User talk:Kenstandfield

Welcome[edit]

Hi, your edits look good, but they are much more valuable if you can cite a reliable reference that backs them up. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks, and here is the standard welcome that includes a lot of useful links for learning your way around.

Welcome!

Hello, Kenstandfield, 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:Questions, 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! - Taxman ^Talk 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity[edit]

Perhaps you should have a read of WP:VANITY... /wangi 23:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel overhead[edit]

Travel overhead has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this is more a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the relevant policy. If you can expand the article to address these concerns, please do so, or explain your plans on the talk page.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible Standards-related articles[edit]

Hi Ken,

First off, thank you for your calm and friendly responses on both my talk page and the articles for deletion entry. I can't tell you how many times I get flamed myself for AfD'ing articles or otherwise removing editors' insertions. Let me try to explain the reasoning that these topics have been listed for deletion. When appropriate, I will link to Wikipedia policy or guidelines, so look for the blue links in the text below.

Regarding the Intangible Standards-related articles, the crux of the issue is that they are so new; the standards, terms, and other information you present don't appear to have caught on widely yet. For an article to remain here at Wikipedia, it has to be a topic that is considered notable. Topics that haven't yet "caught on widely" are considered neologisms and/or original research.

Articles that don't appear to meet these standard are nominated for deletion as you've seen in the AfD discussion. Each article is usually examined individually to determine whether or not it's notable. For instance, though the International intangible standards article has the consensus that it isn't sufficiently notable, the article on yourself Ken Standfield has thus far remained. This is due to the fact that you the author appear to have much more overall notability than the individual topics you're connected to.

Personally, I understand that you are attempting to "spread the word" about information that you feel is truly helpful. I hope you don't take personally the fact that these articles are being listed for deletion, and especially some of the comments that have been made at the AfD; we deal with a lot of cruft, spam, and other nonsense on a daily basis, and until the editor speaks up like you did, it's difficult to determine his/her motives in adding the material. I suppose we all should have leaned a bit more towards assuming good faith on your part.

Now that you have spoken up, hopefully future comments will take into account the fact that there is a human behind your keyboard, and not a self-promoting "robot". I encourage you to continue to use talk pages of both the articles you work on and the editors you interact with, so that any future misunderstandings about motive can be avoided.

Lastly, just because these articles are being listed for deletion doesn't mean that the topic can never exist here. If down the road your ideas gain more traction, the article can be "resurrected" through a deletion review.

I hope the above has helped to answer your questions. If you have more, or just need some general help "getting around", don't hesitate to leave another message on my talk page. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff[edit]

You didn't offend anyone. You don't need to send yourself to bed without supper. AfD comments tend to be curt and dismissive in tone. If anything, the offense goes the other way.

You ask:

Intangible standards are a new idea and I had hoped that Wikipedia could provide a way in which to create discussion and advancement on the topic. How this advancement occurs is uncontrollable by any specific person or organization - it is more about sharing and interaction. Was this a fair position for me to assume?

I'm afraid the answer to this is "no." The boilerplate reply is WP:NOR, or no original research, which you should read. As with everything in Wikipedia there is a wide range of opinion, but for the most part most of us are in pretty strong agreement with the verifiability policy and the no original research policy, as shown by the fact that these pages are called "official policy" and not "guidelines."

Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be traceable to a published source that meets the reliable source standards.

Now, in fact, by publishing books on the topic, you have created a borderline situation, since what you say in the article can be referenced to a print source. The usual situation occurs when someone self-publishes a book and then uses that as a basis for an article. Your books have been published by the likes of Academic Press and Elsevier, certainly not vanity presses. Still... when person A creates an article on a topic that's only referenced by a book by person A, that isn't going to fly.

I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia. I see two suggestions. First is to see what you can do about editing or creating articles that are in your field of expertise but do not relate closely to your own work.

The second... if your goal is to get something about your intangible accounting concepts into Wikipedia... I can't guarantee success, but here's the approach I'd recommend.

Write a single article, not multiple articles.
As an exercise, see if you can tell the story in a series of quotations from people other than Ken Standfield.
Then write the article, trying to give an explicit, inline reference that ties every major point to a source other than yourself. (Well, you can include some references to your own books, just don't let them be the predominant or only sources).
If you are going to use an ambiguous term like "intangible accounting," lead off by making it clear what a traditional accounting textbook might say about intangibles, link to any article we have that discusses that, and draw a clear distinction.

It is very important that you name and refer to mainstream accountants or economists that have written about your work, even if they wrote about it to criticize it. Why? Because we have many articles on disputed topics, and our approach is to outline the dispute, not take sides. The most important thing you need to do is to show that your concepts of intangible accounting already have some reasonable degree of importance; if, say, the Wall Street Journal article said "Standfield's book is bunk because," etc. etc. that would help the article.

Your task at the moment is not to show that your concepts are right, but that the accounting and economics mainstream is aware of their existence.

Perhaps you write an article about a larger topic, in which your intangible accounting could be a subtopic. An old high school classmate of mine is connected, for example, with an organization called Social Accountability International, which promulgates an ISO-9000-like standard called SA8000 for auditing whether corporations are dealing properly with human rights for their employees. And of course the "social investing" funds like Domini, Calvert, Pax World Fund... I'm not sure what we have already, but if there is a more general phenomenon of which social investing, SA8000, and intangible accounting are all instances, you could write an article on the general phenomenon. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa[edit]

Hi Ken, I need to apolopgize to you for the comment I made at the AfD for I.I.S.. That remark went against a fundamental point of courtesy here on WP called Don't bite the newcomer. While my intent was only to be humorous it was quite inappropriate and I hope I haven't caused you any stress. I think that both the tone and content of your own remarks on that page speak quite well for you, and I can see that you would be a very valuable contributor to these pages. I hope that your recent experience, including my own thoughtless remark, haven't soured you on WP.

I was going to offer you some advice and point out helpful guidelines, but AbsolutDan and Dpbsmith covered it all quite well, so let me try to do something else by way of penance for biting you. If you would like help with writing an article or anything else, please ask me. For example, if you would like to provide me with extra material for your bio I'd be happy to work on it for you. It tends to help your credibilty a bit if others editors contribute to something like that. The same goes for "International Intangible Standards"; when you feel it might be time to re-introduce the article I'd be happy to help you with it.

In closing I'd like to apologize again for biting and emphasize how much I regret it. I do hope you'll continue to contribute to WP and that your future experiences here will be positive. If I can do anything at all to help you, please just drop a note on my Talkpage. --Doc Tropics 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a cookie on me :)[edit]

Please accept this cookie to make up for missing dinner

Since I'm one of those who sent you to bed without dinner I thought I should at least offer you a wiki-cookie for desert. You've been a good sport Ken. --Doc Tropics 16:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goes double for me. :) Danny Lilithborne 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much[edit]

I cannot thank you all enough for your encouragement and thoughtful responses. I have been genuinely touched by your kindness and please accept my greatest appreciation and thankfulness for your insights on how to do the right thing here, I will certainly do so. You have all restored my faith not just in WP but in people in general which I very much thank you again for doing so. I have bookmarked this page and will frequently revisit the many pearls of wisdom you spent so much time to share with me here. Thank you so much. The cookies were great :) Kenstandfield

Dear editors[edit]

I have made some posts to various articles where I have experience and expertise. I have followed your guidelines to the letter and done everything within my power to completely remove all personal and other references. Thank you again for your insights, it has given me much more confidence to contribute to WP in a constructive and appropriate manner. Thanks again, Ken.

Ken, I'm glad that you didn't get discouraged. I'm still a newcomer here and WP can be quite confusing at first. I think it's great that you weren't afraid to 'get back on the horse that threw you', and I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions here. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc many thanks for the bluelink! All the best, Ken

Hi Ken, I just checked your contributions to Tertiary sector of industry and was quite impressed! You do good work and I'm really glad you've stayed as a contributor to WP. Thanks :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc, many thanks for your feedback :) All the best Ken --Kenstandfield 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]