dispute with Dave. Do not write things like "OK, so now its up to Snowded to prove he choose the name" as you did here. If you continue personalizing this I will seek to have you topic-banned. Concentrate on the mission of WP - to create a reliable, neutral source of information for the public, not on your financial or academic interests, not on your dispute with David.

You can restore your comment if you want, without the reference to Dave. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Userpage issue[edit]

This is about your Userpage: User:Hvgard. It is not OK how it stands. Please read WP:FAKEARTICLE. That is policy. Please read that whole policy. Please read the part WP:UPYES for what is OK to have on your userpage. All I was looking for was a brief disclosure of your COI - this part: User:Hvgard#Business. Please fix your userpage, or i will have to nominate it for deletion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed lots of article like stuff. Only minor personal, essential business and COI info now. OK this way? Hvgard (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not refer to yourself in the third person on your own userpage. Jytdog (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Still learning. OK now? Hvgard (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

fine thanks Jytdog (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

The next comment you make on the Talk page referring to Dave directly or indirectly, or his company, I will bring this matter to ANI and I am fairly confident that the result will be, that you will be topic banned. I have warned you several times. Your comments are directed time and again to protecting your interests and to pursuing your real world dispute with him. Both are an abuse of your editing privileges. This is the last warning. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the WP policy on this? If someone spends the majority of his or her time with a company and holds a parttime, visiting or honorary (so no full) position at a university/institution; and that person has a COI on a page, (a RW/commercial COI), what is then the best option: mention/stress the company role or mention the (minor) academic role. Please note this answer will apply to anyone and I'm asking because I don't know and can't find the answer in WP documents. So this is a {{helpme}}. Thanks.Hvgard (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policies would be WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is a large place, I'm sure you'll be able to find topics that interest you but are unrelated to that dispute of yours. The answer regarding your question on article scope is that we should stress whatever reliable sources that are independent of the subject stress. Huon (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
not to mention WP:BLPCOI, which due to your realworld disputes with Dave is what led me to give you the discretionary sanctions notice. Hvgard please note that unlike me, Huon is an admin and can implement discretionary sanctions at will, now that you have been warned of them. Please note that WP:BLP applies everywhere in WP in articles and on all Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gents, I've read all three and still found no answer to the question.Hvgard (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a fact that you have realworld disputes with Dave. WP:BLPCOI says: "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all."
that is the essence of what I have been telling you all along. you have been plenty warned. At this stage, it doesn't matter if you are not competent to understand the warning, or if you choose to ignore it because you don't care. It doesn't matter - if you violate it, you will have action taken against you. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that I understand already. I meant that I still don't know what is the policy on balancing/mentioning professional and academic status here. Some academic statuses involve just a few days of work a year.Hvgard (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you have a financial COI, you have one. It doesn't matter if that that work is 10% of your effort or 99%. You have a financial COI, period. Our main concerns with academics are a) WP:SELFCITE (people using Wikipedia to promote their ideas); and b) people using Wikipedia to carry out academic feuds - which really comes down to WP:BLPCOI. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the concerns. May I take the liberty to suggest a 3rd concern? c) business people with a small role in the academic world that gain financially in their business from stressing there academic credentials (f.e. on wikipedia). It seems to be a widespread problem these these days now that most universities require business activities and lots of companies see the benefit of having an academic flag waiver' on board.Hvgard (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
please concentrate on your own COI and managing your own behavior. it can be difficult to face but don't let yourself be distracted by pointing to other people's issues. This discussion is about your issues. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I should have started a new para instead of continuing this one. Thanks. Hvgard (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
no, i meant what i wrote. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That was already clear. It's not difficult. Issues have been cleared. All said and done.Hvgard (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Howdy, I recommend that you read up on WP:INDENT, concerning your posts :) GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Done :-)

Notice of discretionary sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions - note[edit]

It just occurred to me that there are discretionary sanctions available for biographies of living people, which includes comments about other living people on article Talk pages. I don't have to go to ANI to have action taken against you, should you continue your feud in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Hvgard, my understanding is that you have a COI in relation to Cynefin and Snowded. You should therefore not be editing articles in that area, and that includes the stub you created. If the situation continues, someone is likely to ask that you be topic-banned. SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV. I have no COI with the cultural notion of Cynefin, but with the Knowledge Management / Decision making support tool "Cynefin Framework" only. I haven't edited the latter since declaring that COI and I never edited - nor will edit - the Snowden page. I'm most interested in the German (almost Dutch) notion of Heimat and its relation to Cynefin. That is where I put my (minimal) efforts until that page is improved by experts, which seems to get started now. So I will take care and I would definitely agree when I started editing the [[framework] page, but I see no problem here so far.Hvgard (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You have a COI in relation to Snowded, and you should understand that as "broadly construed". The stub creation and talk-page posts look like baiting. SarahSV (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I noticed the COI declaration was wrong due to the earlier "alias" between Cynefin and Cynefin Framework. It now states Cynefin Framework correctly. It seems activity on Cynefin is picking up autonomously now. So I can lower my activity. Meanwhile .... it seems to me Snowded uses half the opportunity to accuse me once more on the Cynefin talk page of an "intermittent campaign" while acknowledging that HE has COI in the Cynefin notion AND do business acquisition at the same time. See #sigh. I rest my case.Hvgard (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)