User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

would like to get a copy of this page when you get a chance

15:08, 26 May 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Focus group video streaming" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11))

Thanks Carol McNerney Carolmc68 (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've placed the deleted content in a "sandbox" page for you at User:Carolmc68/Sandbox; my opinion that it is advertising hasn't changed, so I wouldn't recommend reposting it without considerable alteration. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Encylopedic not spam, advertising etc, Since you deleted my posting , then delete all postings that are about businesses such as IBM

IBM is known the world over, but how did they become known? By advertising, through exposure to the market, Now while you are at it delete Starbucks, Apple computer, Dell and the rest of the companies that are mentioned. Poor policy to remove companies, without giving a correction to assist them to modify their articles. Ass, ole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.121.15 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Since I haven't the faintest idea what article you're talking about, I cannot be of any assistance. If you want to change a Wikipedia policy, feel free to voluntarily work with the Wikipedia community to do so; it's unlikely that calling administrators names will be of use to you in that process. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

11/13/2009 Hi! We've revised the content for the Dr. Bob Deutsch page so it's more encyclopedic. Below is the copy we'd like to post there. Is it acceptable?

Dr. ROBERT (BOB) DEUTSCH Dr. ROBERT (BOB) DEUTSCH is a consultant, author, founder and president of Brain Sells (http://www.Brain-Sells.com), a strategic communications advisory practice that works with leading companies to reinvent how they assess the mind and mood of various publics and, in turn, design effective communications addressed to those audiences. (1991-present) Dr. Deutsch is a cognitive anthropologist, advising on how people “make meaning,” create beliefs and form attachments to ideas and products. Dr. Deutsch’s academic training and experience combines cultural anthropology, cognitive science and ethology. Dr. Deutsch received a doctorate in cognitive neuroscience from the Albert Einstein School of Medicine (1968-1973). During his graduate education, he taught courses on the evolution of communication at the City University of New York. Upon receiving his doctoral degree, Dr. Deutsch was awarded a Harry Frank Guggenheim Fellowship and a National Institute of Mental Health Post-Doctoral fellowship (1974). Concurrently, Rockefeller University supported his field research with non-human primates. Dr. Deutsch then took a position at the Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers University Medical School, where he was on staff of a joint degree program for medical residents in psychiatry and anthropology. (1975-1976) As a logical extension of his research on the natural forms of face-to-face behavior and their relationship to persuasion, conflict resolution, and impression management in larger groups, Dr. Deutsch was invited by Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz to conduct cross-cultural inquiries under the auspices of the Max Planck Society of the Federal Republic of Germany. During his years with the Society, Dr. Deutsch traveled to various preliterate societies, and to Third World and industrialized nations, to study how leading ideas emerge in a culture. (1976-1980) Dr. Deutsch then served in the U.S. State Department, advising on behavioral and psychological factors related to persuasion in face-to-face and mass communication. In that capacity, he traveled throughout the world advising on “what sells" in public diplomacy and international negotiations. (1980-1991)

Here is the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Bob_Deutsch&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positono8 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at length on your talk page, found at User talk:Positono8. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My page Alien Theorys Proven was just a joke to scare one are friends into thinking me and my family are aliens so id like it if you could keep it up for a week or untill monday or send it to my email Micromouse64@gmail.com that would be really nice of you please and thank you. 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Dudemister67 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Dudemister67

(a) No, we won't be keeping your joke page in place. (b) No, frankly, you've caused enough trouble already for enough adults; if you really want that nonsense, you can either retrieve it yourself or recreate it elsewhere. I don't have time to be your personal e-mail service. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

TY

Thank You for [1]. And for the response to Dr. Bob above. I always enjoy that one clear voice from the back of the room!--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Multi-diagnostic Mental Health Screen for Primary Care Physicians

I am writing about the Multi-diagnostic Mental Health Screen for Primary Care Physicians page which was just deleted.

The issues with the page were flagged several days ago, but another Admin, and were addressed to his satisfaction. Could you please tell me what your concerns were? I would be happy to address them.

Thanks! --209.6.250.183 (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the entire history of the article in question and examined a number of its iterations. As near as I can tell, the issues with the page were considered by three or four editors and administrators, and when you say that the issues were "addressed to his satisfaction", that seems to mean that you removed a tag that suggested that the article was considered advertising by one of those editors, and deleted a sentence that didn't bear on the issue one way or the other. The concern I share with the individual who most recently tagged the article for speedy deletion because s/he felt that it was created in order to drive traffic to www.mymoodmonitor.com and, since it also seemed that way to me, I agreed with the suggestion made by his/her adding of the speedy deletion tag. Since this same issue seems to repeat again and again, may I suggest that you take a different approach to providing this information? I'm not entirely sure what the generic article would be that talks about all mental health screens at the same time, but you might be best advised to focus your efforts to adding information to that article rather than creating a separate one for your specific product. While there are certainly articles about specific products in Wikipedia, information about those products has to be bolstered by reliable sources that are almost always more than a single journal article. It seemed to me as I read the article that you were halfway to creating a useful article that discussed all mental health screening tests, although I haven't found another such article and there very well may be one. You are likely to have this problem of "advertising" as long as the article you create touches briefly upon the two tests that you say are the "gold standard" and moves directly towards your product; why wouldn't your product be a footnote or a short paragraph in an article about what seem to be the two tests that are most commonly used? I should say that you don't require my permission to reconstitute the article immediately, in any form you wish, but I do suggest that this same issue is likely to arise again and again with the article in its present form because it seems to me (and others) that the article is crafted to indicate that your test is the best product available without a lot of citations from arm's-length third-party experts who agree with your focus on your own product. Incidentally, one issue that you should certainly address in any future discussion of this concept is that although the citations and information apply only to the USA, you haven't said so; I would suggest that clinical experience in other countries is considerably different in many respects, and your article ignores that significant area. Best of luck with your future contributions; if I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me another note. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear Accounting4Taste: I appreciate your response, and will take your points into consideration for future postings, Best. --209.6.250.183 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Learning Streams

I can see what you mean. I struggled to find a catagory to place the article in so i plumped for organisation/company (i think it was). I still think it should be a speedy deletion because it is just complete rubbish and there should be a catagory for this to be placed in, but I suppose it will have to be an afd... Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Tresiden (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Cossom

All of the things mentioned in the page are now easier to research. I'm not sure whether the question was credibility but should be resolved. Other factoids will be included once undeleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashadtyler (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think you were asking me to undelete Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter). Although it wasn't clear to me earlier today, I discovered -- and you may already be aware -- that this article was submitted for an articles for deletion process some months ago. You can find a record of the discussion by clicking on this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter). Unfortunately, articles that have failed an articles for deletion process (such as this one did) are subject to immediate speedy deletion upon recreation. If you think that there is evidence available now that wasn't there six months ago that this individual meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO (and I recommend you look carefully at those requirements before going to further effort) just about your only alternative is to take the matter up at deletion review. You should be aware that discussions at deletion review are usually focused entirely upon Wikipedia policy. Best of luck with your future endeavours; if I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Annick Press

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Annick Press. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annick Press. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Creative Developer

The prod was contested, so I brought the article to AfD here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I speedied a self-promotional bio with no reliable sources or assertion of notability for the individual concerned twice earlier this evening so possibly this was some form of self-promotion, although I'm prepared to assume good faith in that he was trying to contribute his protologism; it's just that, as I said in the AfD, this term has no really defined usage that I could find. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ledford Middle School and Piper987

Hello. Please pardon the interruption, but I was reviewing the edits on the Ledford Middle School article as a result of a page protection request and it was not apparent to me why the edits by user Piper987 (talk · contribs) were considered vandalism. They appeared on the face to be good-faith edits, although poorly formatted and apparently overwriting a reference. Am I missing something? Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I now see that the editor has much more history than I originally reviewed, including much deleted talk page material. I do not see cases of blatant vandalism (aside from a couple of WP:Talk edits), but I do see a history of unsourced edits which, taken as a whole, could be considered disruptive. I also saw your kindly worded warning here leading up to the eventual block. Sounds like a student who was not willing to stick to the Wikipedia editing and behavioral guidelines and limitations. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes, and I appreciate your having taken a deeper look. My recollection is that this editor was also editing without bothering to sign into her account, and those IP edits were quite a bit more of the same. Her repeated blanking of her talk page was also confusing the issue. I really did try to give her more rope than I would usually, because it seemed like she had the instinct towards contribution, but she possibly was too young or too uncontrolled to resist the temptation to "scribble", and the tendency was amplifying as time went on. I hope you will find me a defender of young people's ability to contribute to Wikipedia now and in the future; I want to encourage their useful contributions and I foster them when I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Friday Night Live! with Mike Koncan

Hello Accounting4Taste, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Friday Night Live! with Mike Koncan - a page you tagged - because: A7 doesn't generally apply . Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Waka Flocka Flame

Hello Accounting4Taste, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Waka Flocka Flame - a page you tagged - because: Signed to Warners is a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  11:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 11:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the article 'Eyepartner'

Hello,

I am attempting to post on how the company Eyepartner is teaming up with industry leaders to increase the availability of IPTV and the platforms that support these technologies. I noticed that you have deleted the entry on keyword 'Eyepartner' and I was looking to see if you could assist me in modifying the article so the content meets the standards of a Wikipedia entry:

Read on for Deletion: A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7)

I have gone through the New contributor's help page,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page and cleaned up the information in the article in question by adding direct references to communities that have utilized the streaming technologies provided by Eyepartner as well as industry partnerships. What other references would help to make the article meet the requirements of a Wiki article?

Thank you in advance for your time and have a pleasant weekend.

Respectfully, Tom.zajac (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I've taken the liberty of deleting the reproduction of the deleted material that you left me, because I know where to find it if I want it. I'm going to suggest that you start from scratch, because I think you have missed some very basic elements of Wikipedia policy; I gather that you have looked at the new contributors' help page but I think you are missing a couple of key definitions that have affected what you are trying to do. Check out "Your First Article" for details about what I'm getting at here, and by tracing the links in this paragraph that I'll provide. Essentially, your problem is that you are trying to define your company's notability by telling people your own view about your customers/partners and the relationship between the two groups. That might be interesting, but it doesn't have any relationship to the basic requirements of Wikipedia articles. What is needed is that the article be written by quoting what experts at arm's-length to your company have to say about it, specifically where they say that it is somehow unusual or special. Things that your company says about itself don't have the right degree of neutrality that is required; telling us who your partners are is not useful for a number of different reasons, primary among which is that it doesn't contribute to your company's notability. The ONLY way to determine notability is by providing reliable sources that say the company is notable, and by giving the reader a way to verify that those reliable sources say what you're attributing to them. And, of course, it's implicit in what I'm saying here that the topics of Wikipedia articles have to be notable; that's one of the foundations of what we're doing here. This is an encyclopedia, not a business directory; we don't list everything, just the significant parts. So, before you begin again, I do recommend that you read the introductory material I've recommended, and then your first step would be to gather a list of references -- articles about the company in reputable publications (not usually blogs or forums, but magazines and newspapers) and see what those references have to say -- then quote them. I would also recommend that you read our material on conflict of interest; essentially, we strongly discourage people from writing about companies with which they are associated because it tends to be either biased or out-and-out advertising. Best of luck with your future contributions; if you have further questions after you've read through all the links I've provided here, feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eduardo Sánchez (baseball)

If you wish to discuss the proposed deletion, I have stated notability rationale here. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a marginal case, and I disagree with your first point about the meaning of "professional", but I don't feel any need to take it further. Thanks for offering me the chance. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Aberfan Disaster

Thanks for helping out in the move process, and don't worry about the mix up, I mix things up all the time too. That is why we all remember WP:AFG. --MWOAP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of both Appricon and Analysis Studio pages

Hi,

My name is Avi and I am the CTO of Appricon a statistical analysis software startup that focuses on research and development.

Appricon the developer is nominated Microsoft BizSpark selected startup company.

Analysis Studio had an amazing response on the web and our new release (6.3) was downloaded thousands of times in the past month.

Analysis studio was posted as a statistical software in the respectable statistics site kdnuggets side by side with SPSS, SAS, S plus and many leading statistical analysis software: http://www.kdnuggets.com/software/statistics.html

Please add us to wikipedia. If any changes are required in the articles they will be done.

If you decide not to add Appricon and Analysis Studio, please tell me what is missing, what kind of proof should I get or anything else needed.

Regards and thanks for your time, Avi Asher http://www.appricon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudx77 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the two articles in question and I must say that none of the information you've provided in the above paragraph seems to have been present in the articles that were deleted. I'm not certain that including those things would have met one of the essential requirements of every Wikipedia article, notability (I'm not sufficiently familiar with the area of business to judge what it means to be a "BizSpark selected startup company", for instance). However, the articles were also lacking every other essential element, namely reliable sources and verifiability, and seemed to me pretty much to be advertising (although they weren't tagged as that, they definitely could have been). My recommendation is that you carefully read this basic article and our conflict of interest policy and start over from scratch.

It is a common misconception that the existence of a company or commercial product is sufficient for there to be a Wikipedia article about that topic. In fact, Wikipedia articles are about notable topics; things or people who are unusual, different, better than their peers. That notability must be attested to by reliable sources; experts in their field writing in publications like books, magazines and newspapers who specifically state the notability of the topic. And those reliable sources must be verifiable; the reader must be able to find the reliable source and verify that it says what you say it says. I've tried here to give you the same information that you'll find in the introductory article, written in a brief and perhaps overgeneralized way. Wikipedia generally recommends that people who are part of a company should not write about it, for the understandable reason that it's hard for those people to meet the neutrality needs of Wikipedia's articles. Doubtless you feel you can overcome that hurdle (I have never encountered anyone writing about their own company who didn't) but my recommendation would be that you construct your article ENTIRELY by quoting experts for every piece of information except the very basic incontrovertible stuff like the company's address. I would also recommend that you examine every single link in this message and try to understand Wikipedia's basic principles thoroughly before you continue. Best of luck with your future contributions; if you still have questions after you've thoroughly examined all the introductory material to which I've referred to, feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I actually worked on it for a few hours and did not understand some of the syntax. Many examples out there don't work. Thank you very much for your time. Without you gate keepers, wikipedia couldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudx77 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been of assistance; I hope you will find that administrators are not "gate-keepers" but more like docents. We're here to help and we're all working to improve this magnificent encyclopedia; the more good articles we get, the happier I am. And you should feel that you can ask anyone here for help; we have a policy that says "Don't bite the newbies", so I hope everyone here helps you generously (and once you know your way around you can pay it forward). Let me know if there's anything further with which I can assist you; one very convenient way to get help is by going to this help page. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fruit 66 Page Deletion

Greetings. Not sure the exact protocol to address the deletion but wanted to simply ask some questions? The Fruit 66 page was deleted but there are similar pages that exist on the site such as [2].

For additional reference to articles specifically relating to this company, please see the following links: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Please undelete the page so that I can at least rework the document if need be. This is my first time creating an entry and I worked hard on it.

Thanks,

Brian Kleinsmith

Brian Kleinsmith 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankleinsmith (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your note. I've recreated the deleted content for you at this location: User:Briankleinsmith/Sandbox (you can go there by clicking on the link that is the name of the page). With reference to your comments about the content of the page, first of all, we don't find it useful to say "X has a page so Y should too" (the policy is found at this page). All pages are considered in and of themselves and every page has to meet Wikipedia's requirements. If you see an article that you think doesn't meet those standards, which you can find here, feel free to tag it for deletion just as yours was. Second, yes, reworking the document from scratch would be what I recommend, because what I saw looked remarkably like a sales brochure; that's what it was tagged as, and since I agreed completely with the tag, I deleted it. There's a Wikipedia policy about neutral point of view that may have escaped your notice, but I recommend it to your attention; you might also benefit from having a look at our conflict of interest guidelines because my best guess is that you're running up against them. My advice would be to start with the basics and see if you can construct an article where every opinion statement -- even the adjectives and adverbs -- references the opinion of an expert at arm's-length from the company and gives neutral information about the topic. Best of luck with your future contributions. If you've gone over the material I've referenced in this paragraph and still have questions about Wikipedia policy that aren't answered by those pages, feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Doghouse diaries

Hi,

I very politely (it would have been much better if there was a font to show I am really being polite) request you to restore the doghouse diaries article created by me.

I am no way related to the people who had created the webcomics. I had been reading the webcomics for quite sometime and was surprised that there was no entry for the same. The reason why I think it is worth being on wiki is the way i discovered it. I live in India, none of my friends have been associated with the doghouse diaries. I guess it just popped while i was looking for popular webcomics on some site (I am not sure).

A webcomic making it to press wouldn't or shouldn't be the only compelling reason for it to be made as a wiki entry. If xkcd can have a wiki entry, then there shouldn't be a partial response to other popular webcomics (specially if its entry is being made by a neutral party).

Lets not make a class system here where only the mighty ones can be listed. If just going through the content of the two webcomics (xkcd and doghouse diaries) you can make the judgement that one should be an entry and the other shouldn't I agree with your decision.

But if the entry has been removed cause it was substandard, i am willing to put more effort and do it justice.

In anticipation of a rational decision.

Shashi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jain Shashi (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I guarantee you a rational decision -- according to Wikipedia's written policies, to which I'll be referring you here (follow the links to read the policies). Although we don't find it useful to compare one article to another (see this policy for details), I had a look at XKCD. This article had 78 citations, or what we call reliable sources, and your article had zero. Since reliable sources are an absolutely basic element of any Wikipedia article, I should think you would be hardly surprised at its deletion; it was a very clear decision. There was no notability, there was no assertion of notability (beyond your assertions here, which don't form part of the article, and you haven't really suggested that the topic is notable, merely that it should be included), there were no reliable sources and there was no verifiability. In short, every single basic element of a Wikipedia article was not present. You can look at WP:Why was my article deleted? for roughly the same explanation.

I wanted to address your suggestion about a "class system here where only the mighty ones can be listed". I think you will be surprised to hear that I partly agree with you, except that the words "class" and "mighty" are incorrect. We have a system here where only the notable ones can be listed. Wikipedia does NOT have an article on every subject, nor does it want to. Wikipedia only has articles about things that are notable -- special, unusual, different, and stated to be so by expert sources of opinion. Specifically, Wikipedia does not have articles about things that are not yet notable, and I gather from something you wrote about the topic that you explicitly agree that this topic is not yet notable. We do not retain articles about topics that someone asserts are going to be notable; they are not within our mandate. There are other places where you can create articles about things that are not yet notable; these include blogs, forums and many kinds of social networking sites. Your efforts may be better spent by contributing elsewhere.

If you believe you can provide three or four citations that are of the same nature and quality as those in XKCD -- not 78, just three or four -- I will be happy to return the deleted content to a temporary page (called here a "sandbox" page) where you can add those citations and return the article to Wikipedia, whereupon it will be again assessed by impartial new-page patrollers and undergo a similar process. I trust this is the rational decision you were expecting, and I earnestly hope you will read the policies to which I referred you here to understand what underlies it. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I respect your rationale,but if a topic is so talked about and has references whats the need for a wiki entry. I need to rethink using wiki at all, if not contributing to it (cause its not better than google search for consolidation of information) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jain Shashi (talk • contribs) 07:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you've just determined the difference between an encyclopedia and a search engine and which one works best for your purposes. Best of luck with your future enquiries. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember wiki being a collective effort where users would add informative articles and others would improve upon that (not just by merely deleting them). Your bloated ego (bloated by the millions donated by and for the efforts of these anonymous users)has blinded your discretion. Rather than checking the merit of the article and the possibility that it can be improved upon (by putting an effort/research) you choose the autocratic path of deleting the articles. Did you even check (google) Doghouse diaries before deleting it? BTW: please don't claim wiki to be an 'encyclopedia' for references from wikipedia are unacceptable in the serious academic works. Its no secret in what direction wiki is heading with the depleted user contributions. Best of luck for your future deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jain Shashi (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing; you have a real nice life, now! Accounting4Taste:talk 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you put it in Sandbox, I would do more research and add some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jain Shashi (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jain Shashi/Sandbox. You're welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation requested

Why did you propose the article Warren Norman for deletion? Your reasons were apparently lack of sources and notability. There are numerous and multiple independent sources that could have been easily be entered. The subject is fully notable- in fact more than notable. Yesterday he won one of the most coveted and prestigious awards in all of the NCAA football, the SEC Freshman of the Year. Every single past winner of this award has a wikipedia page. Full sources at secsports.com, tennessean.com, ajc.com, and countless other media outlets and sources. I regret that you deleted the article and have requested that it be undeleted. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I gather from the tone and content of the above that you don't really want an answer to the question you asked, since you answered it quite capably yourself. Is this the reason that you decided to vandalize Harold Huber, to somehow get back at me? Best of luck with your future contributions; I'll be keeping an eye on them. If you have anything useful to contribute, feel free to contribute it. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

William S. Bennet II

I saw you speedy tagged this. I'm not going to delete it but won't object if it is deleted. It claims he was the founder of Yoplait. I only find 92 Ghits on him. This one is a tough call. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Toffee#cite_note-0

Hello, I'am really sorry, but I'am new to all thin and Iam struggeling with the referencing part you said I need to accomplish to keep my page, I would be grateful if you could tell or give me a link to help me with the technical side of these pages cause I am struggeling.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajxhajxh (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page comment

Thanks for your kind comment on my talk page regarding Fire Hose Games. It's nice to feel appreciated! ... discospinster _talk 01:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hook (urban legend) question.

Hi there. I'm working on NPP along with you and was wondering, wouldn't it make more sense to change this article to a redirect rather than AfD? Just curious as to your reasoning for my own continuing education on the editorial process. Thanks! LeilaniLad (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there: Thanks for your note. I should say at the start that (to my recollection) I placed a prod tag on the article rather than taking it to AfD because I felt it qualified as routine housekeeping (A6) but wanted to give others a chance to comment if they felt so inclined - as you have!! My reasoning was that if someone was looking for information about the urban legend, they would either start by searching for Urban legend or The Hook but, unless they were extremely familiar with Wikipedian article naming conventions, it was very unlikely that they would start with The Hook (urban legend). If the main article had been The Hook (urban legend) and the more recent and less useful article had been The Hook, I would have definitely turned it into a redirect. So I guess my reasoning was that I felt it was very unlikely that the redirect would have been of use to anyone because it was so unlikely that they would start at The Hook (urban legend). I hope this helps; if you have any further questions, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should also have said that if you feel strongly about doing something else, feel free to make that happen; that's why I used PROD instead of just speedying it myself. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And now... yes, you've guessed it

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and didnt realize that articles got deleted so quick. I just typed in some things to get it started. But, i have made some changes and was wondering if its enough. Here is the new page.

OTHER is a clothing company founded by active duty sailors in San Diego. The clothing line will feature hats, shirts, and hoodies. The company will launch their first line on February 17 2010.

The target demographic will be the skate and extreme sports.

The name of the company is stands for One That Has Extraordinary Rules.

The original 3 founders of the company are Melvin Franklin, Huy Mac Tan, and Daniel Collins. A later addition of Douglas LaRock works on the technical side of the business and is working on bringing all the loose ends together. According to the SBA, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first five years.¹ Only time will tell how the company will do. The Company is fresh and optimistic.

1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanitey1 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)~~ insanitey1

Thanks for your note. You may have missed some of the basic introductory material that talks about the necessary conditions with respect to the topics of Wikipedia articles. One of them is notability. Essentially, Wikipedia is about topics that are already notable -- not about topics that are not yet notable but might be in the future. Being fresh and optimistic is a good thing, but unfortunately Wikipedia requires that article topics have a number of reliable sources -- things like articles in newspapers, magazines and books written by experts -- that state that the company is somehow special, unusual and/or better than its peers. Until your company achieves success, or even opens its doors, it's very unlikely that an article in Wikipedia will be allowed to remain. You may want to find a different outlet for your efforts and come back to Wikipedia after your company succeeds in becoming well-known. Best of luck with your future efforts. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good thanks 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)~~insanitey1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanitey1 (talk • contribs)

Matilda Dodge Wilson

Matilda does (opinion) deserve an article of her own. I would oppose merging it with any of the several options available on wikipedia. The copyright issue is one that I am only tangentially involved with, but it is a concern to me. I've been chipping away at adding new ideas and verbiage to it, but suspect that a chunk of it is still verbatim from (as I recall) Find-a-Grave. I might just go and cut it all out and proceed from there. "Patrolled" is not a word I am familiar with, however the article is on my watch list and I will be looking at whatever changes happen. Mostly, I suspect, they will be by me. So please, keep an eye on it over my shoulder, but don't do anything rash. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry if I wasn't clear; I also think she's sufficiently notable to be the subject of an article, because of the Lieutenant-Governor-ship, and won't be taking any action to delete it. My only recommendation would be that someone needs to find a citation for that Lieutenant-Governor-ship and add it to her article, not just as a note within her first husband's article. "Patrolled" -- every new page is examined by a new page patroller and, if it's considered useful, is marked as "patrolled". If you click on "New pages", you'll see that some listings are in yellow and others are not; the yellow listings have not been patrolled. (If you look at an unpatrolled page, in the lower right-hand corner, you'll see the link that has to be clicked to mark the page as patrolled.) Mrs. Wilson's page had been worked on but wasn't marked as patrolled, which is how I came to look at it. If there's something I can do to help you, please feel free to leave me a further note, and thanks for taking some time to preserve this useful article. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else has come along and eviscerated the article, including edits and references that I'd added in an attempt to get away from the copied stuff. Sort of annoying me, so I'm glad that you brought it to my attention. Thanks also for explaining the patrolling process to me. I'm not sure that it's something I'm going to get into, I have something like 1,500 articles (and user pages) that I watch and that's enough for me to do besides trying to do some writing, editing in areas that interest me. If I click on the patrolled option, what happens? Does it go to my watchlist? Carptrash (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lord, no, it doesn't go to your watchlist -- if so, mine would be close to a billion <grin>. All that happens is that the listing under "new pages" turns from yellow to white and other new page patrollers will henceforth leave it alone. I believe there's a bot that adds a template to pages that remain unpatrolled for (I don't know what length of time), saying "this page hasn't been patrolled and needs to be, please remove this template when you do so". That's because, as I understand it, if a page remains unpatrolled for 30 days, it drops off the "new pages" list but the unwary seeker of knowledge needs to know that no one has actually assessed the article. (So if it says that the planet Mars is made of solidified Dream Whip, proceed at your own risk.) Let me know if there's anything I can do to assist with Mrs. Wilson. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So, proceeding on the somewhat dubious assumption that there is no such thing as a dumb question, where do I find the list of New Pages? Carptrash (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Canoxy

Hi Accounting4Taste, I see you recently deleted Canoxy which had been nominated for speedy deletion. As far as I know, the article was just a redirect to Nexen, Nexen being the new name for what was Canadian Occidental, commonly known as Can Oxy or Canoxy. It seems to me that the redirect was useful for anyone looking for Nexen that doesn't know its name was changed, could you reconsider your deletion? Thanks, TastyCakes (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, someone had changed the redirect to a singularly uninformative stub, uninformative in the sense that it didn't mention Nexen, and I agreed with the individual who tagged the stub. However, I'm happy to create a redirect in its place; I agree, that does sound much more useful. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. TastyCakes (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing our Discussion About Deletions and Who Runs Wikipedia

Accounting4Taste, I have placed a response to your message to me on my talk page (having finally figured out where you meant for me to respond! Happy New Year.Andymickey (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony Golobic

Hi, I just got a google alert that someone tried to contribute something about Anton ("Tony") Golobic and it was A7 rejected. Would it be possible to view what was contributed and by whom without violating any privacy issues? I'm the Director of Corporate Communications for the company Tony Golobic owns (GreatAmerica Leasing Corp.).

Thanks,

72.50.232.5 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Matthew L. Doty mdoty@greatamerica.com

My understanding is that no privacy issues arise, because of the Creative Commons license. The entire content was contributed by User:LindsayDick, who also created a deleted article called GreatAmerica Leasing, and was "Tony Golobic is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of GreatAmerica Leasing Corporation. He has been involved in the equipment finance industry since 1971." The article was tagged for speedy deletion and, since there was no indication of any notability, no reliable sources and no verifiability, I decided to agree with the new page patroller who tagged the article. Thank you for being forthright about your connection to the company in question. May I strongly urge that you familiarize yourself with the material found at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations before proceeding further? You are possibly intending to run up against our conflict of interest policy, among others, and you would almost certainly benefit from being familiar with our rules. If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note on this page. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

virtonomics

Hello, dear Accounting4Taste. Unfortunately, I have not much experience in the preparation of articles in the Wiki. This explains the large number of unsuccessful previous attempts to create this article. Virtonomics there long enough (more than 6 years in Russian under the name Virtonomica). In the Russian language Internet is indeed a very significant phenomenon, and perhaps the most popular project economic game. This business simulation actually use many Russian universities as a training program. In 2007 Virtonomica was recognized as the best business simulation in Russian language Internet. In English-speaking Internet has few references to Virtonomica (English-speaking project name - Virtonomics) because the game only recently translated into English. Here are some links to Russian-language sources about the game Virtonomica (Virtonomics):

• http://www.businesspress.ru/newspaper/article_mId_21961_aId_441881.html ,
• http://moneynews.ru/9359/ ,
• http://www.moneycreativity.com/news.php?newsId=701 ,
• http://edublogs.global.uillinois.edu/anish2/2009/12/10/online-game-simulation-evaluation /.

Unfortunately, most sources still in Russian. I really hope that after all you do not erase this article, because this project really represents a very interesting phenomenon, and quite unique and useful for many people interested in business and economics. Sincerely, Sergomen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergomen1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. I've made a copy of it and moved it to the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtonomics, which is the best place to contribute to the discussion; I've also left a note on your talk page pointing you to that page. If you have any questions about the process, you may want to look at this article, which I think will tell you what's going on. If you have any questions after that, leave me a note and I'll try to help you. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I would be very grateful for your advice, how do I improve the article to no longer raise questions and complaints from the moderators. Does it make sense to place the article in the English language sources in other languages? Sergomen1 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure to be of assistance, if I can; if we can get a useful article, that's why I'm here. It is of some limited value to place the non-English-language sources into the article itself -- and, please note, ANY sources that are not in the article itself are not considered to be very useful, so by all means add things to the article -- but by far the best thing would be English-language sources. I am not sure whether non-English sources will be considered useful; it's hard for English speakers to assess the degree of authority of the sources. For instance, if there is a source in a newspaper, is that newspaper from a very large city or a very small town? I'm a Canadian, and I'm sorry to say I don't know enough about Russian newspapers to make an assessment one way or the other; many English speakers will have the same problem. The same for magazines. You may want to have a look at the reliable sources policy, found here, and see if you can find sources that are the type referred to there. Please feel free to leave me a note if I can be of any further help. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Accounting4Taste! 109.188.195.78 (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

George Miok

You want to delete the article, which I wrote today. Even if it looks like a memorial, it's not that. I watched to other Canadian soldier's articles, none of them has a deletion ticket, and they even hasn't so much resources or even a picture. I saw persons, who has fewer things to do and they have an article. I wrote today the Hungarian version, too, he has name in hungary, so please, do not do this with this article. I put some more resources, but because of you I must put Hungarian resources, too. --Eino81 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel there are articles on Wikipedia that don't meet our standards, you're free to suggest that they be deleted, using one of the multiple available processes. As it stands, I disagree with you and still feel that the article should be deleted, for the reasons I gave when I applied the tag; I recommend you follow those links to understand the policies. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of Canadian are you? So, if you have this deletion feeling, here are all the similar articles of Canadian soldiers:

• Marc Léger
• Nathan Lloyd Smith
• Ainsworth Dyer
• Richard Green (soldier)

--Eino81 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to mark anything you see fit for deletion, just as I do. You are NOT at liberty to comment on my citizenship or my patriotism because I disagree with you about the notability of an article for clearly cited reasons based entirely on policy. Another policy I recommend to your attention is that whereby Wikipedian contributors assume good faith. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my former bad words. I found three medals which were awarded for him. How does the article look now? I looked for all the resources, what I found. --Eino81 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot agree that this topic is notable, for the reasons I provided, and I see that another editor has added a tag that endorses my recommendation for deletion. I think I understand the motivation that has caused you to undertake this effort but I still believe it is misplaced; if you feel this information should be available on the internet, there are doubtless other places where it can find a home. If you wish to take this topic to the larger Wikipedia community for a decision via consensus, simply remove the "prod" tag; I will then take the article to an Articles for deletion (AfD) process and allow the community to decide whether my policy references are correct or not. Best of luck with your future contributions and endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, we can put the article to the Articles for deletion-section, let's see, what do the Wikicommunity say about the future of this article. --Eino81 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you wish to take this topic to the larger Wikipedia community for a decision via consensus, simply remove the 'prod' tag ...". The tag itself contains not only my reasons but instructions on how to proceed; I'm going to decline to remove my own tag since I still see no reason to do that. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are just interpreting policy as you think it best serves Wikipedia whereas the article creator may be wanting to honour the deceased, which is not a Wikipedia objective. But the problem here is that you don't seem to think reasonable people can disagree about this case since you continue to insist that it is a speedy delete situation ("no reason" to moderate your opinion) here despite being challenged. The policy states that your template should be reserved for the "most obvious cases" where there is "no practical chance" it would survive a deletion discussion. Two articles emerged from the same single event and one of them is apparently beyond any dispute for keep whereas the other is, in your view, beyond dispute for delete. I see more grey all around here and have accordingly removed the speedy delete template.Bdell555 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kapkhovung

Please "undelete" the article on Kapkhovung. Zolengthe.net does not own the copyright. Zolengthe.net is just a blog. In fact, the source from where the Zolengthe.net blogger had taken the article must have been the same as mine. So, please.. undelete Kapkhovung... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaphualization (talk • contribs) 03:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the deleted content into a "sandbox" page found at User:Vaphualization/Sandbox, which is as far as I'm willing to go on this topic. There are a number of serious issues with this article, not the least of which is that the copyright issue is not solved merely by your saying that it is solved -- I recommend that you look at the policy at this link and this one for further instruction. Also, there is no reason for anyone to believe that the article's topic is notable; being 7'2" may be unusual among Burmese people, but it is absolutely not unusual in the rest of the world and does not form the basis of notability as far as I can see. I note that the article has already been created and deleted three times -- this topic is dangerously close to being blocked from any further recreation and I strongly urge you to learn what the relevant Wikipedia policies are (possibly by reading this article) and to follow them. You don't need my permission or assistance to re-mount the article, but you should be aware that if you do so before it's ready, it may well become impossible for anyone to create an article on that topic ever again. Best of luck with this difficult situation. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention User:Dsylvester1

I have received your e-mail. I prefer to do Wikipedia business in the full view of the Wikipedia community and do not respond privately; I have copied your e-mail to your talk page, found at this link, and responded there. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Miok

An article that you have been involved in editing, George Miok, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Miok. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New Evangelization Television (NET)

20:47, 6 January 2010 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "New Evangelization Television (NET)" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11))

As I was unclear of the procedure to create an article, I was using pieces from the website as place holders. The website information, which I do have permission to use, does in fact advertise for the company. So naturally it would appear to be blatant advertising. Please allow me to use this in the sandbox so that I can replace all of the unambiguous advertising and input neutral information. Thank you.

I have created a sandbox page for you with the deleted material, which you can find at this link: User:Transvideocom/Sandbox. You may also want to look at the material found here, which gives the procedure you will need if you intend to use the material for which you assert permission. It's probably easiest to re-write the article from scratch, but you can choose among options. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for autoconfirmed status being required to create new pages

When I stated my opinion about this proposal here, I made a reference to a CSD nomination you made over two years ago which was declined. I don't know how you feel about the proposal, but you are welcome to comment. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention: I have commented and agree with you for the reasons I've stated. Is it too late to apologize for my speedy tag, which I am grateful to note you categorize as having been made in good-faith? I'm glad you hung around and weren't permanently stymied, and I'm pleased to suggest I think I know the ropes better these days. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, no apology is necessary. I've declined about 5% of my own speedy tags, usually when my concerns were addressed, but in some cases when I knew I made a bad call to begin with (that happens with borderline cases). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25