User talk:Accounting4Taste

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

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, please add your message to the BOTTOM of the page, and also please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hornetbear - Not mine!

Just logged on to discover an entry from you on my talk page about this article - which I've never heard of. I believe the issue is because I had my account renamed [1] a couple of days ago, from Trust to Tr00st, and it's been claimed by someone else. I've removed the redirect from the talk and user pages, and wasn't sure if I should move the warning you placed on mine onto his. Trust 11:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, forgot to change my sig after I renamed... Tr00st (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My deleted article

Hi! I was creating a page titled "The Meisner Technique School of Acting" and it has been deleted. This was going to be my first article for Wikipedia, so I am new to the procedures. I am wondering why the article was deleted while I was still in the process of creating it. I had not even finished writing it yet! If you need an initial source to confirm legitimacy you can go to the following link. http://www.jarrettproductions.com/

Please tell me what else I can do to get my article back!

Thanks! --Jmjrrtt (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll find a detailed response at User talk:Jmjrrtt. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I get my article back in a sandbox please? --Jmjrrtt (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you already had a sandbox in existence, I've added the material to User:Jmjrrtt/Sandbox. Let me know if there's something else that would be of use to you, or with which you need assistance. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

honestly dude. wiki-administrators are nazis. are you even real people or just heartless bots? there wasn't anything wrong with the Clark Nature Center page. I just started it and was heading out. I was gonna work on it some more. but you know what. A place that is suppose to be a gathering of information and resources, rather keep people from knowing of local parks and recreation within the segments of townships. ef, it I'll start my own blog to teach people about these place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PIF0407 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirpur International Airport

Hi! I thought you may be interested in a follow up to your message on the article [Talk:Mirpur International Airport talk page]]! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I'd overlooked the article in the press of recent events, but have now nominated it at AfD, as you'll see from your talk page. Your reminder is much appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dissapointed. Please undelete Shaking Up Shakespeare

You have deleted Shaking Up Shakespeare but I want you to bring it back as I was going to edit it to make it neutral. Accounting4taste, if you don't bring it back, you have no taste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyphoby (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceit (Rapper) page deletion

The page I created for a Hip Hop artist named Conceit fit all rules for creating a page. This guy just was was just given a record deal with Interscope Records thru a giant contest on Youtube.com judged by 50 Cent! I spent alot of time working on the page, and I read and followed all guidelines. I don't get it. Would you like to explain to me why someone who is in business with 50 Cent, the biggest name in music, gets deleted??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boac411 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. You may have overlooked WP:MUSIC when you were looking at "all rules for creating a page", which should give you an idea of the criteria that are applied when considering whether or not to retain new articles about musicians; WP:Why was my article deleted? may also offer you some valuable information. Perhaps you should consider recreating the article when the "record deal" turns into recordings that make the Billboard 100 or the artist in some way meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. By the way, if everyone who was "in business" with Fitty was automatically notable, then we'd have articles about his dry cleaner and his grocer. If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceit (Rapper) page deletion

"Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." - Wiki guidelines.

Conceit has a video with over 300,000 plays on Youtube.com

Youtube.com featured him as part of the live New Years Eve BROADCAST.

Youtube.com is a media network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boac411 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Youtube doesn't qualify as a reliable source according to our definitions, because Youtube viewership doesn't qualify as expert opinion. Again, I suggest you revisit this when the individual in question is somewhat more notable; if you re-post the article, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that it will be deleted immediately by another administrator for exactly the same reasons, and I wouldn't like to see you waste your time. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A google search for- conceit "on the rise" brings up 37,400 hits. All legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boac411 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two media references (one is the San Francisco Chronicle, which did a full page article on him).

REFERENCES:

1) Conceit interview: http://www.zeromag.com/articles/article_view.php?id=1049

2) Conceit SF Chronicle Newspaper interview:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/05/DDU3SJ8K4.DTL&type=printable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boac411 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic Murder

Hi there, just a quickie... well, I may as well copy ad verbatim from the deletion log:

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

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Good evening, morning or afternoon - wherever you may be.. I have come to contest a deletion (as you may have guessed). pardon the lack of punctuation but it is past 2am for me and I have never joined wikipedia until tonight, let alone made a deletion review request.

i received an email a few hours ago asking for my help. it was from somebody who was making a page for a band that happen to be a part of my record label - California group "The Cult of Psychedelic Murder". Having read through the notability guidlines I began to create my comment on the talk page, however - before I could complete my comment the page had been deleted. unsure what to do i followed a few links and found 'deletion review'. So below this line I'm going to paste in what would have been my case on the article's 'talk' page, following the initial discussion (for context) - my comment is the very last:

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Scary dragon atop the hill (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scary dragon atop the hill (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)==New Album in 2009== from what i hear the band has takin a break and is not working on any other projects....

Can you prove that the band is notable? So far, it doesn't seem like they meet the guidelines for WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ok well, this band may not be a major main stream act. but they still are a musical group with 2 albums released through green leaf records. i happen to see this group live before as well. in fresno califorina. and this happens to be a real 2 man band. after there last album battle of the harvest im not sure if they are working on any new stuff until 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

this is link has more info on the group [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the group is real, but I doubt that they are notable enough to qualify for a wikipedia page. A google search only brings up 73 hits. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

you have a point on the google search, let me remind you how i found out about this band. they mainly release there musical free via soulseek. bit torrent. i found alot of there music being traded. i made this page not because im a fan, but because their works should be noticed.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place to promote a non-notable entity. For more information, check out WP:SOAPS. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

who says this band is not notable? it sounds like that is your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a fairly standard means of determining notability can be found at WP:BAND. Please try not to get so defensive, I'm just trying to help. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you are not a fan or have never heard of this band does not mean you should delete it. yes, this group is underground, and the reason for the is in all the words if you listen to battle of the harvest. as far as i know alot of people listen to this group. battle of the harvest was released in a CD form in Califorina in most smoke shops. there is actually a strong following in the "real world" compared to the world wide web. i strongly feel this article should stay. Scary dragon atop the hill (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I Understand that, but if there isn't any substantive content to prove the band's notability, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Again, please stop being so defensive. The guidelines for deletion and notability can be found on WP:BAND if you have any more questions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think this really comes down to semantics and what you define as 'notable' - media attention or actual public awareness?

From Wikipedia's notability guide:

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Well this is true so far. My own site (certainly an independent source, we're on a different continent) has published numerous records, lyrics and images from the band in question. In fact they gave me some more tracks tonight, so there's even more to come.

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Well GLR certainly isn't one of THE more important labels - but bear in mind there are a lot of them out there. However, our first release was four years ago and we have just over 20 records from over 8 different artists featured at our site (http://greenleafrecords.com). Again, this ambiguous word 'notable' comes into play - well for a lot of people Psychedelic Murder ARE notable. I don't have my figures here with me but our site (though not long established) averages well over 100 hits a day - and Psychedelic Murder are arguably one of our best acts, so thats a lot of potential notability there, even if just in-passing.

You must also bear in mind that we distribute free cd's almost everywhere we go - so thats already a fairly good demographic, at least a few hundred people in the south-west UK will own a P-Murder CD (consider that their first CD offering only came in November of last year). Even more people will own the mp3s - not just in the UK, but globally - as they're more easily attained via the website.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Have you heard this music? Its not like anything anyone's done before - for a start its self-produced (ok, no biggie) but its a lucid blend of hip-hop, psychedelic rock, folk-rock, surf-blues and general experimentism - they prominently represent this sound because there is no one else (to my knowledge) actually succeeding in doing what they do as well as they do. GLR itself is a completely fresh approach to making music in general, and P-Murder are at the forefront of that, so.. I suppose it comes down to that ambiguity again; it is quite undeground - we dont send press releases to tv stations or the radio because we dont want our music played there. So it is somewhat of an anomole as far as Wiki rules go (IMO).

Have I helped make the case for these guys so far?

Alex@GLRuk Green Leaf Records (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid that, in my opinion, the band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and so I'm going to decline to recreate the article. (You should also be aware that I've submitted an article about one of its albums for Articles for deletion, which is how we assess articles about albums.) I think I can offer you a synthesis of a couple of different policies that may help you understand why I have this opinion: "Self-publication confers no notability." Perhaps you should consider re-making this article after the group has more closely approached the standards in WP:MUSIC; just my opinion again. If you want to take this further, such that you appeal to a different authority, there are a number of ways to do that and I'll help you with one of them, if you wish. "Deletion review" can be approached in a number of ways; you might consider submitting the article for an WP:AfD process, which will answer the question of notability once and for all. Let me know if there's something further with which I can help you. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Category link

No problem, I was looking all over your page for a second to see what was going on before I actually opened the edit box and found the culprit. Categories are just like images with the [[: link aspect. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

p-murder and glr

thanks anyway, but never mind... i dont think wikipedia is the place for GLR - the two themes seem to clash quite heavily. i respect your decision, but feel wikipedia's 'notability guidlines' prove inflexible in only taking the say of the mainstream media into account - considering the track record of said media. without a mainstream media mention there is absolutely no accountability for underground 'scenes' of any description (of which there are an ever-growing number)... if this was the late-seventies the entire DIY punk phenomenon would have gone unmissed until it was already hijacked by the media circus.. by which time no one could give you a decent description of events as it was already so distorted by the press.. so i guess that is why the underground is doomed to fail at wikipedia... and seemingly why wikipedia fails as an accurate reflection of our times. superfluous comments i know, but i thought i'd throw my opinion in anyway.

cheers Green Leaf Records (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do agree with you, and you might be surprised to know that I think you have very accurately documented something about Wikipedia better than I've seen it put elsewhere. You've accurately worked out what it is that Wikipedia cannot handle; I suggest that this is because Wikipedia doesn't set out to be "an accurate reflection of our times" and has deliberately and specifically set out to ONLY document certain kinds of things (see, for instance, WP:NOT for a list of things we don't do here). I wanted to mention that Wikipedia does honour a certain number of sources that document such things as underground scenes. Blogs and zines, for instance, are not forbidden references here, just unlikely ones, because (and you will see this as the flaw you noted) those sources must themselves be noted by other sources to be authoritative. To use your good metaphor, yes, I think Wikipedia would have completely missed annotating the DIY punk phenomenon while it happened, because it would lack primary sources and be unwilling to rely on most available secondary sources. But five or ten years later, when it got down to the nitty-gritty of documenting and annotating it, it would be thorough, easy to read, extremely well documented and painstakingly accurate. I know this does not go any distance to make you feel better about what's happened here, but I hope you at least feel that no one thinks there was anything wrong in trying it out, and that you have my assistance for anything that you want to do that is something that Wikipedia is actually set up to do. Thanks for your interesting observations and, if I can be of any further service, just leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey its no problem - I hadn't even thought of 'wikifying' GLR so to speak until i got that email last night.. however, your comments have inspired me to at least try something; I'm going to do a bit of formal research into all of this and try to write an article documenting the ever-growing cultural phenomenon of what I like to call 'The Real Independence Movement' (RIM for short) which is briefly described in my earlier posts ... this of course extends far beyond my own site and naturally has roots as far back as the 20th century and would (IMO) be relevant (considering the pivotal point popular music appears to be at currently) providing I can gather enough interesting material... again, there may be a plethora of 'notability' issues at first, so i think this will be an ongoing thing on my HDD for a while.. so i guess i'll keep you posted. anyway - thanks for the help, take it easy and peace and love. GLRukGreen Leaf Records (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sven Hjerson

What a good question! I know that several book titles that Mrs Oliver hates are mentioned in Christie's works - ironically one of them being "Murder Most Foul" - but I can't recall if one of the "real" books is given a title - I'll check. Thanks for the "bar" on the barnstar. I feel a little guilty as I haven't contributed much in the past few weeks and I have a few more items to upload - two of them being dustjacket illustrations of the first two Mary Westmacott novels from 1930 and 1934, so I'll start gathering pace again soon hopefully.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gideon conn

Please put my page back. It took me a while to make. It is definitely "notable", he is a musician in the UK and is gaining a big reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liammck27 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your suggestion that this artist meets our notability standards; for your information, they are found at WP:MUSIC, and an unsigned act is highly unlikely to meet them. Another problem with the article was its lack of reliable sources, such as articles in newspapers and magazines attesting to the notability you suggest. I'm going to regretfully decline your request to return the page, but if you feel I'm wrong, go right ahead and remount it -- I think it will be deleted immediately by another administrator for the same reasons, but you may disagree. If you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Snake move problem

Hi Accounting4Taste, Perhaps you can keep an eye on this for me: Talk:Puerto Rican Boa. One of the guys here is an admin who's acting a bit confrontational. I first ran into him here. He seemed okay at first -- "... (I only have this on my watchlist because I took one of the pictures) so if other people think it should use the other name, I'll still help with the move.." -- but was soon opposing my move proposals for many Boidae articles. I know that admins are users too, entitled to their own opinions and so forth, but he certainly isn't being very helping here. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the various moves that I've recently suggested, this one has the most support. I'd appreciate it if you could do the honors. It involves moving the following articles:

• Boa => Boidae
• Boa (disambiguation) => Boa

Hopefully, a few more moves will follow, but we'll start with this. Thanks! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceit (Rapper) Page deletion

O.k., here are the reasons Conceit is notable:

A google search for- conceit "on the rise" brings up 37,400 hits. All legitimate. "On The Rise" is the contest which he won.

From Wikipedia's notability guide:

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Here are two media references (one is the San Francisco Chronicle, which did a full page article on him).

1) Conceit interview: http://www.zeromag.com/articles/article_view.php?id=1049

2) Conceit SF Chronicle Newspaper interview:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/05/DDU3SJ8K4.DTL&type=printable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boac411 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." - Wiki guidelines.

3) Conceit press for winning Youtube.com's "On The Rise" contest: http://www.illestlyrics.com/Hip-HopNews/50_Cent_Names_Youtube_Competition_Winner-1/

Youtube.com featured him as part of the live New Years Eve BROADCAST. Youtube.com is a media network. (The viewers had nothing to do with Youtube's decision to broadcast him to millions of people on the web.)

76.103.251.204 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Boac41176.103.251.204 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in making any further points to me; your energies should be put towards the Articles for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conceit (rapper) since that's the only discussion that has the possibility to restore the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceit (rapper)

So it looks like Conceit's page will not be deleted, when does the deletion notice get taken off of his page? Boac411 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be when the process is finished -- not up to me or you. There needs to be a few more days worth of discussion, and the result may still surprise you. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Petro Rabigh

I recreated Petro Rabigh without a copyvio, and with several references. I think it should pass notability now. (I didn't create the original version, but when I noticed that it had been tagged for speedy deletion, I thought I should try to fix it.) --Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. Thanks for doing the work to make it a useful article; I could tell by its links that it had some notability, I just couldn't leave the copyvio in place. Well done! Accounting4Taste:talk 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Gargantuan Media

Hiya. I created a short history for my production company that has worked with Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedy's - one of the most influential punk rock bands in the past 30 years. I mentioned my influences and none of my commercial clients.

A few seconds later it was "speedy deleted". There was no blatant advertising or marketing angle here. I used this as a reference for the work that I've done in film, animation and design. How is this speedy deletion material?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulSchmitt (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Lynch

I feel that my article was unfairly deleted. Please give me more of an opportunity to update and prove the validity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebenjamin06 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article and, frankly, given what I see I think it's impossible for the subject to meet our notability guidelines. If you have reliable sources that demonstrate notability beyond what I saw in the deleted article in a verifiable way, feel free to put them here; if they're worthwhile, I'll add them to the deleted material and restore the article myself. Before you go to a lot of trouble, though, I'll ask that you read WP:Why was my article deleted?, our conflict of interest policy and our notability guidelines, because I hope that the information there will keep you from wasting your time. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

House of Prayer Edmonton

House of Prayer Edmonton is a copyvio of [3]. I tried to db tag it as such but for some reason the db tag ignores the link. -WarthogDemon 23:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked that the pages are identical, then deleted the Wikipedia one. I'd appreciate it if you informed the article's creator in some appropriate way, if you haven't already. Thanks for the heads-up. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, finally. Had electrical problems which prevented me from doing so right away. -WarthogDemon 00:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

vile mood

I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF WRITING THE $$^£^" PAGE You just fiddled about WHILE I WAS WRITING THE CONTENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAlexan (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

you are the 3rd person to try and fiddle with it in the past 30 minutes. Im in the middle of writing content and have had to spend more time replying to people than writing the page. Leave it alone, or frankly, i will leave wiki alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAlexan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy?

Since you do care about the article, then it certainly doesn't qualify as a "speedy". It could be more user-friendly. I read a big chunk of the article and all I saw was a poorly-written description of an obscure game. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I gather from the edit summary of the above note that you wanted more explanation. Okay, you tagged the Second Life article for speedy deletion, giving the reason "despite length, not particularly notable or interesting". None of those reasons qualifies under any speedy deletion criterion of which I'm aware. Notability is certainly asserted -- aside from 150 references (almost twice as many as today's featured article) there are at least two books written on the topic of this game, both cited at the end of the article. Your assessment as to whether this topic is notable/user-friendly/overlong is not an appropriate reason to tag an article for which notability is asserted -- these might be a reason for a PROD tag or as the basis of an articles for deletion discussion, but the qualifications for a speedy tag are very specific and quite limited, and I recommend them to your attention. Finally, you don't have to take my word for it -- if you think the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, you can certainly submit it for an articles for deletion process, and if you want help with that, I'll walk you through it. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Fail Whale article should be reinstated

The Fail Whale article was created because this image has emerged as what is becoming known as a "Social Object" on the Web. For a discussion of the "Social Object" concept, see MacLeod article more thoughts on social objects or Zengestrom article What makes a good social object or wikipedia article wikipedia on social cognition. The concept is new/emerging, but has become solidly established. "Social Objects" are a part of a wider discourse about the meanings of social activities on the Web, and as such the "Fail Whale" should be reinstated. Helping the community clean up the entry would be a much better approach than simply zapping it outright. jeffs (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree -- my re-examination of the deleted article, which as I gather was the subject of an articles for deletion process (I'm unable to locate it, but noted the AfD tag) revealed no references that demonstrated notability outside of the "Twitter" website itself, which I don't consider a reliable source for verification of notability. My personal assessment is that the subject of this article is not even close to being notable. Your argument, while interesting, seems to conflict with Wikipedia's established policies -- if you'd like to work towards changing those, you are of course welcome, but I'm afraid I can't be of any assistance to you in that process, since I disagree with your premise. Best of luck at convincing the other administrator whom you canvassed on this topic. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste This is not a matter of 'opinion' (particularly just yours). When you have major companies using a channel such as Twitter to interact with the public (CNN, Whole Foods) or just listen, it is just as 'credible' as Wikipedia (oh, the irony). If the article was left up long enough to respond to any 'deficiencies' in credible sources, it would have only taken a few hours to rally the resources and get some links included (odd, I don't recall you offering any concrete examples to suggest what 'you' would consider credible or specifically suggest how the deficiency might be fulfilled -- which would be the most democratic thing to do here). So what's your point/goal here exactly? Report the defect and let it be resolved. Your actions are out of line with the governance model. Take ownership of that possibility and offer a reasonable next step. Should that fail, we can rally this at a far more public level (where your "personal assessment", along with your personal credibility, will be subjected to scrutiny many times over). You may want to reconsider. Iknovate (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to consider the July 17, 2008 San Diego Union-Tribune that references both Twitter and Failwhale as a cover story. Iknovate (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is now at deletion review, I have commented there on this issue and will decline any further comment here or elsewhere. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"There" lacks a link for context. Waiting... Iknovate (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say George Bush had a Twitter account, and typed his own tweets. Would we be able to point to his “tweets” to certify he said something? I'm trying to distinguish between the source and the medium. When Dave Winer and Biz Stone both referring to the Fail Whale, I believe that should still count as two notable people referring to the Fail Whale regardless of the medium they choose at the time.

If a reliable source — a person — chooses to use a blog, Twitter, or any other web site with permanent URLs to say something, we should be able to cite them directly without having to wait for someone to re-print them in the New York Times.

If a non blog reference of the Fail Whale is required, look no further than the “[ http://www.npr.org/bryantpark/ Bryant Park Project] ”, a two hour news show broadcast on NPR

Story link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92177969

About the “Bryant Park Project” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreesnc (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that a “personal assessment” is all it takes to lock authors out of an article so that they can't address concerns raised with an article. Garthrk (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to have been more clear. The article was deleted because of its lack of notability and reliable sources. My personal assessment was as to the degree of this lack of notability -- I believe it is "not even close to being notable". However, I believe that virtually any other administrator examining the deleted article would come to the same conclusion as to the lack of notability, regardless of their opinion as to its degree. Since I've been known to be wrong, I will, however, offer you an opportunity to have the community's opinion on this article -- I'm prepared to re-create the article and immediately submit it for an Articles for deletion (AfD) process. (I would want to investigate to confirm my suspicion that this has already been nominated for deletion in that process; if it was, my offer cannot hold.) You should be aware that an AfD conclusion will be close to absolutely determinative of the fate of this article -- if it fails, it will be deleted, any attempt to recreate it will be subject to immediate speedy deletion and the only way to recreate it will be through the process known as deletion review. If you'd like to roll that set of dice, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fail Whale

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fail Whale. 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. Garthrk (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is now at deletion review, I have commented there on this issue and will decline any further comment here or elsewhere. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my wikipedia page removal

Hello Accounting 4 Taste,

Let me start by thanking you for what you do for wikipedia, I know your probably not paid to admin for the site and it is important to keep clean, unbiased and important information seperated from the mess craigslist has become. Currently I am in the middle of writing a encyclopedic description of Plan !t Now, a hurricane preparedness nonprofit which was recreated from the Granada Relief Fund after they completed their aid to Hurricane Ivan victims.

I have removed any blatantly self-publicizing items in the article and I am content to just write about the history of the org, the location, why it was created and who sponsors the nonprofit.

All of which is important information considering nonprofits that prepare for disaster are becoming wider know, rather than nonprofits that just focus on after disaster strikes. Plan !t Now requires attention to achieve its mission statement of advocating preparedness.

So please, please, please bring my page back to life.

Cdarancette (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have recreated the deleted material for you in what we call a "sandbox" page, which can be found at User:Cdarancette/Sandbox. However, I STRONGLY urge you to read and understand the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that are currently infringed by the deleted material, and I wanted to mention that I fully endorse the deletion of the article as it currently stands, as will any other administrator who examines it. The largest problem is with reliable sources -- there aren't any, and all we have is your assertions as to the nature of this organization. Wikipedia content must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. There is also no notability asserted, and that's a serious problem as well. This is not a place for documenting every organization in existence -- we only focus here on the notable ones, and that notability must both be asserted and documented. When you say that the organization "requires attention to achieve its mission statement of advocating preparedness" -- that's an excellent reason why this article should not be recreated. We don't add notability to organizations, we only document it when it exists. If your organization needs publicity, it will have to go elsewhere. I urge you to follow the links in this paragraph and also read two basic articles that should inform your efforts here: WP:Why was my article deleted and WP:Your first article. If you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)