User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

New accounts which are redlinks

I've noticed that surprisingly often accounts of new or new-ish Users display as redlinks -- presumably meaning that the accounts have been created fairly recently but then de-activated.
Is this the correct explanation for why they display as redlinks and do you have any idea why this occurs so frequently?
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amer10

I thought I'd wait to see if he responds. I have been reverting some of his edits that were unsourced, and I figure I'll just look through any other edits he does to see if they sound reasonable. But I wouldn't object to his being blocked indefinitely. Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He knows all about sourcing. At least his sources are easily refuted on articles he creates from scratch, but he doesn't believe in sourcing minor edits or small edits to existing articles, which is what makes those edits difficult to prove or disprove. Corvus cornix_talk 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, though I'm not sure I'll revert everything, just those things that look suspicious. Corvus cornix_talk 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Club Penguin

Hello here, but I tried going on Club penguin but I found out that it requires my e-mail address and I do not want to give that away!

--pumagirl7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumagirl7 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin Quek

I'm currently writing an article about Justin Quek and at the start I had accidentally pressed the 'Save Page' button. Sorry!

Mervyn Wang (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD Tagging

I wouldn't have noticed that you were an administrator had you not beat me to protecting BMLIAHS from recreation :-). I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but since you are an admin you no longer have to tag things for speedy deletion. The community trusts your judgment to thoughtfully apply the criteria for speedy deletion all on your own (and you seem to be doing a fine job), so just nuke the suckers! Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

wtf

the page on chris edgington was not a personal attack! He killed 3 entire famalies in the suburbs of chicago in 2001-2003. Mason, Gonzalez, and Shriver. He was never caught but everyone knows exactly where he is, and the case was closed in 05 due to lack of evidence and he was a minor. --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) --Goingwithout2001 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)!!!

In that case, you should be able to provide citations to newspaper articles, etc., that verify what you've asserted. Otherwise, Wikipedia could be in serious trouble for publishing libel. If you're planning on recreating this article, you need to put those references in from the very beginning or else the article will be deleted by me or another administrator, for the same reason. If you have any questions about this, you can refer to the policy at WP:Verifiable or leave a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: 69.246.79.189

No problem! Happy New Year. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellery Queen

Thank you for your note; I'm afraid I'm going to be very busy for the next month or so, and as a result I can't offer to take on any new activities. Good luck with the article, however! – Scartol • Tok 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Although she's usually even busier than I, you might ask Awadewit. There are some other folks in my Wikilove box on my userpage who might be of use. JayHenry is pretty good about providing such services. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 19:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Taste... I'm not nearly as good as Scartol and Awadewit and consequently I'm not quite as busy ;) I'll definitely take a look at the article some time this week and give a few thoughts. The biggest thing is always having good sources. Once you've found good sources -- a few books or whatever -- then the rest is really just details. Great New Years Resolution, by the way! Cheers, --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks (gee, MISTER Taste, usually it's "you !*$@#!!$" since I do a lot of new page patrol). In the world of academic criticism of detective fiction, references are not thick on the ground, but I've done what I can with what I have in my own library. Your comments will be very welcome and I appreciate your time. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh this will be wayyy more fun than new page patrol! Do you have the two Nevins books mentioned in the article? --JayHenry (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, no; nor do I have a copy of the dedicated issue of CLUES (the only detective fiction academic journal) that discusses Queen. But if I have to, I'll track them down and buy them. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Detective fiction short stories

Hi thanks for your greeting - this is still an evolving area and categories are a difficult area to get right is requires precision of categorizing and the co-op community like with is not too hot at such things. Still, one of the things the task force should aim to tackle is the sort of these things. I have made some changes to the collection you mention including one still to be added category. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Amer10 again

I have a strong hunch that Amer10 (talk · contribs) has resurfaced as Robertcowbells (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good catch, and quickly too. You're more involved in sockpuppet cases than I am -- what happens next? (I'd like to know, just in case I ever rub two brain cells together and manage to identify a sockpuppet.) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He kept adding hoax info to articles, so after the fourth warning I listed him at WP:AIV and he got indef. blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:789ai121

Yep, I caught it and warned him. It's probably Amer10/Robertcowbells, why else would they have chosen to blank that particular discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Just happened to see it in Recent Changes.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year Too!

Hi A4T - ah.... 2008 with all it's joys! I'm glad things are going well for you, and good luck in getting Ellery Queen up to GA (or better!). Are you part of WP:ADOPT? That could be a good place to start? The other option is probably finding someone through their edits and then having a quick peek at the "wanabee kate" tool to see their contributions. Anyone with around 1,000 / 2,000 would seem a prime candidate to work with. I certainly enjoyed working with you and seeing you become an admin. I have now had three succesful nominations (and no unsuccesful ones - but I'm a hard task master :)) at RfA. User:Camaron1, who I co-nommed, passed his today. Any how, best wishes to you and yours for the coming year! Pedro :  Chat  16:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, taskmaster!! Now all that's left is to get my thumbs-up photograph taken in my favourite Versace bathrobe '-) and I'm ready to adopt!! Accounting4Taste:talk 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marthallius

You're right, sorry about that. I thought that influence qualified as notability, but I reread the guidelines and it doesn't. I have no problem with that page being deleted anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marthallius (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that policy, I'm not used to using user talk pages. Now that's out of the way, I actually have a question about articles that are written in a primarily in-universe style. I've noticed a few that I can't follow at all even though I actually read what they're talking about, so in that case is it okay to just totally reformat and rewrite the entire section in a non-universe style? If so, what if the information presented is irrelevant, like trivial plot details that don't contribute to the story as a whole unless they are in-universe? Thanks again, --Marthallius (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

Nice. Indef blocked. The joys of adminship - you sure you want to subject someone else to it :) ???!! Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ROFL Actually, I thought if this sort of thing was coming from anywhere today, it would be from the IP number I just blocked for tagging Jockstrap for something like the 13th time as a speedy delete for some made-up reason -- he prefers "athletic supporter" which, as I understand it, also means someone who pays money towards the equipment of a team, etc. I'll have to remember the part about the guppies up my ass, though. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the guppies thing sounded kind of painful! Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokh & Tokh

^{Superscript text} Hi just wanted to discuss the page I created that you have listed for deletion. I don't agree with your reasons for wanting to delete the page. Rokh & Tokh is a slang term. You won't find it in a book. Which is why people use Wiki! Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. If you have questions for me, please let me know. I just created the page and I plan on providing more information as I get feedback from others.

Thanks, JohnnyZee (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, how it works at Wikipedia is that if you can't back it up with references, it can't be here. How do we know you didn't make this up? Maybe you should think about offering this information to Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary, where it might be appropriate. In the meantime, you still have the remainder of the 24 hours to find those references. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CrossChem

Thank you for the heads-up on CrossChem. I am a bit of a WP neophyte here and I may still be off the 'Notable' or 'Significance' mark. The significance is that CrossChem 1) introduced the first commercially available, environmentally friendly, patent pending, biochemically produced glycolic acid (GlyAcid EBP) and 2) was noted in linked article in July 2005 ICIS.

--Jweeks77 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I would suggest that you put both those things in the article and re-submit it; no guarantees, but that would seem to add notability. There's a fine line that you have to walk between notability and spam; you might want to read up on WP:SPAM as well as WP:Notable (and WP:Verifiable). I also note you've been working on Glycolic acid with the same aim in mind and another editor has already toned down your prose. If there's some further assistance I can offer, you can leave me a note here. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of the page for The Bo Diddley Headhunters

Hi Pal,

Imagine my surprise to find that YOU had RE-deleted my page DESPITE my placement of a (HOLDON) tag on the page and a primary defense of the band, and its significance, on the talkpage (per instructions).

Did you happen to read the explanation?

Perhaps, having read the explanation, but NOT being terribly up on the whole Garage-rock "thang" in the 80s, went and deleted it anyway?

Or are you just trying to eff with a newby? (If so, how do you "feel" that such micturation contests exemplify a welcoming attitude for the wiki-novitiate?)

Pray tell, upon my humble talkpage please, oh wise, cyber-omniscient admin, from your seat on high, why the second iteration of this page was, with seeming arbitrary, callous, and unexplained intent, deleted?

Please note that this request is made without resort to the colloquially vulgar insinuation that said deletion was made by someone whose parents may not have enjoyed the bonds of matrimony at the time of conception or birth, or that they might possibly be the whelped male issue of a female canine.

Because I AM trying to play nice, win buddies, and positively influence people.

Have a VERY nice day!

Cheers!

AnimalBoy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I'll try to answer your questions. You may have noticed the part of the ((hangon)) tag that states (I'm paraphrasing) that it's not an absolute defense against deletion. In this case, since the hangon tag was, and I quote, "accompanied by no relevant argument", I exercised my administrative responsibilities and deleted the article. Suggesting that I don't know enough about the subject matter to be able to make an informed decision is not a relevant argument. Frankly, I don't have to -- it's your responsibility to inform me and every other reader of the reasons why the article is notable and meets the standards set down at WP:BAND. Since the article did not meet those standards (among other things, no national tour, no recording contract, no songs in the Billboard Top 100), and was not accompanied by any reliable sources that even demonstrated the verifiability of the scanty amount of information asserting notability that was present, the article was deleted.

However, if you'd like to take this further, there are a couple of things that can happen, and I'd be very, very happy to make them happen for you. I'd be delighted to recreate the article, let you work on it for a few days if you so desired in a private "sandbox" page that I would create for you, then re-post it and take it through the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process. In that way, you could get the opinions of the community at large about your article and your band, and not have to rely on my micturative insistence upon the letter of policy. Of course, you would have to be prepared to read the comments of the community at large upon your article, and if the article failed that AfD process, it would not be allowed to ever be re-created under any except the most unusual circumstances (involving a complex process known here as "Deletion Review"). If it passed, it would be protected against deletion under any except the most unusual circumstances. I do encourage you to submit your article for AfD at your leisure, since I think every article deserves a fair hearing and who knows? I might have been wrong. So let me know your wishes, and I'm at your service if you want to roll the dice. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of encyclopedic articles

You recently left the following message on my talk page:

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing.

Above this, User:CastAStone said that comparison articles are original research even if they are sourced and factual. I am not aware of any such Wikipedia policy, and I have asked CastAStone to produce a citation in support of his statement. Judging from his tortuous response, he was apparently unable to produce support. In addition, deleted Wikipedia articles cannot be speedy deleted if the reasons for the original deletion have been addressed, as they were in my articles (See General criteria under WP:CSD).

To my knowledge, the articles Begriffsschrift and Interlingua compared and Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared were not inappropriate in any way. If you can cite support for your statement to the contrary, please do so. My understanding is that the only inappropriate activities were the repeated deletions of encyclopedic material and the above threat to block me in response to editing and participation that are in fact appropriate. Lumturo (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The support for my statement is, as I told you previously, and as other people have told you, that the article went through an AfD process and was deleted. Therefore, according to Wikipedia policy, it cannot be recreated. No ifs, ands, buts, or exceptions. Your arguments are what we call here "wikilawyering". If you think you have a case to make that this article should be recreated, then the only option left to you is the process known as deletion review and I recommend that you go there and start that process. Badgering me and trying to make me act against policy will NOT work. Recreating the article without going through deletion review will NOT work. Wikilawyering will NOT work. And telling me that I shouldn't be threatening to block you for disruptive editing will so not work that I briefly considered it for the disruptive note you left me above. You are on very dangerous ground, and I advise you to proceed carefully, politely and ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If you think there are other options, you will have to take them up with someone else because you have now completely exhausted any good will that I had in relation to this situation. Leave me alone, go away and start the deletion review process. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Years! (with jockstraps)

Hey buddy, sorry that I've been MIA and couldn't get back to you. I'll for sure keep Jockstrap on my watchlist, and your vandal was quite funny. I've got to run out again at the moment, but I'll be in touch soon! GlassCobra 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Polished Gemstones

No problem. I've re-read CSD#A7 and see it specifically excludes the like of songs. I thought "94 in the Irish charts" was a pretty weak sort of notabiity. I'll try a PROD - I see an anonymous IP blanked the page 2 minutes after I put the db tag on; if that was the originator perhaps he won't contest the PROD. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor Pavlov (programmer)

I'm curious, why this article was deleted? Have you looked through "What links here"? The subject of the article has certain notability, because he is an author of worldwide used program, 7-zip and 7z archive format. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Yes, I did look through "what links here", that's part of the process of assessing articles for speedy deletion. The two articles you mention both have notability, or else I would have tagged them at the same time. However, there isn't an automatic notability that attaches to Mr. Pavlov from the programs. What would be required is citations from, say, newspapers, notable webzines or magazines that talk about Mr. Pavlov specifically as opposed to the programs. It's certainly possible for the programs to have notability without their creator having notability, although I admit this is a bit hard to understand. I would recommend you to this link to find out more about how Wikipedia assesses notability, and this link to find out more about the kinds of references that would be required to demonstrate Mr. Pavlov's notability. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive answer. Just a little question if a Template:Sources could be used for such issues instead of immediate deletion? --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, and I'd be prepared to make that happen for you. However, I can't stop anyone else from tagging the article for speedy deletion for the same reason, or deleting it. However, I do have something to offer -- I'll recreate the page for you in a private "sandbox" page so that you can add sources to the article at your leisure (well, you'd have about a month). Once you've added the sources, you can copy the material to a new page and have a much better chance of it surviving the intense scrutiny to which new pages are subject here. If that's what you'd like, let me know. I do apologize -- as I said, new pages get an intense scrutiny from a wide variety of editors, one of whom tagged it; some of the decisions are definitely borderline, and I think this would be one of them. I'll work with you however I can; just let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I've already restored the article from Google cache though :) I'll search for additional sources... --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How about that - Dr. Dobb's Data Compression Newsletter, Mark Nelson, "A Few Questions for Igor Pavlov", April 30, 2003 --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 00:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely the kind of thing that confers notability. My experience is if you have three of those, no one tags the article for speedy deletion. Please let me know when you re-mount the article and I'll keep an eye on it, perhaps even leaving a note to any prospective taggers. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emma Bossons

I was going to post this but, as I had attempted to PROD that article as advised, but since then I have received a message that that article is now up for AFD. Willirennen (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I appreciate your cooperation. AfD will certainly tell us once and for all whether the article is notable. Thanks for keeping me informed. If there's something I can do to be of assistance, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Definiton of Importance for Section A7

Under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion of pages, it doesn't clearly define of how to state how something is important. I recently listed "Imma Chargin Mah Lazer", a meme from the website 4chan. If I could rely on the statistics from YouTube and assume that at least a million people have seen videos with "Imma Chargin Mah Lazer" and related phrases used in it, and have fully understood what "Imma Chargin Mah Lazer" is, would not that count as important? Or would it be listed underneath "popularity"? If so, how would I define any web article as "important"? Thank you, -Jayinhar (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Internet memes are certainly difficult to pin down, but one measure of their notability (not importance -- I'm using the word notability in its Wikipedia-oriented sense) is if there is coverage/discussion of them in other media. For instance, an article in a newspaper, magazine or television commentary. Speaking entirely personally, I don't regard a mere million people as significant, memetically speaking; for something to truly have memetic importance, I would think a hundred million would be more like it. (That would be my estimate of the number of people who know that one of Paris Hilton's favourite sayings is "That's hot.") But that's just me -- there's no hard-and-fast standard. If you think this article would be sufficiently notable to stay in Wikipedia, I'd be happy to reinstate the article and take it to the articles for deletion process (AfD), where the opinion of the community can be polled. If it makes it past AfD, then it cannot be deleted; if it fails AfD, it cannot be recreated. Let me know your wishes. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the page could be put under temporary "stasis" until a later time, and then I could register it for Articles for Deletion? Or should I just make an article on 4chan memes and stick this in somewhere? Thanks.. -Jayinhar (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that you're asking. As it currently stands, the article is in stasis -- no one can recreate it except an administrator. If you want it recreated and submitted to Articles for Deletion, I'll do that; you don't have an unlimited time to make that happen, but a month is fine, I think. If you make "an article on 4chan memes" and mount it, it would be subject to the same qualifications as every other Wikipedia article and, frankly, I can't imagine that it would not be tagged for speedy deletion in the same way as the specific article was, either by me or someone else. My point of view is that these "memes" are not as significant as you seem to think they are, and that they are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. My advice would be that you find a place that would be more welcoming towards this kind of article, although I don't know what that would be. If you think I'm wrong, and that these memes are more significant than I think they are, then let's move to Articles for Deletion and solve the problem once and for all. Believe it or not, I can stand to be wrong about this and, if I am wrong, Wikipedia would gain an article, which would make me happy. The next move is up to you. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the article wasn't really necessary: It's just that whenever I find out about a new meme, if it's not on Wikipedia, I have no idea what it's about, and it'll usually take me some significant amount of time of doing research to figure out what it means and its origins. (I believe I found out from an eBaum's World thread that no longer exists.) I wanted to make the Wikipedia article to clarify to people who couldn't figure out what the meme was. I've decided for now not to take any action until I can figure out some reason why it is significant. Thank you for your help. -Jayinhar (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User Page Linked as Article

I've left a note on the Digital20's talk page querying the fact that the page is currently listed as an article in Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. The User page contains a description of something Digital20 calls 'Damon Huardism' - an article by which name was deleted on 12 December 2007. I'm supposed to assume good faith, so I've asked the user if there's a reason for the item to be linked and requested that any categorising tag be removed. I'm not, of course, assuming that 'Damon Huardism' was Made Up One Day, deleted accordingly, and that the user is simply relisting it using a page he thinks is undeletable. I mention this on your page because I note you had some involvement in the deletion of the original page. - Shrivenzale (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much both for alerting me and for being scrupulous about assuming good faith; they are appreciated. I see that the link to Damon Huardism is to a sandbox page and I believe that any link in the above-noted category is therefore against policy, but I'd want to confirm that to be 100 percent sure. Perhaps the user has merely overlooked the continued existence of the link and will erase it, and the corresponding page. Let's both keep an eye on this; I'll look up the policy about a category that's linked to a sandbox page when I have a little more time today. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For your info, another editor has now 'commented out' this entry on the Category page in response to a similar query I'd left on the Talk page earlier. - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bush crime family

Hi there. Thanks for speedy-deleting this redirect - as soon as I realised it existed, I knew it was inappropriate. Looking at the page's deletion log, I see that it has already been created and speedy-deleted twice before that. Given that this seems to be a relatively popular 'attack redirect' to create, and I can't think of ever having a legitimate article to put there, do you agree that it should probably be protected to stop people recreating it in future? Thanks again. Terraxos (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Vince

I noticed you speedied this earlier today - I'm not in a rush to recreate it with the genuine information, though you do know there is an actor called Alexander Vince, who was in The Others and currently goes to Aylesbury Grammar School, all of which was claimed in the article, don't you? He's on imdb.

As I say I'm not in a rush to recreate it as the extra info was either added by him or other people at the same school in order to get at him, though I do think removing all the redlinks that lead to the article was a bit unnecessary. -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nagari Pracharini Sabha

Thanks for informing me. This is an important organization that standardized the Devanagari script in its present form, such that today at least 800 million people can recognize the script. Since they work exculsively in the Devanagari script, and the script hasn't really caught on the internet yet, a Google test would probably be misleading. I'll be expanding on it, with references, though. deeptrivia (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellery Queen

Hello there. My schedule has cleared up a bit, so I've been making some comments on the EQ talk page. I hope I'm not too late or stepping on any toes. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of "XS2TheWorld B.V. Speaking Dictionary" ‎ article under "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising"

Hello, Accounting4Taste,

I'm wondering if you have any suggestions about how to make my article Wiki-acceptable. Should I perhaps change the article title so that the company name does not appear in it directly, or even alter the content of the article itself? This article (and another similar one that I had planned to contribute also) is for a client who asked me to create and upload it, so I am quite concerned. I've noticed that many other companies (such as Research in Motion, the creator of the BlackBerry) have articles on Wikipedia that aren't deleted.

Thank you and best regards,

Susan

Susan E Webb (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Accounting4Taste,

Thank you so much for all your advice...I actually printed it out to have it beside me as I revised the article to be more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. I have now reposted it under the title "Speaking Dictionary", and wonder if you might have a few minutes to take a look?

Thank you and best regards,

Susan Susan E Webb (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh great speedy deletion one...

Would you take a glance at Moyle horse and its history? I think this page needs to be tossed for an utter and complete lack of Notability, but I have trouble getting requests for deletion to go anywhere. The last time I tried to nominate something for deletion, it took endless discussion and was finally "merged" (blanked with a redirect, basically). Anyway, this one is becoming a monster of its own making and there is no other breed article to merge it to: I Googled it and came up with mostly mirror sites back to wikipedia. Most of the rest are advertising pages, but are blank for actual contents. The main one that wasn't is http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/moyle/index.htm and the article (all one sentence of it) is a verbatim cut and paste from that site, so a copyvio to boot. There was one other ref on a trivia forum with one other bit of material that wasn't in the OK state site. But I absolutely could not find anything else, though a book published by Oklahoma U press (hence probably the same material as the web site) claims in its Amazon.com review to have an entry. Well, that and some references to them on a Cryptozoology page on a discussion of unicorns...The was created by an anon IP, has been sitting around for two years and no one has actually added anything to it content-wise. It does not appear on the conservation breeds list at http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/wtchlist.html#horses nor it is listed at the International Museum of the horse . In short, I'd like some help getting this article tossed and you are the guru of deletion, so help?? Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly, oh great one! Montanabw^(talk) 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I did the speedy deletion tag and to my amazement, it was done! Wow. Yes, I am on top of the user who creates lots of new articles, I think it's a kid, nice enthusiasm, a lot of cleanup. Arrgh. She found a book that has ablurb on Amazon.com saying it lists 400 horse breeds,OH NOOOOOO! (There are about 200 breed articles in wikipedia already). I don't have a copy, but I fear she may be copying articles word for word. However, unless I want to pony up 30 bucks and buy the book, I can't prove it, so will let sleeping dogs lie on that topic, but I will tag everything else I can think of to try and improve their quality. There is a real tension within the wikiproject over people who want to identify everything as a separate breed and those who think that it's stupid to call a first generation crossbred a "breed." (I consider myself remarkably patient on how few articles I actually ask to have deleted.) Anyway, thanks for helping keep an eye on things and feel free to give me a heads up on anything you wonder about. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. I tried to join the project a couple of months back when you previously invited me but for some reasons had problems "signing on", problems that I didn't encounter yesterday! I've still got a great deal more to contribute to the Christie pages including (hopefully) more info re original printings of short stories that I might be able to obtain on a visit to the British Library this weekend. Regards--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Amateur Dramatics

Hi, You deleted the page I created before I had the opportunity to finish it in accordance with section 7 is it? That requires me to show the significance of such a group. Regards, Edengmcc --Edengmcc (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. It appears you are the party that deleted my wikipage, which to be clear, is both factual and proper, is not a violation of copyright, and contains similar content with respect to numerous wiki pages that are of a like nature and currently active. In fact, some wikipages have been active for quite some time without issue.
Please advise with respect to resolving this matter in a timely manner.

Thanks!
MI_Historian

Thanks for your prompt reply. I will review the terms and conditions set forth in your reply and will create a new page pursuant to the compliance conditions and citations noted.

Thanks!
MI_Historian

Revolution Mother

firstly i would like to thank you for helping with this page i would start up a mike vallely page as you said but this has already been done. i have also notice that their is a change in the protection over the page could you please explain thanks skate1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skate1234 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Lytle

I was a little suprised to find that not only had the article for this artist been deleted, but protected as well. Proving notablity per WP:MUSIC will be relatively easy (e.g. a cursory search turned up this: an MTV News report of his national tour — link (see paragraph 6), better references can be had with a little more effort, I am sure). I was wondering if you would consider a) unprotecting it and b) restoring the article to my user space so I can see if the it's salvageable or if I need to start from scratch. Thanks in advance for your assistance in this matter. Closenplay (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. Have you heard back from User:MZMcBride yet? If and when you restore the article, please dump it here. Thanks! Closenplay (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard back yet, but if nothing happens by tomorrow, I'll assume s/he's not interested and move forward as you request. Thanks for reminding me, and I'm sorry for the delay, but I do feel in these cases it's better to move slowly rather than risk offending someone by overruling their judgment. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's totally fine; I'm not trying to rush you. I appreciate your help. Closenplay (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Any word? Closenplay (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, don't sweat it. I haven't really been doing much editing for a while; maybe this will get me back into the swing of things. I'm sorry to hear you've been in poor health; I hope you feel better soon. Thanks for all your help. Closenplay (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that it's already been tagged as spam, so I've left a copy of the material at the sandbox page as you requested above. I hope this helps. Let me know if there's something else I can do, and good luck with your work on the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick cleanup and tagged it as underconstruction. Hopefully it won't get killed (I won't be able to do more edits until tomorrow). At least I have a saved copy now. Thanks again! Closenplay (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

revolution mother

again thank you for your help i shall get some more information to get revolution mothers page reinstated also will add to mike vallely thanks again skate1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skate1234 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why article for Vihara dharma ratna deleted

Hi administrator of Wikipedia. Recently, the page Vihara dharma ratna requested to be deleted. Itried to bring the article back and paste a word hang-on on the top of the page, but still deteled anyway without explanation further. Let me explain what is the page is about: Vihara dharma ratna page created to represent the new temple has been built in Klungkung Bali Indonesia. The temple call "Vihara Dharma Ratna". This is a genuine article and is not copied from other website. Some information in this article are extracted from the actual website which I'm also the publisher of this site: http://viharadharmaratna.googlepages.com/. This article will be translated and continously improved in the future. Anyone who requested for deletion of this page have no right to do this. Please post your comment why do you think this article should be deleted from wikipedia, as it's not violating any copy-right or against any agreement of GFDL. Kjliame-pohs (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. The article was deleted because it was not written in the English language. Articles in the English-language Wikipedia have to be written in the English language. It was tagged with the (notenglish) tag which gave you a certain amount of time to have the article translated into English, and apparently you didn't do that. I'm not sure what language it was written in, but perhaps it would be more appropriate for the Wikipedia in that language. If you have any further questions, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your speedy explanation. The article written in Indonesian language, I've been trying translating the article, but due to time constraint (holiday season) translation has not been completed.

I'll completed the article in English by 15th Jan 2008. Can you reload the Article Vihara_dharma_ratna for time being, and I'll paste the english version by the 15th Jan 2008. Kind regards.Kjliame-pohs (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't think it would be very useful to remount the article since it would immediately be tagged for deletion and I have no guarantee that you would accomplish the translation, or that the article would meet the notability guidelines once it was translated. My recommendation would be that you work on this article outside of the English-language Wikipedia and when you've finished the translation, re-mount the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your reponse once again. I'll finished it soon and I'll send you request to re-mount the article on the 16th Jan 2008.

cheers

When the article is complete and written in English, you can post it by following the procedure for creating a new article. If you need help at that point, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

El Diablo

I would just to take this opportunity to inform you that there is actually a big cat similar to that of the beast of bodmin, however this cat is not aswell known. It is called El Diablo(it started as a joke name by local youths, which then stuck). Apart from some of the idiosism on the page alot was actually true, i would be most graetful if it was reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The do dar man (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re El Diablo

I Shall look for the newspaper from when it was sighted last. As there is no infomation on the internet about this, surely that is the whole point of this website?? informing people about lesser known interests? Yep i will agree with you it is hard to believe unless you have lived here. It adds a bit of iterest to the local area. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The do dar man (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, i'm not going to come back with "The Tiddley Pond Gazette", Frankly i find your tone quite un-called for, there is no need to be insulting!! Besides i'm going to come back with The Grantham Journal, a date, and a file. As i said if you lived around here you might see where i'm coming from.

Hope this is of some interest- www.thebestof.co.uk/grantham/news/25667 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The do dar man (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

May i just ask if you checked this? pretty much proves it is not a figment of my imagination, don't you think? www.thebestof.co.uk/grantham/news/25667 ThankyouThe do dar man (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Coleman Insights

Thank you for your advice on bringing an article about a firm in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I would appreciate additional feedback about the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman_Insights and whether it can now avoid being deleted. Thanks! --HeyKurtz (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional guidance. I understand your points and will withdraw the article from submission.--HeyKurtz (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability on Horse Articles

I was talking to User:Montanabw about the notability on a few individual horse articles I have come across, and she suggested that I ask you for your opinion. Someone seems to have gone through and put in a bunch of horses whose main claim to fame was that their riders won big events on OTHER horses. The four articles (all stubs) I am looking at right now are:

• Best Of All - won nothing that I can find
• Burke's Boy - won only one large event
• Diamond`s Exchange - participated in Olympics/World Equestrian Games but didn't place, won a couple of other various lesser-known events.
• Sir Barnaby - was the first horse of a well-known rider, won a couple of Junior events, check out this site [1] down near the bottom for details.

Do you think these articles should be kept or deleted, and if deleted, what would the process be? I haven't been involved in a deletion before, and so I'm not really sure what protocol is :) Thank you in advance for your help!Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have tagged the three with the prod template, and will keep an eye on them. If no one contests the deletion, I'll let you know so that you can delete them. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Elementism

The PROD you inserted on Elementism has been contested, so I took the article to AfD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

365Chess.com

you have deleted an entrance named 365Chess.com . Now i have started a talk page with my ponit of view [here] Please re consider your position - Masugly (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Night Puma

I think that you should re-create the page night puma since YOU deleted it. Would you please do it for me?

No. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you don't like Night Pumas? FINE. Because I LOVE them. If you aren't happy with that I Don't care. --Pumagirl7 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete the page, Trailer Trash? If you could send me a message explaining this I would greatly appreciate it. Creamy3 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the additional information, that makes sense. The only point I wanted to make with re-creating the page is that the film is now currently in production; when the page was originally made the film was in pre-produciton. Also, the page I made was not a recreation of a page that was already deleted, that page was ''Trailer Trash (movie)'' while the page I created was called ''Trailer Trash (film)''. Thanks again, Creamy3 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I would really appreciate your help with the Wikipedia:Deletion review. Don't feel that you have to help me though. Thanks for all your help on the subject. Creamy3 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mythic game

Hiya - no worries. Noted on repost, although it's annoying that it doesn't extend to something which has literally been recreated from the speedily deleted material without amendment. That's precisely the reason I removed the hangon tag - the author had created the page with both the db- and the hangon- tag, perhaps by going back in their browser history. It's a bit cheeky to recreated a deleted page with the very tag that deleted it in place (although I suppose it helps NP patrollers!). Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I may have thought it was flagging up to you that there had already been a deleted article, but if it sends you off on a wild goose chase looking for an XfD that doesn't exist, I'll be doubly sure not to do it in the future! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Sounds like good advice. Have a good day. Creamy3 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts

On 10/1, you deleted the page American Journal Experts and claimed it was blatant advertising. I do not believe you read the page. The page was placed in the category "e-mail spammers." No one would ever place a page in that category that they were hoping to use as advertising. I have recreated the page with a specific "criticisms" section so the likes of you will not regard the page as advertising. The notability is also stated succinctly (the company has scholarly clients in every country).BlueDevil1 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The likes of me" takes the responsibility of administration status sufficiently seriously that every page gets read. Thanks for bringing this page to my attention again; now, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, regardless of your assertion to the contrary. If you'd like to take this through the articles for deletion process to make the deletion more permanent, I'd be up for that. Have a great day!!!! Accounting4Taste:talk 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I could go for that. I think the article would survive AFD. I have edited my material on the talk page for the article so that your latest posting there is now moot.BlueDevil1 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Road protest article

Thank you for your vigalence in stopping wikipedia becoming full of stub article however can you refer to the talk page and history of this article and notice that there is an active discussion on the scope of the two day old article, on how to make it viable and that I personally have committed to add sufficient content to it in the next two weeks and have suggested refining its scope (to UK and Ireland only) where there is a great untold and ongoing story. Please restore this article and give us the opportunity do what we have said we will do and to build on it rapidly (which I believe is wikipedia policy on the matter)PeterIto (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you recover the associated talk page as well please which has an important discussion about scope. ThanksPeterIto (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think it should have reached your quality threshold now? Note that three people (unknown to each other to my knowledge) have either contributed to it or discussed it on the talk pages within the 3 days it has existed. I have made a unilateral decision to limit this article to UK protests and will move it to 'Road protests (UK)' (and update other links in). The reason is firstly because there isn't already an article for UK protests yet, secondly that protests tend to emerge in response to policy so the timing varies from country to country, and finally because it is a hell of a good story and relevant to current political debate. I will continue to develop content for the individual current protests but am relying on other linked articles for details of historical protests.PeterIto (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoebe Hearst Elementary School

Well, with a USA Today article and a bunch more from their major metropolitan newspaper, the debate is going to get flooded with "keep" voters anyway, so I figured I might as well have some fun with it =). At least it's verifiable and has intellectually independent sources. Which is more than can be said for some "automatically notable" high schools/award winning lower schools whose articles end up getting "improved and expanded instead of deleted" by quoting the school website and articles from the town paper written by a guy whose kids just happen to go to the school. cab (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BRC

You've been invited. GlassCobra 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

Ahh, that sucks, sorry that you've been sick. What I would recommend that you do is present your application for two pictures on the honorable Cabal talk page, so as to gain wider approval. Good luck! GlassCobra 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so, after a super-secret cabal meeting, we have decided that we cannot reject someone with a Versace bathrobe. However, in order to fulfill the stipulations required for entry into the illustrious BRC (namely, the cheesy grin), the candidate must have their face in the picture. If you're okay with that, then you will for sure get in. Let me or any of the BRC people know, okay? :D GlassCobra 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nasty Amishman

why delete the nasty amishman's page? it is information about that comedian. where else would it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallstump (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The answer is "Not in Wikipedia," at least until you come up with some reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic in a verifiable way. This is an encyclopedia; its topics must be notable, and this is not merely a vehicle for advertising. Have you considered MySpace? Accounting4Taste:talk 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Mana World

Why has the page been deleted for? I would have thought that it is reasonably notable as one of the very few attempts at making a fully functioning open source mmorpg. It is not like it has only been around for a month or so when i could understand the point of it maybe not being worthy of making wikipedia but why does it really differ from other projects such as filezilla or 7zip which both have full articles? If the article is not good enought surly is is up to the community as a whole to improve on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytob (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. First of all, "notability" has a specific definition in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with how long it's been around, but entirely to do with what other people have to say about it -- independent third-party arm's-length experts asserting notability in a verifiable way. The article I deleted had none of that; it required sources and references and had none. Your second suggestion, that the article be compared to others, is not considered a useful argument around here; read the policy at WP:WAX for a full explanation, but essentially we're not talking about other articles, we're talking about this one. Finally, yes, you are correct in a sense, that it is up to the community as a whole to improve articles. Over time, though, the community has developed an awareness of the kinds of articles that either cannot or should not be improved, and these are covered by the speedy deletion guidelines. The speedy deletion criterion for web-based content is fairly clear; having an article about every website on the Internet would essentially be like trying to duplicate the Internet, an impossible task, and so we restrict ourselves to the few sites that are exceptional in some way. Using your suggestion, we would have millions of tiny articles about websites that were waiting to be improved, and waiting in vain. That would not only make us less useful to our users but it would cost an awful lot of money in server space that we haven't got. If you can demonstrate that the site is truly exceptional by reference to about three reliable sources (not blogs, but things like newspaper and magazine articles) then it would be more likely that a reposting of the article would be successful. If I can be of any further assistance with interpreting Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a nother note. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plaigarism on "Anna Pojawis"

"anna pojawis" should be deleted because it is plaigarized from "skyler shaye". it is also completely untrue - this person has accounts on some acting profile sites but is not actually an actor and has definitely not been in any of these movies. the article is completely false and needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaTime1911 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. GlassCobra 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting horse pages

The pages Sir Barnaby and Best Of All have retained their prod tags, and so can be deleted, if you wouldn't mind doing that! The Burke's Boy page had its tag deleted (not by the creator), and some more info added...would you like to take a look and see if you think it meets notability now? I know the one event this horse has won is fairly high level, but it's definitely not the Olympics. Thank you for your help! Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

3Com Users Group

Dear Accounting4Taste,

Recently you deleted my page, citing

(CSD A7 (Group): Article about a club or group that does not assert significance).

I believe this article is significant due to the fact that the 3Com Users Group has members world wide and is the ONLY Active 3Com Users Group that I am aware of.

Please check this site for information about 3Com Corporation itself if you have not heard of them. They are a substantially large corporation, who go toe-to-toe with Cisco, Nortel, HP, and Bay Networks in the networking and VoIP world.

I can understand why you may have presumed that my Users Group did not assert its significance due to the fact that I did not provide the information above on my initial article post.

I hope this helps in getting my article back up, and do appreciate your help ion advance with this matter.

Maxous (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I left a note on your talk page last night that outlined what was wrong with the article, and nothing has changed. Your note above suggests that you have either misunderstood what I had to say or ignored it; please go back and re-read it. I am quite well aware of what 3Com Corporation is and I have no doubt that the users group is what you say it is. What is required, as I said there, is independent third-party sources that assert the notablity of the group. I've left you links to all relevant policies in that note. If you're still having trouble understanding the relevant policies, you can leave me another note. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I read it on my talk page after I posted a note for you on your talk page. I will see what I can gather from third-party sources. I am not to sure as to what I can gather now, as the group has yet to be formally announced from 3Com. Thank you for taking the time to help me with this matter. Maxous (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Erik Rhodes (porn star) speedy delete nom

Thank you for your directions re the above. I've listed the article at deletion review and posted subst tags where instructed. It appears the closing admin is no longer actively editing, according to his talk page -- don't know if that makes a diff.--72.76.92.30 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

New db- template

Hi. I would like to know whether you and/or other admins think it would be appropriate to create a new speedy deletion template for a particular case of G6 that seems to occur frequently. The template in question would be used in cases of copy-and-paste page moves and would be named db-copypaste. An incomplete version can be found at User:Blanchardb/Cutandpaste. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI for you to keep your eyes on

I requested deletion of Samber. A 20 year old crossbred with spots that stands for a stud fee of $600 bucks is simply by definition anything BUT notable, no matter how well-loved. There are a couple of people working with me trying to get the "my cute pony" articles out of wikipedia, and I'm noticing a bit of resistance. (note Talk:Burke's Boy and do YOU think Robert Grant (footballer) meets WP:Notability??) Anyway, you are pretty good at cutting through what is worthy and what is not, so I'll trust your radar on this (and was it proper for that user to just remove the Prod tag on Burke's Boy within a day without any kind of process? If it was an error, would you restore the tag?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can remove a PROD tag at any time for any reason; your only alternative is to take the article to AfD. I'm afraid I just don't know enough about British footy to be able to say which are the pro teams and which not; if I knew, I'd be deleting more articles, I'm sure, so Robert Grant (footballer) will make it past me, at least for a while. Let me know if anyone removes these PROD tags and you want a hand taking things to AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Body Time (the original 'The Body Shop')"

This page was deleted because it is an "Article about a company that doesn't assert significance". I emailed you-sorry. I was confused about getting to your talk page (duh-I guess I should have looked at the tabs at the top of the page).
You wrote that since the Berkeley Body Shop decided to remain small and local it is not a notable company and that it is not important to an entire country or an entire industry. Body Time's website shipping & handling page (URL: http://www.bodytimeproducts.com/shiphanin.html) has information/instructions for those who wish to place an order from outside of the United States. The website also has shipping and handling prices/information for orders shipping within the Continental United States versus orders shipping to US Territories and it has a specific dollar amount listed for orders that ship to Canada. It probably receives orders from some of these places, I would think. In fact, it must have enough experience with international orders that it has very specific requirements for international orders due to "security reasons".
As for its importance to the industry, were there any stores devoted entirely to bath, body and fragrances before the original "The Body Shop" opened in 1970? I don't know of any.
Have to stop here. Something came up. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvall (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There are a number of observations I could make here with respect to what I feel are your erroneous readings of various Wikipedia policies, but the major point to be made here is that this is not a process where you argue until I give in. What I am trying to do is help you to understand the policy. If you want to recreate your page, go right ahead. I expect it will be rapidly deleted because it violates those policies, for reasons I have tried to explain to you, by someone other than myself. There is really no point in your trying to tell me what you think the policy should be, or cover, or encompass, because there are thousands of people who are here to interpret it -- if you want to try to change the relevant policy, go right ahead, there's a process that people use to try to change policy and I'll find it for you if you like. But it is a waste of your time and mine for you to try to argue with me, an individual administrator, about what you think the policy means. I know what I think the policy means, and I have tried to share that understanding with you so that you could use that information to decide about the future of your potential article. There are more than 1,500 other administrators who also have an individual idea of what the relevant policy means, and if you want to start discussing this individually with each one of them, you'll be here until the year 2100 and your article will still not be available for reading.

The only useful process I have to recommend at this point is that you work at creating your article until you think it meets the relevant policies (which I recommend you familiarize yourself with by reading them, rather than by telling me what you think they are or should be). Once you do that, let me know that you plan on mounting the page at a certain date and time, and I will take the article through a Wikipedia process called Articles for deletion. The articles for deletion (AfD) process will let you know what a large number of editors/administrators thinks about whether your article meets/does not meet specific policies, because participants in that process are expected to quote the precise policy that they think is being met/violated. The AfD process is relatively permanent. If it passes AfD, your article will be fairly "bullet-proof"; if it fails AfD, it will not be allowed to be recreated under any but the most extraordinary circumstances. In other words, it's more or less a final solution, but from that process you will know what the will of the community is, and not be able to claim that your article has been deleted because you have failed to convince any individual administrator of its merits.

If you have any questions or comments, or if you want to be referred to any specific Wikipedia policy that you cannot find for yourself, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Robert David Irwin page Phillidev (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please advise on how this page could be improved so it could be considered for publishing again? I appreciate any advice you can provide.

Thank you for your advice. I will add some third party articles to see if this will help. Phillidev (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnes Boffey

Hey. Just wanted to let you know that the PROD you added was removed by an anonymous IP, so I put the page up for AfD. You can view it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnes Boffey. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint John Mary International School

Why this article is deleted, when it follows the same criteria WIKI allows to other international school like Samakkhi Witthayakhom School, Harrow International School, Ruamrudee International School, Nantawan Trilingual School, etc. please consider this. WE always support WIKI in good heart.

I have no way of finding this -- you have not identified yourself nor the article sufficiently for me to figure out what you're talking about. You should be aware that the argument "What about X?" (summed up at WP:WAX) is an irrelevant one. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've managed to track this down, and note that you have recreated the article. This is an article about a private company that doesn't have any references or sources to back up its assertions of notability, not that it seems to have too many of those. In future, please sign your comments with four tildes. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AND, most importantly, the article has previously failed an Articles for Deletion process, which means it can and must be deleted on sight. So if you have any more disingenuous guestions about why the article was deleted, that's the answer. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking Dictionary - reposted after deletion of XS2The World Speaking Dictionary

Hello again, Accounting4Taste,

I did thank you for all your helpful advice about my original article (see addition to "XS2The World Speaking Dictionary" thread); hope you received it.

I am writing now to ask if you might have a few moments to look at my most recent effort, "Speaking Dictionary". Fortunately this version has not been deleted, but as you will see some flags have been added for "wikification", advertising tone/NPOV (in the "What Others Say..." section) and categorization.

If you can offer any advice about how to address the above (i.e. do I have too many internal hyperlinks, for instance), it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks and regards,

Susan Susan E Webb (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Glasvegas

I was just about to add this to the article and remove the speedy tag (which was applied the exact same minute that the article was created by user User:Johnthepcson. Obviously, based on the article's content, I'm not disputing the deletion, but I'd like to undelete it, add the reference, and see where it goes so as not to be too bitey. Would you mind terribly if I undeleted it? Keeper | 76 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if you took this on and we got a decent article out of it. I'm sorry if I've seemed to move too fast here -- I surely didn't know that the article had lasted all of a minute before being tagged, or else I might have left it alone for a while to see what happened to it, as is occasionally my wont. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you with this, and thanks for taking it on -- the more useable articles the better, I say. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks A4T. I haven't touched the article, but there is an AFD going on right now if your interested. It's looking like a "keep" so far, but your input is of course appreciated if you feel otherwise. Cheers, Keeper | 76 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint John Mary International School

We are all hoping that this debate will end and accomplished more things here in WIKI. Here at Saint John Mary International School were very gratefull for WIKI on helping our students in research and materials. Our administration, Faculty, staff, students are very proud that WIKI allows our school to be one of the article here. But recently its under deletion. Please bring it back and help us improve whatever guidelines you require. More power to WIKI! user:Accounting4Taste please help. Saintjohnmary (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Fan

Sorry, wrong csd criteria tag G10 instead my A7. Thanks. Rgds Meisterkoch (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jason Lytle

Sorry for not responding; I've been getting hit up left and right with requests for unprotection ever since I deprecated the old protected titles system in favor of &action=protect. Your post just got lost in the clutter. Anyway... I have no comment about that page, as I said, I was doing batch protections, about 4000 of them. You may want to leave a note with the deleting admin, as they were most likely the person who originally blocked creation of the page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rex Banner (band)

Regarding Rex_Banner_(band),

I think this band satisfies the notability criteria.

• As per the article, this band has won a major music competition - JJJ's Unearthed competition is undoubtedly the most well-known Australian music competition for alternative music
• The band has been interviewed in and had articles written about them in Australian music publications. I can provide scans if you wish. I didn't include this in the article because I wasn't sure how relevant it was.
  • Blunt Magazine
  • Drum Media
  • Death Before Dishonour
• The band's previous singer, Adam Linden, was previously a member of a very prominent Australian punk band, Game Over (I failed to note this in the article, but no doubt would have edited it in as soon as I realised)

Could you see your way clear to leave it?

Thanks :)

Edit: Apologies, I'm a noob and forgot to sign. It is also worth noting that this is not the same band about which the page was created the first time.

Lolmoney (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

E-Lottery

You don't think being connected with one of the biggest Congress scandals in recent history is an assertion of significance? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing redline links

Hi, Accounting4Taste.

You recently removed a number of redline links from List of people from Hawaii. Wouldn't it be more desireable to leave them as signposts to artcles needing to be written or to write the articles yourself. Your action cuts down on the information in Wikipedia instead of expanding it. It also makes it a little more difficult for those wanting to expand and improve Wikipedia. DaKine (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian A. Scott

This is a follow up to your rejecting my submission on UFO abductee Brian A. Scott. This American man Scott is an incorrigible charlatan who has used the media and innocent people to advance his agenda over the years. He is reported to be a very smooth talker who has caused trouble in anthropological and political circles in South America, stolen archaeological artifacts from that region, lied to law enforcement about spousal abuse and tried to engage the President of the United States under false pretenses ( see rewrite ).

Please immediately reconsider your denial. This material is *not* patent nonsense. It *is* of interest to people in the UFO debunking community who have, to their credit, both professional jobs and credibility. It is not libel or slander on my part these events did occur. I have sufficient references. "Abducteeism" happened and can still happen in this technologically concise day and age. My goal in reporting this is to prevent another individual from doing the same thing in the future. -Winlundn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winlundn (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10