Talk:Jeff Koterba

Untitled

Talk:Jeff Koterba

This is my first article. I think I have done a pretty good job. Any advice? How do I get rid of the Wikipedia comment boxes?

husker_guyHusker guy (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I've removed several tags that were added at a much earlier version of the page to reflect it's edits. Specifically, the wikify, uncategorized, copypaste, unreferenced, and cleanup tags.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the article looks pretty good. Any suggestions? husker_guyHusker guy (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've made a few more changes. Mostly it needs grammar and spelling checks as well as paragraph structure fixes. Also, a few parts need to be cited, like his illness.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also removed the notability and under construction tags. I think notability has been met with his own published work and seperate independant published articles.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the cites you noted. husker_guy```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husker guy (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• You might try adding an {{Infobox Person}} template to the page as well.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Inklings

I added an external link to my review of Inklings prepared from an advance copy sent to me by the publisher. It is currently an advance review and will remain so until the book is released, which is currently scheduled for November 3, 2009. After that, it will just be a plain old review! Thanks. Don Schneider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.75.114 (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Well, my link to my review of Mr. Koterba’s upcoming book appears to have violated Article Such and Such, Subsection This or That, of the Wikipedia Constitution. Thus, unfortunately it had to be removed and in record time I might add!

In my benign innocence, I would have thought that a link to perhaps the only extensive review by an independent reviewer of the subject’s yet to be released memoir currently available for reading online would constitute a relevant and unique resource, but apparently another feels otherwise. As to it being posted on my personal website (which, by the way, is entirely free access, contains no ads and offers nothing for sale nor solicits donations), well, that is, after all, where I post my reviews; certainly not on, for example, Roger Ebert’s site. (Nor, I might add, do his movie reviews appear on mine.)

Therefore, I would have thought such might constitute a valid exception to one being admonished by Wikipedia that one “should avoid” linking to one’s own website. After all, it was my website that prompted an executive from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt to inquire if I might review their book.

Since such is apparently not the case, if any care to read my review I am easy to find via search engines. Thanks much. Donald Schneider —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are linking it and you are not considered a reliable source because you are not editted and published by a third party. This is explained in WP:RS which I linked on your user page. Self-published work is allowed only when you are considered an expert (in others opinion, not your own) on the subject and have been published speaking about your subject or when it is a self published article about yourself. This is described in WP:SELFPUB. As I said, you have given other valuable contributions and this is not meant to deter you from contributing in other ways. Please do not see it as an offense.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

--Thank you for your explanation. It is appreciated.

I do not wish to argue or belabor the point, especially as it is virtually moot. Anyone interested in reading my review of Inklings can easily find it from this reference on the Talk Page. More importantly, I realize that it is dedicated individuals such as you who make Wikipedia tenable as an ongoing publication that has served me, for one, as a valuable reference source on too many occasions to enumerate here. So thank you on behalf of all for your vigilance in regard to such matters.

I would only like to add, however, that I would consider being asked by such a major, old and prestigious publishing house as HMH to review one of their unreleased books to constitute a credible third party endorsement of the quality of my reviews as presented on my website. I do not know why you are so actively monitoring this particular Wikipedia page, but assuming you have an interest in the career of Mr. Koterba, I would urge you to read the review when you have a chance. I think you will be surprised at its professional quality, even though I am not a professional reviewer.

Technically, “professional” means that one makes the bulk of one’s income laboring within a profession. In that light, Bobby Jones had not been a professional golfer; merely one of the best ones ever. I certainly don’t compare my writing skills to Jones’ golfing prowess. I simply make the point as notable. Don Schneider

Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, there is no way for us to verify you were recognized as notable by the publisher. Even if you could prove it to me, what if someone comes along next week with the same concerns? Notability must be verifiable by everyone. As for me monitoring it, I am what is called a "new page patroller". We're a group of editors that monitor newly created pages for vandalism, personally attacking pages, hoaxes, ect. When this page was created, I marked it for cleanup and some other tags to improve the article and I've been advising the original author ever since as you can see by my above comments. I do not monitor this article, but it is on my watch page so when it is editted, it lets me know. I have a least a hundred pages on my watch page that I don't neccessarily monitor, they are just pages I am interested in helping improve. Your edit summary hinted to me about your links. Like I said, I appreciate you being up front about the links and I am sorry honesty has caused your links to be removed. But to be frank, it does lend a lot of credibility to your character and definitely helps me assume good faith on your part so I did not think you were here just to spam. A lot of times accounts are created just to spam for people's own interests. Those accounts often get banned for repeating the behavior. I didn't recommend yours for banning because you were upfront, you only did it twice, and you contributed in other ways that were helpful to the encyclopedia. Thanks for being understanding.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)