User talk:Accounting4Taste

If you're here to discuss a page, it would be appreciated if you would be specific about the name of the page, if possible providing a link to it. Since I, like you, am working to improve Wikipedia, please remember to assume good faith, and also please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

Zooillogix

Hola. Would you mind taking a look and telling me how the Zooillogix entry in the sandbox is shaping up in your opinion? --DeKreeft27 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What occurred to me as I was looking over the article is not something that is in any way a mistake or error. Simply, I think it's important to establish the notability as soon as possible in the article, so that it doesn't get tagged/deleted by a zealous editor/administrator like me <grin>. So I would recommend that you take the citations -- where you name the three magazines/sites in which the site has been featured, etc. -- and make them the second sentence of the article. If this doesn't seem logical to you, well, after the article has been around for a month or so, you can change everything back. You know, I kind of hate "gaming" the system this way... but as an administrator who does a lot of new page patrol, I can say that having the citations right up front would sway me and make it easier for me to leave it alone. And if the article lasts beyond a few hours, it is MUCH more likely to remain untagged, so anything you can do to further that end, I suppose, is legitimate.

I would definitely try and find as many citations as you possibly can. Three is good -- nine is better -- 24 is great. Any source with any pretension to being a reliable source that mentions the site would be useful. No blogs or forums -- those tend to weaken your case rather than strengthen it, unless the blogs themselves are really, really well known. The IgNobel connection is really good.

You might also keep a close eye on the article for an hour or two after you remount it, and use the (hangon) tag quickly if the article is tagged. You might also wait to remount it until you're sure I'm around and on-line -- I'll examine the article and tag it as having been examined, which may help. I can't defend the article for you against all other editors/admins, but I can help you bring the notability of this topic to the attention of other editors/admins with the use of the hangon tag to gain some time.

There is one more thing that you can do, although I think this would come under the heading of "if all else fails". You may want to enter this article for an articles for deletion (AfD) process (or have me do it). If the article passes AfD, I believe it would be fairly safe (it's very rare that something gets proposed for AfD twice). On the down side, if it fails AfD, it really will be gone, pretty much once and for all -- the only alternative remaining would be WP:Deletion review. So, I don't really think this is a good idea unless "all else fails".

I hope this helps. Let me know if I can help you further. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

you're the man. thanks a ton. i realize there are no gaurantees here but appreciate the strategy lesson. i will let you know when i make the updates. --DeKreeft27 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I made my updates, including an ABC News reference which I had totally forgotten about. I also deleted the origins section because I think it only undermined the creditibility of the piece. Let me know if you think any other changes would be helpful. The rest of the non-blog references I have are weak so I'm hoping 4 will cut-it. Let me know when if you are around and I'll put it up. Thanks again. --DeKreeft27 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your help. Still getting my Wiki legs here. After your initial help on the article "Michael Minns", the article was at first "toned down" by Famspear, which was minimal but fine and seemed fair, and then another editor cam along and tagged it for consideration for deletion, citing lack of a "neutral tone", and the mere fact that an article had been attempted before (?!). Sounds like once anyone doesn't like the idea of a certain subject for an article, it's not possible anymore. One is claiming the subject (Michael Minns) is not notable. I disagree. If one does a tiny bit of research online, or reads the article it becomes self-evident that he is a noteworthy figure. Richard Hatch wa s a culturally famous/infamous figure (the first Survivor winner) who lost his case. That should even the tone out without introducing a non-historic case just for that purpose...The notability issue may be the main issue, since are just not familiar with this field. I wonder if there is anything you can do to help me to get it more seriously considered. I am beginning to think that the law is just too boring a field to most editors for to really see the issue of "notatable" clearly. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughhauser (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for User:ComputerGuy890100/Userboxes/2007

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:ComputerGuy890100/Userboxes/2007. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — ComputerGuy890100 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Deletion review

Thank you Accounting4Taste. I forgive you because everyone makes mistakes and us, as Wikipedians, are supposed to fix changes in the wiki of Wikipedia. Thank you. — ComputerGuy890100 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Marilynn manson

I recently searched for marilynn manson in wikipedia and was unable to find the page without going through the search process. To make things easier for people who search for this term in the future, I created a redirect page from Marilynn manson to the correct Marilyn manson page. You deleted my redirect because it was an implausible misspelling. How is Marilynn (two n's at the end) an implausible misspelling for Marilyn (one n at the end)? I'm sure that I'm not the only person who has ever misspelled this name as such. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no real need to worry about the few bytes (not kilobytes; bytes) that this page takes up, so what is the deal here? Isn't the entire point of redirect pages to get people to what they are searching for quicker without having to go through a bundle screens to find what they want? Why was my redirect deleted? Please respond back on my talk page.

Thanks Jason Smith (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting really stuck here and a bit worried

OK, now how to deal with possible bad faith edits? The individual I was concerned about is now going around tagging a bunch of article where I have heavily contributed, and I really think admin intervention may be needed, but everything I do spreads fat on the fire. Check her contribs list, it will explain all. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. While you are at it, please watchlist hackamore. Related trouble could be brewing; an attempt to downgrade an extensive article to a disambiguation page. A tangentally related issue is a good faith terminology dispute between myself and another participant in this whole debate, which is managable by itself, but is feeding he issue a little. Montanabw^(talk) 07:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaplin Soc

Dear Accounting4Taste, I have added a reference (more to come) and explained why I believe that the article should not be deleted. I shall look forward to your reply. Thank you for your help and concern.

David Davidmillbury (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I believe that the most important thing you can do to assert the notability of the topic such that the article will be retained is to add independent, expert, third-party references that bolster the notability of the organization. The basic Wikipedia principle here is that "it's only true if you can prove it's true with references" (I'm paraphrasing). The more reliable sources, the better. I confess that I'm not entirely convinced of the notability of the topic, in that I think there are a number of such institutions at other universities in different countries that have not been found to be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, but you may be able to bolster this topic with references that will convince more people than me. So, good luck with that, and if I can be of further assistance with respect to policy, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Makeoutclub again

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Makeoutclub, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. Since you've had things to say on this article, I figured you ought to know; and there's not a template that really said this, so I'm winging it. Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the situation with this article. I wish I knew what would be the best thing to do. The article has changed a lot since last I looked at it, and I'm no longer sure if my previous comments even apply. What I'm wondering is, do you think it would be sensible to remove the prod tag and just take this directly to AfD? That would, I trust, solve the problem -- if not once and for all, at least until Deletion review. According to my cursory review of the page's history and the edit summaries, there's an individual who finds the idea that this article is here offensive, so I doubt that merely removing the prod tag would be of any long-term use. I haven't traced all the references, so I'd probably want to do that, but I'm thinking AfD might be the answer. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I do appreciate it; now I have to muster an open mind and the willingness to search the background <grin>. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Creamy Army

Hi Accounting4Taste. Would you like to join the Creamy Army WikiProject? If so send me a message and just add your name to the list of participants. The only requirements to be in this fantastic group is that you have to change your username to something with the word, "Creamy" in it. If you do join, you'll find yourself with a high ranking position within the group. All the best to you and yours. Creamy3 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your consideration. Best wishes. Creamy3 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi Accounting4Taste, forgive me if I'm not contacting you the correct way (it doesn't feel right editing your page). Can you tell me why you deleted my page? I'm credited as editor on a number of film projects that are part of Wikipedia and I wanted to include a page that credits me for a few other projects. You've deleted it for some reason. Could you let me know how I can be allowed a page that other people might find interesting. Thanks.

'Jerry Chater' "Be patient with genuine newcomers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkc (talk • contribs)

Hi there: I've left you a very complete note at User talk:Jjkc, just in case you're looking here for a response -- click on the link and you'll go there. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

This is Campbec001 just saying thanks for what you did to help me. It was very nice of you to helpme with my User:Campbec001 page. Your a lot nicer than some of the other admins who delete my page even if I add the Hangon and leave a good explanation. I guess you can tell i'm an amateur with creating pages but thanks. I hope you're the one who will edit my pages in the future. --Campbec001 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)--Campbec001 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Dear Accounting4Taste,
Recently I wrote an article about Sympac. A European Mobile Service Provider. Unhappily the page has been deleted by you because it was perceived as advertising.( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sympac )
I would like to make it really clear that it was not my intention at all to write this article in purpose of advertising! Since I'm a newbe here on Wikipedia, I tried to get to know as much as possible about the Wikipedia-policies and guidelines before start publishing. I also read comparable articles to get insight about what to write. Unhappily it seems that I have still made some mistakes.

Comparable articles which I used to get insight of how to write:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_%28mobile%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eplus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPN

To ensure an encyclopaedic level I gathered information trough a variable source of papers, like Telecompaper, Datanews, etc. I would like to use these sources as references, but I don’t know exactly how to do it when I don’t have all the sources in digital form, but hardcopy.

Now, I’ve rewritten this article. Therefore I’ve also translated a text about Sympac which has already been published on the Dutch Wikipedia-site: [1] :

“Op de Europese markt van mobiele data communicatie is de KPN dochter Sympac werkzaam. Zij richten zich op multinationals die in meerdere landen werkzaam zijn. Voor deze groep levert Sympac 1 contact, 1 contract en 1 rekening tezamen met management rapportages voor telecom managers. Hierdoor zullen multinationals controle krijgen over hun Total Cost of Ownership en worden de mobiele diensten op maat geleverd met schaalvoordelen.”

Therefore I would like to ask you whether you want to review my article can give me some advise about how to improve this article in the way it won't be deleted again.
Below here you can read the new draft.

New draft:

Sympac
Sympac is a European mobile telecommunications company, offering managed mobility services for multinational companies (MNC). As a full subsidiary of KPN, Sympac targets the multinationals who are active in various European countries. For this group, Sympac offers 1 contact, 1 contract and 1 bill together with management reports for telecom managers.
Because of this, multinationals get control over their total cost of ownership and get customized mobile services which enables to benefit of economies of scale. (translation from dutch wiki as stated above)

Sympac has been founded in 2005 because of the increasing MNC’s demand to regain control over their mobile voices, mobile internet and data communications. Sympac is a Dutch subsidiary of KPN and works closely together with the other KPN subsidiaries BASE (Belgium), E-Plus (Germany) and KPN The Netherlands. In other countries Sympac enters into subcontracts with local mobile operators.

Sympac is based in The Hague, The Netherlands (headquarter), Mechelen (Belgium), Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich (Germany), Paris (France) and London (UK).

External links:
• Sympac
• KPN
• GSM World

Categories: Companies of the Netherlands, Telecommunications in the Netherlands, Mobile phone companies, International, centralization, single sourcing

Link to deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympac

Thanks in advance, Blv81 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)blv81Blv81 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for making a sandbox page for me at User:Drokstef/Sandbox where the article Kord (band) it was very well re-edited by Rfwoolf. I would be delight if you'll help me to make this article ready and re-back to the original place. I don't know what could i do for recover completly the article Kord (band), how could i put this article to deletion review , but i really need some assistance for recovered as it was to beginning. Rfwoolf help me a lot, re-editing the article in my sandbox page, but now i don't know what's next, I mean, how could i take it back the article at to the original place? Thanks. —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not as sure as you are that the article is ready for deletion review. I just had a look at it and I think there are just a few more things that you'll want to take care of -- finding the name of the television station that is currently marked with a big bold "Editor's note", and getting references for the statements that are marked POV. I think you want to have the article as close to perfect as you possibly can before submitting it for deletion review -- with all the questions answered, or else the questionable statements eliminated. (By the way, I think the new lead sentence is great -- it gets notability out of the way right away.) I will look up the process for deletion review and have it ready for you when you are ready to go. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

page Deletion for not Indicating Significance

A page that I added was deleted for not indicating significance. I am able to provide several additional sources for the article on Spinwave Systems and indicate the significance of the entry. I'm requesting that the page be undeleted, or that I be able to re-enter the page. I can provide a draft of the expanded article if re-submitting it is a possibility. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinwave_Systems Sensor123 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding Signature Sensor 123] comment added by Sensor123 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi accounting for taste, I wrote an article on lauterbacher beer.I came to write it because I viewed the Lauterbach,Hesse page wanting to find out about the beer.All I got was its the oldest there and was made in 1527.Thats when I felt there should be an article on it.I found out information finished my article and was about to save the page when it said provide credentials or resources I believe.So I posted the link to the website I got most my info from and it is in german so I posted another link to where it can be translated.And I gave the breweries address.I was not at all trying to advertise a product just simply inform of the history about it in this significant little town.I am new to wikipedia and I am from lauterbach,hesse.I was just wondering where I went wrong? and How I can rewrite my article.And ye sthis was my first article.

heres a link to the deleted page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauterbacher_beer&action=edit&redlink=1

thank you. Sair8692 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Campbec001

Accounting4taste please look at Sorry on jpgordon talk page. It has the truth about what really happened and also the only times it was me was when I wrote that page on Ian Campbell and my userpage. I did not write that Tonywalton note. That was one of my moronic friends doing that. If you could think about unblocking me it would be much appreciated.