User talk:Seraphimblade
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
Please read before posting!
I don't always post a full rationale for everything I do, since doing this would take an inordinate amount of time. I do always have one, though, and will be happy to tell you why I did anything if you ask.
PLEASE READ HERE FIRST before asking deletion-related questions.
If you haven't posted a comment already, please put it under a new section at the bottom of the page using markup:
==Section header==
Your comment ~~~~
or click here.
If you have, please post it under the section you started. Responses will be made on your talk page unless you request otherwise.
This page will be archived regularly, generally by an automated process, but that doesn't mean I consider the discussion closed if you have more to say. If your old comments are archived please start a new section on this page for further comment. Please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~.
If I contacted you on your talk page, I'll keep it on watch. Please feel free to reply either there or on this page, whichever's easier for you.
Please refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks made against me made on this page will be left on it, but this in no way indicates that I approve of them or will not report them if they are severe or continuous. Personal attacks against other editors will be removed or reverted.
Articles Deleted While Under-Construction
Hmmm, the three articles I was actively working on (Predator hunter, CorporateSexOffenders and Absolute Zero United) were listed for speedy deletion and though I contested the deletion with a request for time to work on the articles, they were deleted regardless...within hours...without any posting or discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-pedophile_activism about why they were/might be deleted even though I referenced the above post for why they were created to begin with. How do I find out who deleted particular articles and why they were deleted? What exactly are the time parameters that a person is permitted to clean up an newly created article before it is deleted by someone? Does an article need to be "airtight" before it is created and posted or is there generally some lattitude given to new articles created in good faith to allow time for completion? Is this time-frame a matter of minutes and hours or soley subject to the capriciousness of when a particular editor logs on? How airtight does an article need to be to survive a speedy deletion request? I sincerely do not understand these obstacles to contributing. I am trying to contribute in good faith with as neutral a POV as possible but without active input as to why three articles I was actively working on as stated in all three article's discussion pages really deflates my desire to contribute to this community. If the answer to any of the above is merely minutes, a few hours or whenever an admin with an interest in the subject logs on, then I feel the whole process needs review.
Promotional Writing and Documentation (Response to ACAT and ABA articles)
Hi Seraphimblade. I agree that articles should not be promotional in nature, however, with respect to credentialing organizations and credentials, there are no other sources than those granting the credential. Naturally, ACAT and ABA are both directly related to the subjects of Accounting and Accountancy. Consider the other articles in Accounting and Professional Designations that are on Wikipedia: CPA, CIA, CMA, etc. The articles were written in a similar, informative tone. Please review the CPA article segment "Services Provided by CPAs" at the article CPA. You'll notice that a description of their function, and not an overall promotion, is provided. I would be interested in your feedback comparing the ABA article to the CPA article - giving specific examples and helping to clear my understanding of the neutrality guidelines.
In the ABA article, a defining line is drawn because of the legal framework underlying accountancy. For example, ABAs cannot provide attest services because the ABA credential does not have a state granted license; however, ABAs are permitted to practice in areas that are non-attest in nature and do not require state licensure (e.g., bookkeeping, tax preparation, business advisory services). This distinction is required because of the various state laws and the Uniform Accountancy Act. The article deliniates along regulatory and functional lines, rather differentiate in terms of quality - the latter being the proof positive of promotional prose.
Also, in the CPA article, the differentiation between CPAs and PAs are made with the parenthetical comment "below that of CPA" to describe the tiers of licensure. Should we assume "below" means of lesser quality or that PAs have a more limited scope of service than that of a CPA? According to the profession, we would have to assume "lower" describes a limitation of scope, not necessarily a measure of quality. In this case as well, ABA can be substituted in the place of PA with the same interpretation. The above is only one example; however, I would like see your rubric for determining neutrality.
Other than the original, primary source (ACAT) and references to already exisiting Wiki articles, I don't understand the copyright violation since I do have permission from ACAT to write the article. I also reviewed other accountancy articles and minimal documentation was done to reference a primary source. My goal is to add this dimension of accountancy to the already exisiting body of information available. I will also need your help in determing how to document the articles as I am in contact with the primary source. Please give me a specific example to follow.
I look forward to your feedback.
~~cj_aba 16/July 07
- Seraphimblade, I replied on cj_aba (talk · contribs · logs) talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about and updated per your thoughts. There's also a (separate) sub-page on nomination. Comments update? FT2 (Talk | email) 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Was this article transwikied? It's a shame it was deleted, nonetheless, can I have it's source for myself, since it's no longer accessible? Thanks. Epson291 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what other Wiki project it would go on, so the source for myself is what I'd like, if emailing it is the best way, or post it here, whatever works best for you. Thanks again. Epson291 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized the source was recoverable/hand-out-able when there was no intention of recreating the article. Any chance I could get it as well? E-mail would work for me, too, or I could grab it from Epson's sandbox so you'd only have to deal with it once. Thanks, Bbik★ 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Unblock decline
What!? Didn't my decline count! [1] ;P --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use cleanup
Hi there, I was RC patrolling and this edit of yours caught my attention. You removed all those fair use pictures citing "fair use cleanup". Well I've been editing the 50 Cent article and I'm wondering if there's enough critical commentary to justify the last two images on that article (the screenshot and album cover). I personally don't think they're necessary at all, but you might know better. Thanks! Spellcast 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that! Spellcast 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Vanessa Williams image was deleted, but the Fair Use reasoning was that it was a photo of her CD cover. Am I missing something? DonMEGĂ|60645 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)