User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Role account

Can I get your help with this role account: Special:Contributions/Stgenevieve5thgrade. Aside from the giveaway name, it's creating articles waaay to fast to be one person (stuck that since I just saw how short some of the articles are). I left a note, but per WP:ROLE, a block might be needed. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And after looking at the articles, I'll see if I can find some links on how to use Wikipedia more effectively for a class environment. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the 5th grade class account. (Too bad the teacher wouldn't engage.) And I did look for some useful links for him/her, but it seems that everything we have for teachers is designed for HS/College. (Which, since this is an encyclopedia, is probably not a bad thing). I'm tempted to drop a pointer to simple.wiki, but I was concerned it might be taken as demeaning. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'm a little nervous about this, having never encountered this situation before, but after we both left notes, I tried e-mailing the user some time ago and received nothing back, which leads me to believe that our suspicion was true and the teacher has no defense to the suggestion. But s/he is still posting articles about semi-notable women in American history, so I figured I had to do something. I'm signing off now, and I'm liable to be away from my desk for two or three days, which is why I absolve any other admin with a different POV for handling the situation as they see fit in the interim. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oompapa

ANything with oompapa needs indef blocked. Prolific ssockpuppeteer that is best to deny. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bedeutung

Not that I disagree with the speedy, but deleting 3 minutes after the hangon was placed appears real quick for non-libellous "content" such as this. Dorftrottel (harass) 14:05, April 18, 2008

Look again, the page has been recreated. G11/G12 rolled into one. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:10, April 18, 2008

To come back to your earlier response: Of course I agree that even the "placeholder" needs to be quickly deleted. My only concern was that the editor might take the notice in the CSD/hangon templates seriously and might then feel unnecessarily offended by the very quick deletion. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:20, April 18, 2008

Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association, Inc (VPPPA)

Hello,

I posted an article on VPPPA and it was deleted because it was too much of an advertisement. I changed the content and attempted to repost and received an unauthorized response. Is there a reason for this?

Thank you

VPPPA (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'll go to your user talk page at User talk:VPPPA you'll see a more complete explanation -- essentially, our policies don't permit individual users to have user-names that are the same as organizations. If you select another user name that doesn't directly relate to an organization, and create another account under that name (following the procedures outlined on your user talk page linked above), I believe you'll be able to go forward. I would also suggest that you look at the material at Wikipedia:Your first article with particular attention to the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. If you have any further questions or problems about Wikipedia policy or procedures, please feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've been trying to post an article for such a long time but couldn't get through. It gets deleted every time telling me that it includes Advertisement. I don't think that there are any. Could you please go through the Article? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bignepal&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanx

Thanks for your note. I've had a look at the article and the biggest problem that I see is that it doesn't have any references or sources. Everything that is in the article is something that you say about the organization, and that's why the editors feel that it's advertising or self-promotion. In order to be the subject of an article on Wikipedia, your website must be notable according to an impartial expert. So, what the editors are looking for is a reference to an article in a newspaper or a magazine (for example), written by someone who is not connected with your organization, that says that the website is notable (significant, unusual, or special). What you say about your topic doesn't add notability, it's what outside experts say. The sources that you quote should also be verifiable -- the editors should be able to locate the source of information and check to make sure that it says what you say it says. Blogs and forums are not considered useful sources -- newspapers, magazines and books are. I suggest that you check out the links in this paragraph to find the exact policies that I'm referring you to, and these two as well: Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted? and Wikipedia:Your first article. If you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, leave mea note and I'll help you if I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

You wiped out the page for the film producer Andre E. King I was creating saying it was copyrighted material. I am also the person who wrote the IMDB.com article from which it came and that credit was both given and related to for verification. May I ask you. How does one verify the information give for a page without noting a source? I am the writer of both articles about Mr. King. Can you please tell me how to create a page in such a way as not to violate any of your rules? Also, I based the page on other celebrity pages that have identical information on both the IMDB page and the one on Wiki. Why are they not taken down as well?

Marusho

I requested that the Japanese article 丸正自動車製造 be translated into english under the title Marusho. I now find that a page may have appeared under that name but you have had it speedily deleted. I nver saw the content of the page before it was deleted, so I have not yet been able to establish whether it bore any relation to the translation that I had requested.

The first I knew about the problem was when I found a bot message "Nonsense of Marusho" on my talk page. I find this impersonal and unpleasant, and it leaves me unable to find out what the problem may have been. A personal message explaining the problem would have been more personable and helpful.

Marusho was a Japanese motorcycle company circa 1949-1967, mostly using the Lilac brand name. It is one of several early Japanese motorcycle companies whose histories I am trying to discover by requesting translations. The others are Cabton, Meguro and Miyata (still in business as a bicycle manufacturer). The other major Japanese motorcycle maker from this period is Rikuo. This make already has a brief Wikipedia article, and I have worked to improve the links to and from it.

I am learning my way around the Wikipedia:Translation pages. I always work in good faith but I may have made one or two mistakes. I appreciate the need for speedy deletion in certain circumstances. However, as I am the user who requested that the Marusho page be created I would have appreciated a polite message that actually told me what you thought the problem was.

Thanks for sharing. If there is something that you want me to do that will contribute to Wikipedia, feel free to let me know what it is. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Penelopism

Can I please have your help, because I am trying to determine the reason my page was "vandalism" when it is clearly not. If so, can you please give me help on how to improve my page so it can be to the utmost quality for wikipedia? Also, if Penelopism was deleted simply because of it's state being a religion, there are Christianity pages and other religious pages. Penelopism is a true religion, and it is gathering followers every day. If this is the reason that it was deleted, I assure you that I am a strong believer and I will find a way to get this religion on wikipedia. It doesnt matter how much editing it takes, for the sake of Penelope, it's worth it.

There are simple standards that are required for a topic to be the subject of a Wikipedia article; notability and reliable sources (follow the links in this sentence for precise definitions of those terms). Just come up with two or three reliable sources attesting to the notability -- not just the existence, but the notability -- of your concept. Those would be things like articles in magazines and newspapers, chapters of books, etc. -- not things like postings in on-line forums or MySpace pages. Get back to me when you have that information ready to go, and I'll help you. If you can't meet these conditions, I recommend you try somewhere else to host your material. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My Page

Hello i just wanted to ask you something. I was wondering if u would allow my page Leanza Monreal to be on without being deleted. I really like this girl and want her to see it. Please if u would allow i would really really really appreciate it. Thanks

I'm afraid that since the page in question doesn't remotely meet our policies about notability, I'm unable to do that. I suggest you try to put your information somewhere that doesn't have standards for the quality of its material, like MySpace or Facebook. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver 2008 Meetup

May 5, Benny's Bagels, see here. You show as a CWNB Vancouverite, hope to see you there! Franamax (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DonorDirect

First time on wikipedia. I have added new sources with a credible background such as Global Software and Microsoft. This company has partnered with Microsoft and deals with the biggest religious nonprofits in the country which I have provided links to in the article. A very notable company. Anything I can do to help it along? Btrain3 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to give you some useful information on your talk page at User talk:Btrain3; please check there. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD states, in the non-criteria section, that "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The article asserted the importance of the company. It just didn't verify it, and there's a distinct difference. A proposed deletion is the appropriate action for the article, and I'd certainly agree with one. VanTucky 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I guess there's something here that I'm completely missing, or misunderstanding, because I can't grasp that this company has asserted notability from what I see. Nevertheless, I'll trust your judgment and accept your suggestion as to how to proceed; thanks for your time. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted "Archive Okina"

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

04:50, 25 April 2008 Accounting4Taste (Talk | contribs) deleted "Archive Okina" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Article mistakenly archived into article space moved to userspace)

if you felt it was inappropriate to have in archive, then why put it in my space? Remove it completely if it is not sufficient for archive (done to clear space to continue the debate on appropriate usage of Hawaiian grammer -- are you familar with this discussion? It is important & that is why I felt It wasn't deemed to be deleted but archieved for others to refer back to.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2008 April 25

Long Family Tree

Dear Accounting4Taste,

The truth is, I really don't appreciate the fact that you deleted my article. I had just started it and went back to fix it when your deletion showed up. Why did you delete it? This would have been my first page. Sincerely, WilliamA2C (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left you a note in response on your talk page at User talk:WilliamA2C and hope you find it sufficient. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the *. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• My pleasure. I think I have to apologize for subjecting you to the diatribe it engendered but, as I think you might agree, it tends to prove the point in an ironic way. I just looked at your talk page and decided that the minor whining *I* get from new page patrol is relatively polite compared to what you seem to have attracted -- hence the *. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NalinWiki, you deleted my article while I was still writing it on the basis that it contained "no references whatsoever" but allow your own article to stand even though it contains "no references whatsoever". Please, please explain how your point been proven in "an ironic way". Go ahead. Explain it. All I have seen so far from you is reckless deletion of other people`s work followed by pathetic back-slapping from like-minded wreckers. If you are going to have a dig at me, why not do it on my own talk page? You weren`t shy to destroy four hours of my work, so why be shy now? Kont Dracula (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've confused the two of us; I must take credit for some statements that have apparently offended you, having signed them, so feel free to express yourself here about them. If you want the contents of an article that was deleted, in order to work on adding citations in a "sandbox" page, you can either ask me or another administrator for assistance. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia policies, I'll be happy to direct you to the relevant pages. And if you'd like to work on contributing to Wikipedia in a worthwhile way, in accordance with our policies, I think everyone here will try to assist you. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven`t confused anything. There is not very much to confuse between you two drones anyway. I see that you are not very good at answering specific questions about specific articles. Evidently, you feel much safer describing deleted articles that you have not even read as "steaming crap" than you are actually discussing the actual merits of said articles. A really positive, worthwhile contribution there. Is that the kind of "contribution" you want me to make? Hardly surprising that you prefer the classic politburo repsonse of "directing me to the relevant" regulations rather than discuss the merits of the case in question. Yet you have the arch hypocrisy to highlight the "assume good faith" legend on your page.

Well I do have some questions about wikipedia policy, as you mention it:

1) Is it an acceptable practice for a wikipedia adminstrator to delete articles which are in the very process of being written without consultation or clarification on the basis that they do not contain references when the very same administrator has himself posted less relevant articles which do not contain references himself?

2) If the answer to the above is yes (and I have to conclude that it is, as that is precisely what has happened) would it be fair to conclude that wikipedia administrators feel themselves above and not subject to the same criteria for notability and verification as non-administrators? After all, my article contained no references and was deleted. NawlinWiki`s contained no references and was amended when I pointed it out. Please refer me to the relevant pages. Kont Dracula (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, to the first part of the question; administrators can delete articles without consultation or clarification. Articles that are being considered for deletion are assessed entirely on their own terms, and not with reference to any other article, so comparison of your article (which I have read) with any article created or edited by anyone else is not a relevant consideration. You can read the relevant policy at WP:WAX.

2. There is no Wikipedia policy that governs the personal attitudes of individual administrators, so I can't tell you how other administrators "feel". You're free to conclude whatever you like, and apparently have done so. If other articles don't contain references, you're welcome to tag them appropriately for improvement or deletion, just like every other editor here. There are a number of ways you can find out about tags and every page with such a tag contains pathways to find out the tag's meaning.

If you have any further questions or problems, please take them elsewhere; you've now consumed as much of my time as you're going to get. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia within its boundaries instead of squabbling with its administrators, you'll be welcome, but you've now exhausted my patience. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

It`s OK, you can come out of hiding now. You started this whole thing by rubbing salt into the wounds and calling my work "crap" just after I had had it deleted by an over-zealous administrator for no good reason. I hope that you have at least learnt a lesson from this. Be careful about bandying about insults next time. But anyway, the issue is over as far as I am concerned. Kont Dracula (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)