Jump to content

User talk:Herbkr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Herbkr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Service-ability, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry, but you haven't asked a question. Feel free to ask a question below, and place another {{helpme}} by it. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Service-ability[edit]

The article Service-ability has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neologism

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Service-ability for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Service-ability 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/Service-ability 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. reddogsix (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herbkr, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Herbkr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not sure if this is the way to deal with this matter, the user interface of Wikipedia is not at all intuitive and I am struggling with it, so here goes. In absolutely good faith, I put up this article believing it is relevant and appropriate to do so. As a long time user, I have always looked to Wikipedia as the source of latest thinking and ideas, far superior to any other collective information source, and far more reliable as a source that simply Googling things. I respect the need for academic rigour and for entries to be properly grounded and evidenced. It was my first foray into Wikipedia and it is true that I joined in order to place the article. That seemed to me to be the appropriate way as far as I could see from the instructions for use. Having done that and created the article, I was immediately challenged by reddogsix that it was a neologism. I might take a fine point on this, because it is a simple hyphenation of 'serviceability', a word in absolute common use (maybe my term 'service-Ability' should be a disaggregation? I don't know enough about WP to be able to assess that), however, I accept(ed) that the WP definition of neologism does cover new phrases so, although it is a very fine point in my view, I bowed to that. I then acted on the advice that I should re-edit the article to make it acceptable and so I did that. 'Service-Ability' is a concept but it is also the subject of a book that is currently being published for my by John Wiley and Sons, one of the most respected academic publishers in the world, and so I searched WP and came across John Kay's entry on 'Obliquity' which, in order to distinguish his ideas (which, in view of the astronomical common use of the word, does seem to make it a neologism), I saw that it had been distinguished by inserting the term 'Book' in parenthesis after the main title. Believing that this was the WP cultural way to deal with such matters, I did the same and I also edited the text further to make this clearer (although I made it clear that the idea was encapsulated in a book from the outset, referencing it appropriately). I also removed the deletion reference from the article all in accordance with the advice about what to do that accompanied the objection. I stress, I did this always in good faith and recognising the need for integrity in WP. Reddogsix then lodged another complaint urging deletion on other grounds, including linking my having joined the site in order to place the article in support. Frankly, I am feeling somewhat mugged. For the third time, I AM acting in good faith, truly believing this is an appropriate article for inclusion on WP, and an appropriate subject too, and I am willing to do what is needed to observe appropriate rigour and protocol. I am, at the same time, trying to come up to speed with, and align to, not only the mechanics of the medium, but also the culture, and I would appreciate some advice and assistance as to how to proceed. If the article is to be met with such strong resistance, then, although with sadness, I would acquiesce in its removal. In fact I will take the article down myself immediately if it really is unacceptable. It is not my desire to inflict or force new ideas either on WP or the world at large. I am offering a contribution to the body of knowledge on the subject by means of a book (edited and published by a mainstream publisher) in the normal, time-honoured way. Please advise and help me?

Hi Herbkr. First off, I'm sorry that you've had a difficult time with your first article. Unfortunately, not every topic meets Wikipedia's rather stringent notability requirements - believe me when I say that you are far from the first editor to have undergone this experience! The article Service-ability has been taken to Articles for deletion, where it will be discussed by the community at large before a decision is made (this usually takes at least a week). You are extremely welcome to contribute to the discussion yourself; it can be found here. To make an argument in favour of keeping the page, add the text *'''Keep''' (your reason) to the bottom of the page.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind when making your case. Firstly, the current argument for deletion hinges on the subject failing to meet the inclusion criteria for books. If you can show that it meets any of the requirements on that page, it stands a good chance of being kept. It is also likely to be retained if you can show it passes the general notability guideline; that is to say, it has been discussed in multiple, reliable, independent sources (see this page for a concise explanation of those terms as Wikipedia understands them). Secondly, you will need to show that sources exist that talk directly about the book, but are not produced by the author or publisher - normally, a couple of book reviews (from known publications, not blogs, personal websites, GoodReads or Amazon) will do the trick. Finally, try to keep your argument as concise as possible. There is no need to fill in the background to the creation of the article; just make a case based on Wikipedia policies for keeping it here.
Sorry to provide you with so many links in this response, but I'm afraid a bit of background reading is necessary if you want to make a cogent argument. To recap, the pages you should read are General notability, Notabiility for books, Identifying reliable sources and probably Contributing to AFD discussions. You might also want to consider Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as well.
I hope this is helpful; if you have any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yunshui. I have been to your talk page and cannot figure out how to leave a message for you there. As I said this environment is not intuitive at all and I am finding it difficult to deal with that on top of the issues, being such a new user. Am I to assume that the neologism objection is now droprred?

Here's a direct link to the edit form to leave me a message. To leave a message on any talkpage (including the deletion discussion), just hit the Edit tab at the top of the page, exactly as if you were editing an article. Then scroll to the bottom (or relevant section) and write your message there.
Since the article is now about the book, rather than the term, there's no case to be made for it being a neologism. I would address the concerns about the book's notability in your arguments, rather than trying to demonstrate that it's a widely used term. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just taken a look at the article and had a hunt around to try and find sources - in doing so, I've discovered that the book isn't published until October. We almost never host articles on books before they are published (see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball); exceptions are made for books which have a huge pre-publication buzz (like The Casual Vacancy, for example) but that won't be the case here. I would suggest that the page is temporarily moved to a userpace draft - a subpage of your userpages, rather than an available article - until after it is published; press coverage usually peaks in the few weeks following publication, so sources should become available in October. At that time, the article can be edited to include them, and then moved back into mainspace. Would you be amenable to this solution? If so, I will move it for you and close the deletion discussion.
The caveat is that if no sources are forthcoming, it won't go back into article space (and will probably be deleted eventually even in its draft form). It's up to you; you can fight it out at AfD if you want to, but I should add that I've seen a lot of deletion discussions in my time here, and I can pretty much assure you that this one isn't going to end up going your way. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your message on my talkpage; I'll take that as consent to the above and move the page accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realised you hadn't caught up because of the two means of communicating. Please bear with me - do you move the article to the draft userspace, or do I? If so, how?

I've done it for you; it's now located at User:Herbkr/Service-ability. You can continue to edit it there. Be advised that there is also a process similar to AfD (Miscellany for deletion) which can still be used to tag it for deletion; since my closure of the AfD was somewhat unorthodox, I've agreed not to contest it if someone chooses to go down that path. After the book is published, add any appropriate sources and then either leave me a message or submit it via the "Submit the page!" link in the Userdraft box at the top. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're a star - thank you so much. I shall do what you say.

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! France3470 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Herbkr/Service-ability[edit]

User:Herbkr/Service-ability, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herbkr/Service-ability and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Herbkr/Service-ability during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbkr&oldid=1143045961"