User talk:Steve@apgi.com

It is felt that the article you created at Steve Chappell is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, which must have a notable subject and be verifiable. I have moved it to User:, which is where users are free to write about themselves. You are at liberty to move it back into the (Main) namespace but bear in mind that if you do so, it is likely to be nominated for deletion.

Note, however, that the purpose of a user page is to enable active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Content unrelated to Wikipedia or its editing is likely to be removed.

Please see the user page guidelines, especially this section for more information. --W.marsh 02:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply
It seems autobiographical and self-promotional. That's not the point of Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. --W.marsh 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional
Agreed, don't they all? I searched WP for those that are in my circle, and some entries are called "stubs". Since there are several other additions to be added to the wiki, including key new terms used in books from this person's entry, what is the best approach? Again, the guidelines were followed, but if the autobiographical component is too strong, we will be happy to edit it out and stick with key points. Would the "stub" be a better approach? - Steve
 * The best approach is simply not to write articles about yourself on Wikipedia. If there's interest, the article will be written independently. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promoting this and that. That said, if you recreate the article as a properly formatted stub, asserting notability more clearly and with references, it will stand a better chance. --W.marsh 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, we will try to edit as fit. Again, when searched by people in same circle, and who we know, the content is very much the same. We searched 25 people who fit the same criteria and again, who we also know, and the MO is the same. Every idea in the Wiki is a promotion. It is promotion of the idea, the concept, the person. If the guideline is met, it has place in wikipedia.-Steve's staff at APG.


 * Well, you can recreate the article as long as it's substantially changed from the deleted version (this is true of most deleted articles). I would suggest you cite where he's been mentioned by the Wall Street Journal, etc. But like I've said... the idea of someone's assistants writing an article about him is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. --W.marsh 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

- Again, this was a compilation of some thirty sources we polled, including some who are listed in Wikipedia. It was easier for us to do it since we knew the experts who know Steve the best. This is a little more editorial than we had thought. It seems a little anti-wiki from that standpoint. - MK


 * All I can say is to see Autobiography... this comes up quite a bit, really. --W.marsh 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

- Hi again, I have six people here searching WP for people we know in the same circle as Steve. They come up with very much the same demonstratable profile for the others as we have for Steve. So, we are a little confused by the editorial here. We are trying to get this up so other parties can edit and add as fit. I did read your comments, but again, they don't seem to be in line with other notables on Wikipedia. - MK
 * The existance of other articles on Wikipedia doesn't really mean much... they might just be ones no one has gotten to yet. The standards of verifiability and self-promotion still apply to each article individually. Just to clarify, I am an administrator but I don't have final editorial say exactly. --W.marsh 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

- Thanks for your help W.marsh. We will resubmit and let others edit. As far as the others we searched, they have been on Wikipedia for sometime as I believe no one has questioned the notability of the profile they hold or are known as by the circles they hold or the public in general. We have found "this" experience at Wikipedia though somewhat elitist and not very friendly. I work with editors all over the world and have never found such a downed experience for such a simple task. -MK

Response/request for clarification, if you feel like it
Moving this from W. Marsh's talk page...

I'm a little confused as to what you meant by this: ''As far as the above user Hbackman comments, I read your user page and it seems to me you are exactly the reason Wikipedia is a little out of control. The user content seems to show that some feel they have a certain power over all, and never for the common good.''

I try to work with the community for the good of the community and the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a cooperative site, and I recognize that I am no better than any other editor around here. I especially recognize that I am not God, here or elsewhere. I was wondering what on my user page led you to feel this way about me.

I don't mean this confrontationally; I'm honestly just confused, and if my user page makes me come off in a way that makes me sound different than I am, I'd like to know what I might consider changing.

Thanks.

Hbackman 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * the "attitude" expressed in your reply on the W.marsh's page was very elitist. I deal with junior editors all the time, and this is a sign of immaturity for the responsibility. In my 30 years of editing very powerful and egotistical writers, a boss of mine once said it best; " less is more". Your immaturity for the task was shown in your response. I'm sorry, but that is my opinion and you asked for it. Take from it as you please, but hopefully you will improve from it. Oh, and on your personal page, my observation is that there is no singular line of logic. This comes off pretty bad when you state your "experience" in your comment. Good luck, -MK


 * I suppose that thinking that we can't absolutely have an article on just anything or anyone could be viewed as elitist. But that's not just my attitude; it's the way Wikipedia works. See WP:NOT, WP:BAND, WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB...
 * I'm confused about your reference to "less is more." Are you referring to the fact that I wrote a lot in trying to explain how Wikipedia works? Typically I find that new users need more explanation and examples rather than less in order to fully understand what's happening.
 * User pages are frequently pretty miscellaneous. I don't see how the lack of a "singular line of logic" on my page relates to my Wikipedia experience. If you look at my edit count here, you'll see that I've been around since last October and have made over 2500 edits. That's usually enough to get someone an adminship. I would probably be viewed by much of the community as an experienced user.
 * Thanks for being honest. I can't say that I fully understand where your criticism is coming from right now, but I always appreciate feedback.
 * Hbackman 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)