User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 19

Deleting my article

hey man I just moved the thread over here, but I did some research and found some bios on here that are similar to mine but they have no proof of notability but they have remained. Can you tell me why this one is created? It is in the same category as mine (administrators) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Pintens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerfan (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. In general, What about "X"? is not usually a good argument in Wikipedia terms.  If you find articles that you feel don't meet our standards, you are free to suggest them for deletion in a number of different ways, but each article is assessed against our standards, not against other articles.  The one to which you've referred me, though, doesn't seem to have any notability and I'll be looking into tagging it for some kind of deletion process immediately.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I added more, does that work?? More articles from local newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerfan (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any conceivable circumstances under which this person could be considered sufficiently notable to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. Put it this way -- the athletes for whose activities this man raises funds would not be notable unless they were competing at the highest possible level of amateur sport (the Olympics) or at a fully professional level (the NFL).  How can someone who raises funds for scholarships possibly be considered the equivalent of an Olympic athlete?  My advice is that you look for some other way in which to publicize or immortalize this individual, at least until he makes the cover of Time magazine for his efforts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, well I appreciate all your efforts in helping me. Even though it didn't work out I appreciate you trying and at least looking into it for me.

Suggestion
You should put a notice on the top of your talk page: "WAIT! Please speak to my associate, User talk:Vicenarian, before you bother me with questions as to why I deleted your page. Warning: He has been known to use sarcasm as a deadly weapon." ;) Maybe that will reduce the number of "HEY, WTF WITH MY PAGE?" posts you get. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I just keep thinking back to my RfA when people asked me what I thought I would be doing a year after I got the mop. I recall thinking that I wouldn't know because my experiences with the mop were likely to lead me to all sorts of areas that I didn't know existed... all sorts of exciting and interesting things.  But due to a combination of one thing and another -- notably that it is very easy for me to work in short bursts at my office while doing other things and waiting for results -- all I ever really do is new page patrol and deletions.  I have to say this isn't what I thought being an admin was all about, but -- and this is the strange part -- I have started to relax with it, at long last.  Yes, I get a lot of "WTF you deletted my bands page you ashole we are too notable!".  But after having deleted more than 20,000 pages, I think I now know just about everything that is likely to happen as the result of my deleting a page and I like to think I am keeping as many useful editors as it's actually possible to retain after they have their page deleted.  In my personal life, I am something of a crabby curmudgeon and I'm reckoned to be a real bastard with witnesses (strong men quake and women cry type of thing).  But with deletion, I somehow access a patient and logical side of myself that steers a course between inexorability and helpfulness; aiming to keep whatever I can, delete the rest, and guide the user concerned to the parts of the policy that they either never bothered with or didn't grasp.  It's taught me a kind of gentle approach that I don't usually have in my professional life that is kind of interesting.  I note with some dismay that I am right up there on the all-time list with respect to the number of pages I've deleted; I never saw myself as being especially a deletionist, frankly.  Well, we live and learn.  So if you'd like to be the "bad cop" to my "good cop", perhaps that would work such that we could whipsaw the more belligerent deletees between us... it's a nice offer, anyway, and I'm happy to have had it.  We'll try it out the next time I get a particularly belligerent correspondent who refuses to be mollified by either patience or policy.   Accounting4Taste: talk 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say, you do an excellent job of being bold enough to delete what needs to be deleted, and explaining the deletion in such a way as to (hopefully) make productive contributors out of the "deletees." (I wouldn't back you, otherwise!) As for me being your bad cop, really, you don't have much of a choice, as I am now a dedicated talk page stalker. :) Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 21:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a more productive stalker.  Thanks!! Accounting4Taste: talk 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! And by the way, you asked to be notified... Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude come on
Please dont delete this you can go on the website to find out she won it hasnt posted the new results yet so wait and it'll have here as a winner she won because Tammy Siert wasn't a finalist this year so she didnt win so thats last years results just wait man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcjumpman45 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the page you are talking about is being discussed at Articles for deletion/Jaclyn lampkin. The page will not be deleted until there is a consensus to do so. You may make your arguments against deletion on that page. Thank you. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Future Vandalism?
Hey, I've noticed that the "Mozart" page is locked. I have a feeling "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mozart" needs to be locked too, due to recent news. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how. I can edit locked pages, but I can't lock them. Thanks. --MosheA (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. As I understand it, you cannot lock pages unless you're an administrator; anyone that's editing from a named account (as opposed to an IP number) can edit a locked page, I believe (sorry, in a later note, that's actually SEMI-protection -- admins are the only ones who can edit locked pages).  I had a look at the edit history of Death of Mozart and didn't see anything extraordinarily out of line -- I looked at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and noted that a colleague, User:NawlinWiki, had been responsible for locking that page.  I've asked him on his talk page to give us his opinion of what needs to happen; if there's something specific to which you've objected, perhaps you could share that here or with him.  As a general rule, without specific application here, we don't protect pages against the possibility of future vandalism, only things that have already happened.  I hope this course of action will be satisfactory for you and if you have questions or comments I'm at your service.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The main Mozart page was semiprotected based on vandalism from anonymous IPs. It's been 11 months, so I removed the semiprotection.  Let's see what happens, both there and to Death of Mozart.  Please let me know if either of you see IP vandalism and want me to re-protect.  NawlinWiki (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User Blocks
Hello. I am back, I haven't asked a question in awhile and I am due. I had a question about user blocks. This user was blocked for advertising and spamming. I have been watching the user and reverting/requesting speedy deletion of his corporation. Recently, an admin blocked the user indefinitely for advertising in that article. I thought there were steps though. I forget where I read it, but I thought there was a progression to blocks. One day, three days, ect. So my question is: 1) Where is this policy/guideline, and 2) What do I do if I feel someone has been blocked indefinitely unfairly?--TParis00ap (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, and I'm always happy to answer your questions. With respect to question (1), I think you might be looking for Template messages/User talk namespace.  I'll try to explain the background as I understand it.  You're right to think that there are steps; many admins, me among them, prefer to leave a sequence of warning messages for offending users such as (all "subst"-ed and enclosed in double-curly-brackets) uw-vandalism1, uw-vandalism2, uw-vandalism3 and uw-vandalism4.  That set of escalating warnings is useful to warn offending users that repeating the same behaviour is an offense that escalates.  Ordinarily, I won't block anyone unless they have received what I think of as the full set of warnings, 1 through 4.  However, my understanding is that administrators are supposed to use their judgment as to whom to block and under what circumstances.  I have occasionally let people continue beyond a full set of warnings if I think it's possible that they will contribute something useful; I have VERY occasionally blocked someone without a full set of warnings if, in my judgment, it's impossible that they will ever contribute anything useful and are actively harming Wikipedia.  I regard attack pages and spam as actively harmful, but the amount of harm certainly varies.  "Ralph is a poo head" offends me less than "Ralph murdered his mother," for instance.  In the case you raise, I note that I actually deleted the first version of the page in question, which I've re-examined and which was absolutely and irredeemably spam, as were all subsequent versions.  I admit I might not have permablocked such a user as quickly as the other admin seems to have done, but I've also had my cranky days here and sometimes do things a little too hastily, so I can't cast the first stone.  Which leads me to (2) -- if you feel that the user has been blocked unfairly, you can certainly discuss it with the admin who blocked that user, and I expect that that admin will discuss it with you calmly.  I do think, though, that that discussion is not likely to lead anywhere -- mostly because I think that user is gone for good and unblocking him/her will not result in any future contributions of any description, since I don't think they're ever going to try to sign in again.  I also can't say that anything exceptionally unfair has happened here; if I felt that was the case, there are avenues whereby one can ask that the conduct of administrators can be examined, but I don't think they would be appropriate here.  The admin made a decision that I might not have done, but it's certainly well within the boundaries of judgment that I think we are allowed to exercise -- this is why the process of becoming an admin is difficult, because we want to be sure that people exercise that judgment reasonably and consistently.  I hope this answers your question; if not, let me know where you'd like more detail.
 * Incidentally, do you want rollback privileges? I've never granted them to anyone, but if you want them I'm prepared to find out how to give them to you.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I can always count on you for a full and clear answer.  I don't think I'll make a fuss to the admin that blocked him since that particular user really isn't worth my time to try and save, but it did strike my curiosity and I wanted to know the answer for in the future if I did think someone was worth trying to save.  As far as rollback permissions, I appreciate the thought but I've already been granted those permissions.  I made a request on WP:RfR several days ago and was granted.  I really appreciate that you would consider me though.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to be interested in vandalism work so I thought rollback might be of use to you. Glad you got it without me having to do a lot of research .  As always, I'm at your service if you have any questions on any topic.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I created a page for Day Turns Night, of which I am a member, earlier today. Another user flagged it for speedy delection. I did add -hangon- on the page and I contacted the user and followed his advice to ready notability guidelines for band pages. The 7th entry into the criteria list includes bands that are the front runners of their genre in their scene or city. I replied to him and he said he would help me with references/citations. He didn't reply or add that he had intended to provide support on the page. Would you please recall the page and allow me to improve the page and justify the abovementioned criteria?

Thank you

Sarge d&#39; Night (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I've looked at the material you've referred to and note that I deleted the page at one point because you hadn't provided any argument that met the requirements of WP:MUSIC; however, you seem to be asserting one and thus I'll give you a hand if you need it.  I will retrieve the deleted content for you and place it into what we call a "sandbox" page which you can find at this link:  User:Sarge d&.  You can work on the article there, adding the references as you mentioned to User:Fribbulus Xax.  I believe that User:Fribbulus Xax was not volunteering to find and document references for you (although s/he will know better than I); my impression is that s/he is ready to help you once you've found the references and need help in adding them to the article.  That's because, generally, you will be the best person to know exactly what and where the references are.  I wanted to add that in my experience it is difficult for a band to document the assertion that they are "the front runners of their genre in their scene or city".  User:Fribbulus Xax is correct to guide you to verifiability policy and to the general notability guideline; I will only add that having a large quantity of poor-quality citations is far less determinative to administrators like me in considering such questions than having a few impeccable ones, which may save you effort.  If there appears to be no clear-cut situation after you've worked on gathering references, what might happen is that the article will be proposed for an articles for deletion process, which involves the entire Wikipedia community having the chance to consider the topic's notability.  That process generally involves people who have extensive knowledge and experience with the relevant standard (more than mine, definitely) and the answer is usually considered definitive.  I'm sure that either User:Fribbulus Xax or I will be happy to help you if you have further questions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for retrieving the deleted article. I'll work on it and drop you and User:Fribbulus Xax a msg when I think it meets the notability requirements. Keep well

Sarge d&#39; Night (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help
About 3 or 4 of us are trying to counteract the vandalism by User:Kevin_von_always. Someone made a post at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents but still nothing has been done. This user is going to many different articles to vandalize. Please help. --TParis00ap (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It finally got taken care of while I was leaving this message. Thanks anyway!--TParis00ap (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Evan Ratliff
Yes. I was attempting to create an article about a notable subject starting with reliable references. You deleted about an hour's worth of work. Thanks &bull; Q^#o &bull; 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, glad I could help; as near as I can tell, you have apparently misunderstood the definition of reliable sources. I deleted the article because it didn't have any content other than a bunch of links, but according to the policy on "reliable references", Twitter pages, blog posts, forum posts and Facebook pages don't qualify.  Have a look at the reliable sources policy and you might also find WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? to be useful background information.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a little in support of Ratliff. Basically, you suck as an administrator. If someone does the time to write an original article, let it stand as is. The article will improve with time. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? You and administrators like you are the reason Wikipedia will eventually become obsolete in a few years; a distant memory in the minds of internet users.

Would you please undelete my article, or move it to the sandbox? Thank you.
Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you with reference to the deletion of the page I was creating on "Mikael Johnston." I started the article to replace one that was recently deleted, hoping to correct the problems sited in the deletion talk page. In the original argument for deletion, it seemed to me that notability had been established, but the concern was that it had been autobiographical because the subject had started the article himself. There was only one admin in the discussion that questioned Notability, everyone else seemed to agree that this person was notable, siting various references and wiki rules etc. There was even a Wikipedia contributor who specializes in music articles (who has made over 13000 contributions to music related articles) that advised the page be kept because the subjects references met Wikipedia guidelines and established notability.

I believe the subject to be notable in his field, the article I started bore no resemblance to the original article other than it shared some of the same references, I don't believe it had any copyright violations as I did not quote any of the references directly, not was the article spam. I am in no way connected with the subject, I'm just a contributor that is interested in, and knowledgeable about electronic dance music. I tried to start an article that was objective and well referenced. I was able to reference Johnston to over 9 credible publications regarding his work spanning over 14 years with very little effort. Unfortunately, I was not done contributing to the article before it was deleted. I had planned to clean it up and provide even more references if given the chance. So I am asking nicely if you would please either move my article out of deletion or at least to the sandbox so I can have an opportunity to work on this to adjust any issues that may have caused it to be out of compliance. If you could please advise me on any issues/problems that need correcting, it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you for your time. Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. There would be no point in my undeleting the article in question because it would almost certainly be immediately deleted again, because, as you note, it failed an articles for deletion process about 24 hours ago and that you did participate in that discussion. (For your reference, that's at Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston.) There is a specific speedy deletion category that applies to material that has failed an AfD and my belief is that it applied here, probably for the same reasons as the person who tagged it. There is no point in my commenting on the relative merits of the arguments in the AfD because you and I cannot do anything to change those results; I believe your only alternative is to submit this to deletion review. I will, of course, restore the deleted content to a sandbox page for you, at User:Lishlet/Sandbox, immediately after I finish writing this note, but no one can protect it against further speedy deletion if you repost it immediately, probably even if you add what you consider to be reliable sources, since the AfD makes it clear that a number of them that were provided did not qualify. As far as "issues/problems that need correcting", well, the entire AfD discussion is available to you; those arguments are much better than any I could make and much more detailed than I'd care to, and I recommend them to your attention. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted as I did the actions above that I was incorrect in my assessment that the article had been recreated twice within 24 hours of it having failed AfD; it was only once, and I apologize for my error. As a result I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and removed the protection I placed on the page; I trust that you will use this to take the page to deletion review and I hope this makes it easier for you.  If you have any further questions, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will continue to edit this page in the sandbox and take this argument to deletion review for further consideration. I am having a hard time understanding how this article was deleted, I realize I may not be as up on Wikipedia guidelines as some of the admins or more experienced users but when I follow the argument Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston It doesn't seem like deletion was obvious. I apologize in advance if I seem ignorant to the protocol of Wikipedia but please allow me to explain.

Many contributors, (one in particular who is a major contributor to Wikipedia music articles User:Dissolve) advised to keep, Another User:Abc518 advised to Merge and sited at least some notability. he then went on to say, "There is obviously some notability, I think there should be more discussion on the sources he does cite, and there should be more added... I don't think this page should be deleted all together.". The discussion then continued were Editing User:Mperiera explained in detail source credibility for the subjects references. The credibility of those references was then re-affirmed by User:Dissolve an experienced Wikipedia music article contributor, when he said, "Keep Subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources (SF Weekly[23], Allmusic[24], East Bay Express[25], Keyboard Magazine[26]), so meets WP:N." I understand that this is not a majority vote but there was a majority of contributors to this talk that sited arguments that seemed to speak to the subjects apparent notability and that the references meet the guidelines to establish WP:Notability.

The consensus of the group discussion from what I read seemed to establish with valid arguments that Mikael Johnston has notability, his article should not be deleted, but that there was a concern that the page was autobiographical, because the subject had started the article. I understand that concern and this is the reason I was compelled to start a new article hoping to write something the was not connected with the subject, unbiased, well referenced and fact based. As I stated before my new article bears no resemblance to the original article other than using some of the same reference material (as well as some new ones I believe).

Thank you again for your time,and giving me the benefit of the doubt. I plan to take this argument to deletion review as you suggested.

Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your note. No problem to give you the benefit of the doubt.  It occurs to me that you approached me, quite rightly, because I'd deleted the article -- but I think my action was pretty much automatic.  (My options in cases like that are rather limited.  It's a valid speedy category, it was tagged, it fit the category, I just about had to delete it.)  It may be useful to you to discuss these issues that you mention, though, with the user who closed the AfD discussion, Backslash Forwardslash / (talk).  That user is actually able to reverse the conclusion of the AfD, I believe, where I absolutely am not, and you may be able to avoid deletion review.  I didn't consider most of the issues raised in the AfD because I didn't have to, but Backslash was required to and I think it would be wise to ask his opinion before you proceed.  Incidentally, my understanding of deletion review is that you either have to demonstrate that Backslash made a mistake, or that you have significant new evidence that was not presented at the AfD.  I know that Backslash will consider the issue impartially and "professionally", as it were, and, of course, you are always able to go to deletion review if you cannot come to a conclusion that satisfies you.  If that is the case, I advise you to have a different set of citations than any that were presented in the AfD... just because those are what's most likely to give you success.  I won't take any position in deletion review because I think my impartiality has already been impaired, so if there's anything you need an ear for that is as impartial as I can possibly be after having deleted the article, I'm at your service.  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice note and excellent suggestions. I will follow your advice and start by contacting Backslash Forwardslash, in good faith with the hope that he will listen to the arguments I presented to you, and also give me the benefit of the doubt so I have a chance to develop the new article I've written on Mikael Johnston further. Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Artie the Llama
The page I made fir artie the llama got deleted. Apparantly he Is not important enough to Have a wikipedia page. But I started a petition to save his page. Will his page be recreated If I get enough signatures ??

Watch.power.yarrr (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and probably not under any circumstances I could imagine. You may have missed the introductory material that talks about why things and people are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and I recommend it to your attention.  Good luck with your petiition. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We Need Spoilers
You deleted my spoiler alert on the Sorority Row movie and I vehemently disagree. It is one thing for a movie that has been out for several weeks but this movie will not be released for another three weeks. A person reading the article is under the assumption that the details of the movie have not leaked out and naturally will not be included in the article. This is a reasonable assumption and therefore, in these circumstances, a spoiler alert is a considerate addition. If you fail to implement this change, you will only anger people and many of those people will refuse to use wikipedia because of it. Also, while you are immersed in Wikipedia and can imagine no circumstance under which a person could not know what Wikipedia is, many people do not have a clue. If they do a Google search of a movie that will be released in a few days, one of the first pages that will come up will be the Wikipedia article. Not knowing what wikipedia is or its many rules, they will naturally assume that this article will follow the rules of all other articles on the internet and will include a spoiler alert if the movie's ending is given away. To conclude, please include spoiler alerts on articles for movies up to and including the day in which they are in wide release. After that point, it can be removed.
 * Please see WP:SPOILER for my reasoning based on the appropriate policy. People come to Wikipedia for factual information and we neither censor it nor warn them about its contents.  By the way, edit summaries that include sentiments like "Bunch of idiots" are considered far less appropriate than spoilers. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are an idiot and therefore the statement stands. The rule you cite does not address my concern. What is your response to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling me an "idiot" is not helpful, is certainly not going to convince me that your argument has any merit, and is likely to get you barred from contributing to Wikipedia for a length of time or even permanently. You may want to become familiar with the relevant policies governing polite discourse, including our "assume good faith" policy.  If you want to discuss changing the spoilers policy, feel free to try to do that in a more appropriate area; all editors in good standing are entitled to express their views and attempt to change policies.  Good luck with your future contriibutions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An analysis of the spoiler alert policy
I quote, "However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary." A person who does not yet know what Wikipedia is would be under no such assumption. Also, if they know what Wikipedia is, like most people, they would assume that the details of a movie that will not be released for another three weeks would not yet be available. Also, you state that people come to Wikipedia for factual information. If a person does a general Google search, the wikipedia article is always one of the first pages that appears. They may not know what Wikipedia is and therefore they did not come to Wikipedia for factual information. You and administrators like you are the reason Wikipedia will become irrelevant in a few years and will be abandoned by its users. You dictate by beating people over the heads with the many arcane rules of the site that the vast majority of people have no knowledge of. This drives users away and makes them relunctant to contribute. This goes against the spirit in which Wikipedia was founded. Actually an article covering this very topic appeared on CNN.com a few weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, apparently you came to Wikipedia to get information and now you're upset that you received it. I don't think there's anything that anyone can do about that.  Thanks for sharing your insightful and keen analysis.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to gripe about Wikipedia some more, feel free to do so, but somewhere else. Thank you. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go to gripe and to argue about policy change?
I do not appreciate your sarcastic attitude; I came to the article to get a general synopsis of the movie, not the ending. And what of people besides me? Also, I did not know about the arcane rule that Wikipedia does not allow spoiler alerts. And you ignored all of the points I addressed because I believe you have no effective reply to them. Where do I go to argue for this policy change? Where do I go to gripe about my concerns of sarcastic administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, we don't appreciate being called idiots. However, if you'd like to discuss the WP:SPOILER guideline, try starting a discussion on the associated talk page for that guideline. And lay off the personal insults, thanks. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might try Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; I trust you'll enjoy the process. I expect to be too busy to participate to any great extent, but I'm sure you'll receive an impartial and insightful analysis of your contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Sorry to bother you. Your recent edit on Sorority Row == what does GIPU mean, please? Pardon my ignorance. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh man. That takes me back. Given IP User. It's on my front page. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (originally posted at 23:52, August 25, 2009)

Re: Replies on My talk
You know, the sad/tough part is that I'm NOT a regular editor anymore. Long story. I will keep an eye on this article, though. I've made another post on the talk and reverted another couple of edits. I can only find one reference to Megan Good being in the movie, so far (on a blog, no less <,<). Nothing on her page. Either it's a cameo that almost no one knows about or someone's mistaken. I'm betting on the latter. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Echo chamber of hate
Yeah, I was unsure about this one. I have a bad tendency to nominate articles for speedy deletion if I know they're going to get deleted but they don't actually fit any of the criteria. This was one of those cases. You were correct for PRODing it. Cheers! Mm40 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Popimpress biography - new article
Hello, I would like to add a new page to Wikipedia, called Popimpress biography.

I'm in a process of creating a website about Popimpress biography, a new art direction - www.popimpressbiography.com

Please let me know what should i do in order to publish it, so it doesn't get filtered as spam and respectively deleted again.

Thank you in advance, Odysseus Krum odysseuskrum@googlemail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.215.44 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I had a look at the deleted material.  Frankly, you're going to have a very difficult time creating an article that will not be immediately deleted.  This is, as you say, a "new art direction" -- thus it is unlikely that the subject has been discussed by arm's-length third-party expert sources, or what we call reliable sources, and reliable sources are absolutely crucial to a Wikipedia article.  Everything I saw seemed to be created by you to talk about your idea, and that's just considered advertising here.  You're also in a conflict of interest in the sense that it's strongly discouraged to create pages about your own enterprises.  Wikipedia articles are meant to be about things that already are notable, not just things that you want to become notable, so if this idea is not yet well-known it's unlikely that it will be possible to have a Wikipedia article about it.  My advice would be to read through the introductory material at WP:Your first article and see if it's possible for you to meet the basic requirements; if not, you may have to find some other way of advertising your concept.  Best of luck.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the Family Nature Summits article and was wondering if you could give me more information as to why it was deleted. (And any suggestions as to how to get it published). FNS was run by the National Wildlife Federation for many years and I think it is pretty notable that the members got together, created a nonprofit, and have been running it successfully for 4 years. I don't mean for it to be an advertisement; just a chronicle of the history. Perhaps I could include more info about the Conservation Summits run by the NWF? They started back in the 1970s. What do you think? Thanks for any advice/help you can give me. Rmistretta (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I recommend that you have a look at this introductory article, which will outline the basic requirements for Wikipedia articles; one of them, the one that was missing from your article, was reliable sources.  Essentially, you need to provide a lot more quotes from arm's-length third-party experts who say that this organization is somehow notable.  And if you don't mean the article to be considered as advertising, you should avoid phrases like "a fun and stimulating outdoor-oriented vacation" -- you can't prove it, and unless you're quoting an arm's-length expert who says so, it's simply considered advertising.  Best of luck with your endeavours.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I tried to create a page on B-HAVE, an antivirus technology that was tested by the anti-malware test lab: http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/39 and the product containing it was rated second for detection; I wanted to know what needs to be deleted from the article in order to keep it as I can see that there are other antivirus technologies that have their own wiki pages. thank you Caroline Carolinewest23 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Please read the paragraph of advice immediately above, where I refer to this introductory article and this policy on reliable sources; your article had the same problems.  I don't know what the "anti-malware test lab" is, or why it should be considered authoritative (nor, I should add, do I care; please don't trouble yourself trying to convince me personally), but if you mean its pronouncements to be taken as a reliable source, then the citation has to be within the body of the article, as well as others, and that's also where you need to convince people that the source is reliable.  Essentially, your article has the same problem as the one above -- everything you are suggesting about this software has to be backed up by reference to the writings of third-party arm's-length expert sources writing in reliable publications, and in the draft I just looked at, nothing was.  I got the impression from the draft I looked at that this software is not yet commercially distributed, in which case it's unlikely that there will be enough in the way of reliable sources to justify an article; you might want to consider adding a line or two to an article about malware, or products which fight it.  Incidentally, "X has an article so we should have one too" is not considered a useful argument here; see this policy page for details.  All articles are considered as to how they measure up against policies, not against other articles.  Best of luck with your endeavours.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete my page regarding Christopher Straub - Season 6 project runway contestant
Hello, I made a page (Christopher Straub - Season 6 Project Runway) earlier and it seems to have been deleted.

This was my first attempt and i have tried very hard to make a properly cited page with a proper outline. I would very much appreciate it if you could leave it up to be edited and amended by users that want to improve it because it is difficult to start a 'perfect' page from scratch.

I realize you deleted this because it is a 'not a notable reality tv star' but if you could please just re post it and leave it up for a while for others to edit i believe you may change your mind. Also, you have deleted it so quickly that you have left no time for others to edit, this seems hardly fair so please do allow some time before deleting.

Thanks for your consideration,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coope247 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I do agree that you worked very hard to produce a nice-looking page.  However, I disagree with your premise that Mr. Straub is notable.  I wanted to recommend you to Notability (Reality Television participants), which is the guideline I followed in assessing the article; I cannot see how this individual meets any of the seven basic criteria outlined there.  If Mr. Straub wins his season of the programme, or in some other way becomes notable for something more than a single event, I will be happy to help you to retrieve the deleted content and re-mount it.  I don't think there is anything wrong with the article, which is uncommon, other than your assessment of the notability of the subject -- if and when Mr. Straub wins the game, I think that article can go right back into place with no alterations (although the photo might have been deleted by that point). However, you should be aware that you require neither my permission nor my assistance to re-mount the article exactly as it was previously deleted; simply go to the page title and, in the upper right-hand corner, you'll find a notation that there are two deleted edits.  Simply view the last one and restore it.  I believe you will find that another editor tags the article, and another administrator deletes it, for approximately the same reasons.   In fact you have a number of different options available to you if you disagree with my assessment; one might be submitting the article for an articles for deletion process, but you should be aware that that process tends to be rather final in nature and is always based entirely on Wikipedia policy.  My personal advice to you would be to wait until the subject either receives a large amount of press coverage or wins the game, but if you don't think that's appropriate and wish to do something different, I'll even help you if you wish.  Let me know if I can be of further assistance to you.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to be picky, but you probably shouldn't be assessing articles based on a guideline that failed to gain consensus. Also, CSD A7 isn't primarily about notability.  Many non-notable people will pass A7, as it only requires some claim of possible importance, not actual notability, to avoid speedy deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I made a new page, that meets the requirements you sent. However, I accidently created the page with a lowercase last name "Christopher straub" and it should be "Christopher Straub". I don't seem to have access to change the title, could you possibly find a couple minutes to move this article for me? Thanks a bunch!Coope247 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

 * Deserved :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very grateful. I just think of myself as a toiler in the trenches -- sometimes the public face of Wikipedia to a new user, so I'm happy to know that I'm seen as polite.  Thanks very much for making my day!  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Toulouse
I notice you deleted Stephen Toulouse as it was a recreation of a previously-deleted page from several years ago. The subject of the article has been quoted extensively as the public face of Xbox Live policy, where he has addressed numerous controversies concerning the service. This is notable also in the greater context of online gaming policy and regulation, where Microsoft is a major figure. I didn't see the exact page that was deleted, but could you reinstate this article so that it could be improved and, if necessary, subjected to a new deletion review?

Thanks, White 720 (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'll take the deleted content and place it into a sandbox page for you at User:White 720/Stephen Toulouse -- I see what you're saying and believe that's likely to be the case, but the article I found didn't seem to say anything about his being extensively quoted, so you may want to beef up the article with citations that demonstrate that before you take it to deletion review.  (Which is why I didn't just reinstate the article, although you can certainly do that if you want to.)  Let me know if there's something further I can do to help you with this.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! The article definitely needs some work to establish notability of the subject. I'll make some edits when I get the chance. White 720 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Liberal Party candidates, 41st Canadian federal election
Hello Accounting4Taste, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Liberal Party candidates, 41st Canadian federal election has been removed. It was removed by Mr. No Funny Nickname with the following edit summary ' (Similar pages already exist for other parties. In addition, a similar page was created in advance of the previous election.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Mr. No Funny Nickname before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Anna Hassan
Good morning. Would you mind taking a look at this article and also my talk page about the subject and make a call on if the quotes belong in the article? I feel they are out of context, unencyclopedic, and non-nuetral but the article creator has reverted me twice. I feel he is violating the WP:3RR but to avoid violating it myself, I would like a third person to take a look if you arn't busy. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I had a look at the article in question and also examined the citations.  There are a couple of things about the article that need attention, and they're not necessarily the ones you brought to my attention (sorry).  One is that the attribution of motivations to Tony Blair is completely unreferenced, and it's difficult to justify retaining that without a specific citation.  The second (and I'm on shakier ground here) is that, as I understand it, it is supposed to be clear that the quotations of this woman's utterances are themselves quotations -- the citation suggests that they are quoting her utterances, and in fact they are quoting what the Observer says her utterances were.  That seems to me to be a moderately important distinction and it's certainly not clear.  (I am fairly sure that this point is made somewhere in the policy about quoting.)  I tend to agree with you that the quotations are not really useful -- they are somewhat self-puffery but at the same time they do add a tiny bit to our understanding of what this woman did that made her eligible for the OBE.  My own instinct would be to cut them back or collapse them into a single quote.  There's a bunch of stuff that's not really useful, like knowing that she used to run an ice cream parlour, and my approach would be to strip away anything that doesn't have to do specifically with education, since that's her area of expertise.  (Her marriage is the kind of thing that does have a place, in a single line, I think.)  Anyway, there's no way I'm going to be able to solve this for you, in the sense that I cannot impose a solution -- I would suggest you submit this to a process that I have found very useful in the past, Third opinion.  The editors who volunteer at Third opinion are very good at mediating such situations; they come and have a look dispassionately and hold up the article to specific policies to see how they shake out, and usually everyone learns from the experience.  If for some reason you think this is not appropriate or you wish me to do something further, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger. Thanks for the always useful advice.  As I normally do, I'll take it and bring this article to WP:3.  I dont want to get into an edit war over an article I just WP:DGAF about.  Just my normal newpage/recent edit patrolling.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)