User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Respected Sir/Madam, Need some clarification.

Kuraman10 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Hello Sir - I just saw that you deleted our page. I would like to better understand why so that I can reflect the purpose properly. May be we did a bad job explaining what Jointscene.com does. I will try and would like to have your thoughts. Jointscene.com is catalogging information about all Indian Movies, especially, Bollywood and Kollywood. They have information about actors, movies, music directors, their websites, etc.., For a normal customer, this is very useful information. Jointscene also looks like conducting contests to identify talent. Since Jointscene was catalogging all the information and providing rich content about Indian movies and actors, I thought it would qualify and be very helpful of consumers across the world.

Please let me know if I have provided enough justification for you to enable Jointscene in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help in advance.

Thanks for your note. It's perfectly clear what your website does. What was missing, and what would be required, is what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. That means arm's-length, third-party experts writing in things like books and magazines (not blogs or forums) to express their opinion that this particular website is better than other similar websites. If you can provide two or three of those, I can't see any problem with returning the article to Wikipedia. You don't need anything further from me in order to do that -- just go ahead and recreate the article. If you'd like the deleted content so that you can work on it further, I'd be happy to provide that; just leave me a note. Best of luck with your future endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore my page

Dear Accounting4Taste,

I logged on this morning to find my new article on the advertising campain Make it Seven was deleted. I was intending to defend why it shouldn't be deleted in the talk page, so I put up a Hagdon. However, I think this is just confusion that can be sorted out.

This article is NOT about a website. A major website just so happens to be one of the main branches of this campain, along with a song, and a day Jim Balsillie is naming "Make it Seven day" where there will be festivities and what not to gain support of his bid. (Albiet, I didn't mention make it seven day in the article because I forgot.)

I believe that this campain is large enough with enough supporters to gain an article on it. (And again, Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty have supported Balsillie.)

I would like the article to be please be put back up, and these new definitions of it. If not, please contact me and let me know why you think there shouldn't be an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the dud (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Since this is an article about an advertising campaign, I will say that it is going to be very, very difficult for you to circumvent Wikipedia's rules about advertising and, to the best of my knowledge, so far you haven't done so. What will be required is a number of reliable sources; independent, third-party expert sources (like citations from books, magazines and newspapers) that suggest that this advertising campaign has notability. Also, and this is possibly going to be a point of contention, I'm going to suggest that that expert opinion should be on the nature of advertising per se, and not about the content. I realize that you are asserting that Stephen Harper agrees with the advertising campaign (I didn't see anything to prove that, but doubtless you can do so by reference to, say, a newspaper article). I suggest, though, that what Mr. Harper is agreeing with is the concept of moving the team. Mr. Harper, to the best of my knowledge, is not an expert on advertising and is not capable of offering an expert opinion on the merits of any particular advertising campaign. His opinion might be relevant to an article on the team, but it's not necessarily relevant to an article about an advertising campaign about the team.

I'm going to suggest that this particular marketing campaign should possibly be a footnote in an article about the team itself and my advice would be for you to move forward in that way. However, I might not be right, and you'd be well within your rights to see if the broader Wikipedia community feels any differently. You don't need my permission or cooperation to simply re-post the article (and if you require its content to be restored to you in some way, just leave me a note, I'll be happy to do that). What is likely to happen is that the article will be deleted again, for the same reasons. If you'd like to undertake the process called deletion review, that's certainly open to you; I'd also be willing to restore the article and immediately submit it to the process known as an articles for deletion discussion, or "AfD" as it's known. You should know that if the article fails at AfD, it's unlikely to ever be allowed to be restored to Wikipedia under any circumstances; if it passes, it's unlikely to be challenged again. My own point of view is that it would fail, but that's just my point of view (although I might be more familiar with the relevant policies than you are). Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I also note that the article about Mr. Balsillie suggests that this is a large and well-orchestrated public relations campaign designed "to curry favor in the court of public opinion". I think Wikipedia has to be very, very careful not to lend itself to that sort of promotion, and so it's going to be even more difficult to have this article re-instated. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me somewhat later that if you can find extensive independent third-party coverage of the campaign -- in such a way that it would be seen to have more than local interest -- that would also qualify the article under the notability guidelines. It may well be that this campaign has been covered by, say, the Globe and Mail or the National Post and that would be significant in a way that, say, the Hamilton Spectator would not. Again, it would be necessary for the coverage to be of the campaign per se and not about the possible moving of the team. Sorry if I've misled you previously. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reality Monitoring page deletion

Hello, I stumbled across the deleted page "Reality Monitoring," and saw that it was apparently deleted for blatant copyright infringement. However, the link cited, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-realitymonitoring.html, as the subject of the copyright infringement doesn't work - it redirects to a search page, which returns (as of June 11 2009) no hits relevant to reality monitoring.

Was this an error of some kind, or am I missing something?

Thanks, Anutherdavid (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it was some kind of an error, but I hope you will forgive me. When it says in the body of the article -- and this is a direct quote from the deleted material -- "ANDREW M. COLMAN. "reality monitoring." A Dictionary of Psychology. 2001. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-realitymonitoring.html", I tend to assume that the person who quoted the place from which s/he copied the copyrighted materials was quoting correctly; as we say in the legal business, prima facie evidence of the article being deletion-worthy. Perhaps if you check with the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org for the same URL as of January 15, 2009 you would find the original source of the article. I haven't checked the Wayback Machine, but I'm assuming it would return that result. I'm not intimately familiar with the legal niceties of copyright violation, but I believe that if the material was copyrighted as of January, 2009 it would still be copyrighted and thus I would be unwise to restore the article. Is there something you'd like me to do with respect to this? I'm in your hands. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I note, having looked further, that the article was posted on January 16 2009 (within 24 hours of the author having checked the original citation's location) and I was requested to delete it in mid-February. My usual practice is to confirm that the copyright violation is indeed the case, although I must confess in a case where the body of the article gives the precise source from which it has been copied, I may not have bothered. But I think it's safe to suggest that www.encyclopedia.com deleted the article in question between February and now. As before, I'm in your hands as to what you'd like to do. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked archive.org as per your suggestion, and it does verify that encyclopedia.com had an entry on Reality Monitoring as far back as Nov 20 2007. 'A Dictionary of Psychology,' the source from which the encyclopedia.com article took its definition is indeed still copyrighted (see http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/Subjects_and_Titles__2E_PS05 ). I haven't seen the Wikipedia article that was deleted, so I don't know if it was entirely plagiarized or just contained some copyrighted material. In the latter case, my guess would be that the best solution would be to restore the article sans the offending material. If the former, someone should probably contact WP:Psychology or WP:Neuroscience to author a new article, since the subject is kind of important. Thanks, Anutherdavid (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the latest of two revisions of the deleted content (minus the tag that got it deleted) into a sandbox page for you at User:Anutherdavid/Sandbox, and I'm sorry not to have thought of this sooner, it would have saved you some time. My apologies. Let me know if there's something further I can do to be of assistance. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Backtable/Personal sandbox/HE Came From the Sun

You deleted that page really quickly after I put it up for speedy deletion. I'd like to thank you for that. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be of assistance; I'm afraid I kind of choose at random from the list of available tagged pages, so I can't take credit for doing it quickly, but I'm glad you were pleased. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MWnicole Deletion of Mystress World Page

You speedily deleted my article on the Mystress World Community citing A7 of no importance. As this is the only community of its kind then why is it not important? As this article was about a world wide community that I documented for its difference to other communities I struggle to see why it was of no importance. If it was the style of my writing then please advise so I can try to adapt the text but to eradicate a community from wikipedia appears a little unfair. You also state that it is about a website, blog etc. When although our community has a website this is not the main element to the community just an information site for memeber who may not necessarily live on the same shores and forms one method of ease of communication. MWnicole (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You've missed an essential point that was mentioned in the process of deleting the article in question: it did not have any reliable sources to document the claims that you were making. The point was not that the article was "just:" about a website, it was about a website that didn't have any expert opinion quoted that said that in some way this website was more notable than others. I have no doubt that everything that you said about the website in question is true, but what's required here is proof that those things are true. That means you need to provide references where independent, arm's-length, third-party expert sources say that the website is better than its competitors. There was another such website that I found when tracing the references to the deleted article; I recall that it had five or six such references, so please don't believe that this is some sort of favouritism or prejudice; just that every article has to have reliable sources. If there's something further with which I can be of assistance, just leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perplexing For "section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion"

Dear Accounting4Taste:

Hello.

My content contain useful trade resources for importers and exporters. And it is really newly trade portal, have better user experience. Of course, this portal is relatively small size, but user can find out valuable information through this content.

I also found many company profile on (rephrased as "Chinese websites").

Why large scale enterprise can release their company features, but small size enterprise release their company features, you consider that is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I can understand your concern.

Thanks very much anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fengsen (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that what you might be asking me is "why was my Trader China article deleted", because you don't think that it was advertising. The key thing that was missing from the article was reliable sources, which is to say there were no arm's-length, third-party expert sources (your own press releases and other self-generated materials do not count) that stated that the organization in question was somehow notable; unusual, special, better than its competitors; and did so in a verifiable way. If you think that such reliable sources are available, feel free to recreate the article and add them; you need neither my permission nor anyone else's. I would also be prepared to provide you with the deleted material for your use, if you wish; simply leave me a note. By the way, I am not sure what specifically you linked to out of the category of "Chinese websites", but we have a policy here, found at this link, that says essentially that each article is considered as to it relates to Wikipedia policy, not how it compares to other Wikipedia articles. If you feel there are other articles here that don't meet our standard, you are welcome to tag them for speedy deletion or pursue another similar course; if you require assistance with this, leave me a note. Best of luck with your future endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

KC Anthem Internet TV

Hello, I recently saw that my article on Kansas City's 1st Internet TV Show was deleted from Wikipedia. I really feel that since it is the 1st of what I consider to be a revolution in the Internet/TV merger than it is more than a viable candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. When the article was written there had not been any press coverage, but since then the owner and Purple Heart recipient Jordan Rogers has been recognized by Tom Green of TomGreen.com as well as being included in an article by local magazine The Pitch Weekly. http://www.pitch.com/2009-06-04/music/troglodyte-reps-kc-and-sasquatch-at-this-weekend-s-american-waste-festival/ If you check the link above you will notice that the band Jordan Rogers and KC Anthem is associated with is unique in themselves in that their entire act is based on singing and dressing like Bigfoot.

The article had not been broadened to include this new Pitch article or a link to the video of Jordan calling in to Tom Greens Show (who is THE Internet TV pioneer and inspiration for KC Anthem). Also, the background story of Jordan's time spent in Ar Ramadi, Iraq and subsequent Purple Heart award have not been added to the article as well. I can provide proof of this through pictures but there are no articles on the internet or information that I can find to link to. I would say that this fact combined with being a pioneer of Internet TV is more than enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Since most of this had not yet been included in the article I can understand why it would be deleted and I request that it be restored so that the rest of the information can be added. Thanks!

72.135.5.43 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I can't find the article to which you refer without a little more information; it was not titled precisely KC Anthem Internet TV and no psges are linked to the IP number with which you signed your note. If you could tell me the username by which the article was created, or the precise title, that would probably allow me to put my hands on it. I'll look forward to hearing from you. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in before, I'm sorry about the confusion.

The article to which I was referring was titled Kc anthem thought I would like to have it spelled KC Anthem. In order to do this would I need to write another article or is it possible to change capitalization in titles? That is assuming you think it is legitimate enough to include in Wikipedia. Thanks for what you do either way, Wikipedia is an awesome tool thanks to people dedicating their time to it such as yourself.

Wow, I forgot to put the tildes, sorry. Chssmrine03 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and the information. I've retrieved the deleted material and have placed the keystrokes into what we call a "sandbox" page where you can work on it to add the supporting material you outline above. You'll find it at User:Chssmrine03/Sandbox and you can find it by clicking the link. Please bear in mind that (a) there is nothing stopping you from returning the article to the main body of Wikipedia, simply by selecting the text and pasting it into a new page, and that (b) there is nothing stopping people assessing the article as quickly as has happened in the past. I cannot stop anyone from assessing the article further regardless of what I think of its merits. I would strongly recommend that you add as many reliable sources as possible, that you read through WP:Your first article to get an idea of the basic principles that must be heeded, and that you work on the article in your sandbox page until it's the best you can make it before you restore it to Wikipedia. If you have any further questions, feel free to leave me another note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BC Fathers deletion

Hello;

Is it possible to un-delete the BC Fathers page that you deleted? I know I was slow to add the material to it so it did not look like much, but I think I have gathered up what I need now.

BC Fathers is a very notable website, one of the first fathers Rights sites on the net. Furthermore, it was cited by the Status of Women Canada Agency as an example of a "hate site" against women in one of their Policy Research publications. This resulted in a significant defamation lawsuit which is cited frequently in other court cases regarding internet defamtion and jurisdiction.

I have all the material, including trial transcripts. I'm not sure it should all be posted to wikipedia, but perhaps I can upload much of it to wikimedia commons and provide links?

Thanks

Kwiebe (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind at all restoring the deleted content to a "sandbox" page for you to work on and improve, and will do so at User:Kwiebe/Sandbox immediately after I finish this note. I should say, though, that the material I just reviewed is virtually unusable for various reasons, including a complete lack of references other than the website itself, and a number of highly coloured statements about the nature and quality of the materials available that borders on infringing a number of policies, including the neutral point of view policy and the [[[WP:RS|reliable sources]] policy. If I were you, I'd start from scratch, but that's just my opinion; I would, though, suggest you may find this policy material to be of interest (it's about a policy that is often referred to as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". If there's something further I can do to be assistance, feel free to leave me a note, and best of luck with your endeavour. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I'm not sure how I (or anyone) would go about presenting a completely "neutral point of view" on this particular topic. The BC Fathers website was cited as an "example of extreme violence against women" etc. etc. etc ad nauseum in a Government of Canada research publication. The ensuing lawsuit for defamation/slander against the government and the writers resulted in a judgment from the BC Supreme Court that said, basically, that the federal government publication was not true, that the researchers believed the lies they wrote, that it was slanderous, it was not factual research - and then grannted the government a "just my opinion" fair comment defense. It might be possible to phrase this in a neutral way, but I'm not sure I can do that - I was the person who sued the government. Are there volunteers who are willing and able to edit such higly-charged material to meet the guidelines? I think it is something that should be on Wikipedia, it is a very important historical judgment, but I certainly do want to stay within the guidelines somehow. Kwiebe (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure how to help you further, at this point; I believe you may have misinterpreted what "neutral point of view" means. If you cite what other people have said about the website in a verifiable way, for instance if you were to quote a newspaper article that describes the above lawsuit, that would seem to be within the guidelines. The material I placed into the sandbox page for you seems to be repeating what the website's creators think about the website, and that stuff is not neutral (nor could it be). Since you mention that you are affiliated with this group, I would also recommend that you read the conflict of interest policy. As a general rule, if this website is sufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, someone who is not connected with its creation will be interested in writing the article. As I said, I'm not sure how best to help you; I think I will recommend that you leave a note at {{WP:N?|this page]] where people have volunteered to help new editors, and someone will guide you through what I have to admit is a difficult process. Best of luck with your endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlock Cube World

Hi, I was hoping you could help me unlock the Cube World article so we can have a proper article for this toy line. I've already started one you can examine at AndrewBSSC4/Sandbox/Cube_World to prove I'm not looking at posting an ad or spam article. Thanks. AndrewBSSC4 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not dead set against releasing the page protection but I'm concerned with the content of the article that you wanted me to look at. First of all, I believe that you are not interested in posting an ad or spam article, and thanks for that. The problem I see with the article in your Sandbox page is that it did not contain any [[[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that would assert any notability for the toy in a verifiable way. If I unprotect the page, and you mount what you have, it would probably be marked for speedy deletion in a few minutes because of the lack of those three crucial elements and, when the deleting administrator saw the history of the page, s/he would likely protect it again (it was recreated nine times in eleven months, which frankly is the highest number of recreations and deletions I have ever seen). So I don't think at the current point in time I would be doing you a favour by unprotecting the page in question because, as near as I can tell, you would be just setting yourself up to have to make the same request to the next administrator. Since you've initiated a similar process 48 hours earlier than your note above on the page reserved for such requests I am certainly prepared to leave a note at that position indicating that I have no problem with someone unprotecting the page. However, if you think I'm trying to help you, you might look into the process of deletion review, which would be a fairly permanent way of accomplishing the restoration of the page. I also recommend that you look at WP:Your first article to understand what I've said about notability, reliable sources and verifiability in a more detailed way, and so that you have an understanding that these crucial policies must underlie every Wikipedia Article. I would work on the article a little bit more before you undertake these things, though, and I hope I am saving you some time and effort by saying so. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Starving the Monkeys

Would you mind taking a look at the talk page? Basically, the editor is stating "The guidelines don't apply to me." 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've nominated the article at Articles for deletion, which should take care of it. Your assistance is appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark J. Reichel

Hello, and thank you for your notice of speedy deletion. I would really appreciate some help with this page if you have some time to talk about it. It says in the "creating your first article" page that some editors may be willing to help with the creation of an article. This particular article is about a prominent Northern California Attorney who has defended several cases which have links on wikipedia, including the Eric McDavid case and appeal. I do believe that this person has encyclopedic importance and if you could give me some tips or advice as to how to create this page correctly I would greatly appreciate the advice. Thank youMReichel (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I would first refer you to our conflict of interest policy, and that recommendation is triggered by my having noticed that your username is the same as the person about whom you wish to create an article. In general, if you're notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, someone at arm's-length from you will want to create it. However, if this is merely a coincidence of some sort, I would next recommend you to WP:Your first article. This article is quite clear about the elements that must be contained within Wikipedia articles: these include notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. (I would also recommend that you click on all the links on the previous sentence for more accurate definitions of these three crucial concepts.) If you have questions not answered in those places, you could leave me another note or get in touch with the folks at this link who have volunteered to help new editors. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and I will get to work immediately to make the corrections. I do have one further question. If this article is deleted and another person or contributor at arms length writes the article (I'm sure that will look better anyways), will that make any difference? Thanks againMReichel (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "make any difference". Theoretically, every new article is scrutinized in an identical fashion by people applying the same set of criteria and gauging whether the specific article measures up or not. The identity of the article's creator, at least to my knowledge, has no bearing on how the article is assessed. Conflict of interest is not a criterion for speedy deletion, it's merely something of which contributors need to be aware. I hope this helps; if I have completely misunderstood your question, my apologies, and feel free to consult me again at your leisure. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article in question gets deleted, leave me a note and I will retrieve the deleted material and place it into a "sandbox" page where you can work on it with somewhat less in the way of time pressure. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate all this help. I will continue to work on this article and I will find more sources to better establish the notability of this person. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day.MReichel (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Kerchoonz.com and Kerchoonz

I have tried to write a stub for a social networking site call Kerchoonz and had only begun when it was immediately grabbed for 'speedy deletion'. I had listed a number of references which you will see on the page. There are many more references that are very recent due to Kerchoonz releasing K-box gel audio in this past month. I would be grateful if you would have a look at the article and tell me what I am doing wrong because I have tried to do everything as per what I have seen reported about other websites. ThanksCheaperbydozen (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I'll help you if I can. I looked at the material on your userpage and the history of the page in question... I certainly hope I didn't delete an article that has as many references as the one on your userpage, and I'm fairly sure I deleted a much earlier version. I think that the current version is either worth putting back up or very close to it, with just a bit more work. The key is references. The problem is that according to our reliable sources policy, not every reference is a good one. Blogs and forums are not especially expert sources, and we much prefer books, magazines, newspapers and their on-line equivalents. Similarly, and this is probably more relevant, material that your company generates about itself is not considered a reliable source. I looked at a couple of references that looked to me very much like a press release, and press releases are definitely not a reliable source of opinion evidence. (In a press release, I'd trust the name of your CEO, for instance, because that's hard fact, but if it says your products are the best in the world, well, that needs to be said by someone at arm's length from your company.) So if you want to put a little more work in, I would recommend that you try to find references from impartial, expert sources wherever possible, and as many as possible; particularly the audio product, because that seemed to me to be relatively unreferenced. In particular, I would try to write the entire article by quoting other sources (that's the ideal, not always possible, but keep it in mind). In other words, whether it's a fact or an opinion, it's always better if you're quoting a source that says it. I hope this helps you. It might take some of the urgency out of this if I copy the material to what we call a "sandbox" page for you, where it will not be subject to deletion for at least a month or so; after I write this note, I'll create a page at User:Cheaperbydozen/Sandbox and copy the material to that location (just click on the link in this sentence to go there). And if you have any other questions about policy, or want me to look at the article again, I'll be happy to do what I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's great, thanks for your help:)Cheaperbydozen (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had to delete the above 'article tree' - per WP:COI, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:DUCK. IF you have any further problems with these articles, let me know, ideally by email. Thanks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at this user's contribution history, noting that the only other article he's worked on has been disabled until August, and think I probably should have noticed the duck; I tend to be a little dim that way. Thanks for letting me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Add WP:NLT to that list. There's a discussion about it on ANI, you've been implicated by name. Email me if you want to see the contents of the email, for privacy's sake I'm not posting it all on here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually...

Somebody did delete my page, for no adequately explored reason. I can't remember his username (you deleted it -_-) but he never even gave a reason why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyramid Productions (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the edit history of your userpage and the edit summary for the deletion in question gives a fairly standard reason, that it is unambiguous advertising; I looked at the deleted material and I would have to agree, it was advertising (although I admit the edit summary would be hard to find for a new user). Certainly you are allowed to have quite a range of material on your userpage, but two things that are on the short list of non-permitted items are what I might describe as "unsubstantiated suggestions about a living person" -- for instance, suggesting in writing that the individual who deleted your userpage is a "bastard" without any proof -- and out-and-out advertising -- and putting a list of products of your company, and the rest of what I saw in the deleted material, is advertising. For the exact policy, see this section of a page (specifically nos. 6 and 9) that contains policy materials relating to userpages. I hope this is the information for which you were looking; if there's something further you require, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete rationale

Hi Accounting4Taste, I just wondered what tool (if any) you use to add the additional comment to the deletion rationale. Thanks, decltype (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to oblige, but it's not a tool; I'm not very good with those. I just go in and type the comment I wish to make at the end of the deletion rationale that's generated by the speedy tagger (the second line of two). I'm sorry, that's probably not helpful... Accounting4Taste:talk 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks anyway. Have a good one. decltype (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Public Strategies Group page

Dear Accounting4Taste,

I am conducting market research as a graduate summer intern with The Public Strategies Group (PSG) based in Saint Paul, MN. I am using a variety of tools, but I wanted to do several wiki searches to help me assess what is being said here. I did a wiki search for Peter Hutchinson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hutchinson who is one of the company's founders. In that page, there is a link to PSG but when I click on that link, the page has been removed.

Could you help provide insight into why it was removed? PSG does not advertise anywhere but it is a very well-respected, prominent, international, government innovation-focused, management consulting firm. I know many of the other management consulting firms are included in wiki, and if it would be helpful to you, I will provide public newspaper articles of their work. Since I have no idea what the original post stated, it would be helpful for me to see it, understand your reasons for removal and then have a more informed conversation with you about how to include something. Thank you for your assistance.

SocialInnovation (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)SocialInnovation

I've responded on your own talk page, found at User talk:SocialInnovation. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re Badi Foundation page

Hello, you left a comment on the Badi Foundation talk page requesting references. I've added references and created new content on the Badi Foundation temporary subpage link. User T'Shael indicated it looks like we are good to go, but that I should run it by you and request that you, as an administrator, activate the new content (discussion is at the bottom of this page link. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Vicali9 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, you beat me to it!

"User Accounting4Taste (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:

   A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject

Please confirm that you really want to recreate this article."

Was adding it for speedy deletion. D: So I guess I was right in doing so. Thanks for indirectly clarifying that. Keep up the good work!

irtrav (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have startled you, but glad we both had the same idea; great minds thinking alike. ;-) Accounting4Taste:talk 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Vaulttackie

Hello Sir,

Frank Vaulttackie is of much importance, he is infact an internet superstar, if you have not heard of him visit www.doinit4thelulz.com

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecv123 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability is of much importance, it is in fact a Wikipedia necessity, if you have not heard of it visit this link. You're welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Global Serviced Apartment Industry Report

Good morning,

The above article was put up for speedy deletion and deleted by yourself on the basis of "blatant advertising". It was not meant to be. This report is the first comprehensive review of a fast growing sector in the short term accommodation market, serviced apartments. The report was compiled based on a survey of 20000 serviced apartment operators, corporate clients and travel agents who book serviced apartments. The article provided a link to the various articles of the report. The report has also been published in hard copy. How can I improve this article to get this accepted by wikipedia?

Kind regards,

TAS2009

TAS2009 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As you have gathered, there were problems with the article (I've just looked at the deleted material). First, it was tagged as being advertising, as you note; this was probably due to the fact that it lacked two crucial elements, which would be the second and third problems (there was also something of an unnecessary focus on the company which produced the report that made it seem as though you were encouraging people to get in touch with you to purchase it). The two crucial elements that the article lacked were (1) notability -- there was no indication in the article that this report was in any way "special" or "unusual", simply that it existed -- and (2) reliable sources. Simply put, there were no references from impartial, arm's-length, third-party sources of expert opinion that made it possible to verify any of the assertions in the article (or to testify to the notability that had not been asserted). It is not sufficient for something to exist in order that it be the subject of a Wikipedia article; it has to be notable, that notability has to be the subject of comment by experts, and those comments have to be verifiable. I hope this helps you. You might also look at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted?, as well as the links in this paragraph, for more detailed background information on the concepts I'm talking about. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago, ...

...30th April, 2008 to be precise [1], you moved Semantics of logic to Formal semantics. Have you any idea why? The edit line says moved Semantics of logic to Formal semantics: As requested via a db request for Formal semantics, but I have not been able to track down this request. I've asked for feedback on the idea of reversing this (cf. Talk:Formal semantics#Move), since documenting the Amherst school of formal semantics seems to make much more sense at this page. I should think you might find it difficult to track down yourself, but it would be nice to know why, if possible. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I looked at the article's history with particular attention to any deleted revisions (I don't think these are available to non-administrators, so I'm not surprised you wouldn't have found them) and learned that the move was requested by User:Gregbard, whom I note is a member of the philosophy project on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say that I remember nothing about the specifics, but in general how it works is that a user requests a deletion -- "db request" -- giving the reason that they wish to move material into that space under that heading. I don't do this sort of move often, and I have only recently learned that I may have done it incorrectly by not merging the histories, which is why you may have had a difficulty finding the relevant edit summary; my apologies. When assessing such requests I try to make sure that the person isn't fooling around, but by and large I assume good faith, especially if the person seems to have a history with articles of this general type. I have no objections to anything you wish to do with these headings, including moving articles from one heading to another; you don't require my permission, but I would ask that you try to consult with User:Gregbard, whom I assume had a reason for his request. Good luck with your endeavours, and if there's something further I can do to help, leave me a note and I'll see what I can do. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I make no criticism at all. I'll ask Greg, who I know well enough. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TorontoNews24

Although I don't necessarily agree with your decision, I will respect it, but I do request that you save the content so that it can be worked on for future inclusion. I thank you for your consideration.Royalfortress (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Royalfortress

I have created a "sandbox" page for you at User:Royalfortress/Sandbox (click on the link to go to the page) that contains the deleted content. If there's something further you need help with, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Restore Corposcindosis

You deleted the new article "Corposcindosis". Corposcindosis is a relatively new word in the medical lexicon. A wikipedia article by that name was deleted several years ago, as a neologism. Since that time, however, 2 facts have occurred that make Corposcindosis now worthy of a Wikipedia article.

1. There now exists an online treatise on the subject, a treatise which contains approximately 200 references to mainstream published medical literature. [2]

2. A citation of the word Coproscindosis, along with its definition, has been published in a mainstream medical journal. [3]

Thank you in advance for restoring this important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Baker (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am certainly familiar with the version of the article that was deleted several years ago; I read it when I was assessing the most recent version for speedy deletion, because the reason for deletion was that the article had already failed an articles for deletion (AfD) process and I wanted to be sure that that indeed was the case. I am not unsympathetic to your assertions above, since I have examined the article that you cited and the term is indeed defined within it. However, I feel I have to proceed with great caution, since I note that a comment in the earlier AfD process was "Some unhappy ETS patients have an axe to grind about the side-effects of their surgery, so they are appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause, both in this and in the ETS entry."

I will therefore say that my first instinct is to recreate the article and immediately submit it for a second AfD process; however, I'm not sure that that is the correct thing to do, and it might be more appropriate to take the article to deletion review. My understanding is that articles that have not failed a previous AfD process are the ones for which a second one must be undertaken, and thus deletion review seems more appropriate. However, in my attempt to decide between these two processes, I did note that an initial step would be to discuss this matter with the administrator who closed the previous AfD process. I intend to bring this to his/her attention before proceeding further; as soon as I close off this note and remind myself of his/her username, I'll put it here so that you can observe my comments and comment if you wish. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll compose a note to User:Dominic], although it won't be instantaneous. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like my page to be restored

Hello,

I noticed that my recently created page was speedily deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Lloyd

I believe on notability grounds.

The company it mentions is a long established company already with a reputation, is an investment company with 'celebrity' investors, and is regularly talked about in the press, see: http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/overseas/article4435215.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1189295/Bagging-bargain-Bulgaria-Its-tough-market-investors-prepared-pay-reap-rewards-later.html

If you would like more links to press articles we have many.

I appreciate why the page was deleted however, hopefully i have made you aware that this is a globally operating company with enough clients to mean that somebody is likely to be interested and is likely to search wikipedia for it. I also believe i wrote the article very impartially and avoided 'selling' the company. We were looking to extend the article with information on our well known investors.

Let me know if anything else needs to be done to restore the page.

Many thanks.

Aston Lloyd Holdings Plc (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the two references you provided. If by "talked about in the press" you mean that the company is mentioned, yes, the company is mentioned. My personal belief is that neither of these references would qualify as reliable sources in that they don't seem to say anything about the company other than it exists and sells property. I'm also having trouble with the idea that you think a company is notable because it is "globally operating with enough clients to mean that somebody is likely to be interested", etc.; I think there are many non-notable companies that would fit those criteria, and extending the article with "information on our well known investors" would be of little value since my understanding is that companies don't gain notability from the people who own them. However, those things are just my opinion, and my opinion may be incorrect; I would recommend that you research our policy on the notability of companies for the exact details of the policy in case you're required to defend the existence of the article by reference to policies. I do know, though, that the fact that your username is the same as the name of the company you are writing about is a violation of our username policy and probably of our conflict of interest policy and you are likely going to be asked very soon to choose a new username by the first administrator who notices the conflict; please arrange to do that as quickly as possible because it's likely that your account will be blocked soon.

I believe that if I simply restored the page as you request, it would be gone again in a few minutes because the deleted material didn't meet the standards noted above; what you are probably looking for is a chance to add reliable sources to the article. What I'm going to do is take the deleted content and put it into what we call a "sandbox" page, which I will create at User:Aston Lloyd Holdings Plc/Sandbox. I urge you to take those keystrokes and move them to somewhere that you can work on the article to add references, because as I said above your account is likely to be blocked in the very near future. As well as the policy pages I've cited above, I recommend that you look at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? for some background information that may help you in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Demon Kiss

I sympathized with your comment in the prod tag you placed on the above-captioned page. I decided that material about a novel without any mention of the author or publisher was "not enough context to identify the subject"; this might be useful to you in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

wholly agree, and will likely use it for "X is debut album with 5 tracks" with no evidence on who the artist(s) are, let alone notability. Thanks for the heads up. I was just glad the creator didn't contest because I didn't want to have to take it to AfD. Thanks for the tip StarM 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think [link] goes to the book in question, and my best guess is that it's self-published, so a PROD or AfD would have taken care of it in that case, but I wasn't sure if the particular book was referenced or not, which made it "not enough context". LOL So many tags, so little time. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So many tags, so little time. Love it, so true. Hope you had a nice weekend. StarM 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied

I placed my comments here. No idea who the anon is, or why he decided that I could help.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I placed my comments on my talk page. Give me some time. I just posted it.--Archf 1 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tmc Software manchester

Hi, yes you have deleted my entry. It is heartful that we have individuals like your goodself who are patrolling the Internet but its true this particular entry (Tmc Software Manchester) is needed in this application.

There are two TMC SOFTWARE software development companies

There is one in USA

http://www.tmcsoftware.com/

There is one in UK

http://www.tmcsoftware.8m.com/index.htm

I'm not changing this UK name as a corporation, it was founded on the basis of the abbreviation of the founder, the SME is not looking for Wikipedia as a marketing or advertising tool, however the SME is starting to develop an important application and it is important to distinguise these two 'tmc software' organisations..isnt it?

im sure we can reach some sort of compromise whereas everyone is happy, im sure the USA tmc org would like to see a line drawn under the matter too.

Would it be okay if someone else made the entry?

Trevor McCormack (England) ~~trevmc~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevmc (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid you may be labouring under a misapprehension. I didn't delete the article in question because of any similarity of names with any other company, or anything like that; I deleted it because it didn't assert any notability (in fact, quite the opposite, since it was indicated that the company was not profitable), and, just as important, there were no reliable sources that would allow anyone to verify any of the assertions independently. Reliable sources are not material provided by the company itself, they are expert opinions from arm's-length third-party sources like magazines and newspapers (and not blogs and forums). I note by something you've said above that you are perhaps aware of our conflict of interest policy, and you are correct to suppose that it is strongly discouraged for people to write about the company with which they are associated. But it is certainly open to either or both company to have an article in Wikipedia, as long as it meets all of our basic criteria; we have ways of distinguishing between things or people with the same name. Neither company "needs" a Wikipedia article; if people have trouble distinguishing between two non-notable companies, that's not Wikipedia's problem, but articles about notable organizations are always welcome. I recommend that you investigate Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? to learn more about these issues and if you have any further questions after reading that material (and that accessible by the links in this paragraph), feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)