User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 22

Speedy deletion declined: MYMAG
Hello Accounting4Taste. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MYMAG, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Creating magazines with/for people with articles is probably sufficient credible assertion of notability for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of SimYard Article
I believe that the deletion of this article was unnecessary. It gives information about an online baseball simulator calledSimYard. It is in no way an infringement of copyright and it does have notability as it was featured on Fox News Chicago It is not meant to advertise, but to provide information about the site. It is, however, a work in progress and is meant to be a group effort between the users of SimYard. Wikipedia is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia that covers any and all subjects that are notable. Therefore, I request that this page be undeleted.

Thank you, Bradley S. Horwith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyshorwith (talk • contribs) 08:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not prepared to go any further than restoring the deleted material for you to a sandbox page, found at this link. You certainly seem to have grasped the central concept, which is that the topics of Wikipedia articles have to be notable; I agree with you there.  Where we seem to disagree is with the notability of the web site in question; you think it is and I think it isn't.  I'm afraid I could not access the YouTube reference to which you pointed me -- there is absolutely nothing in the deleted material that indicates it's available but if so that would be an important starting point to demonstrate notability.  Everything else I read either sounded like advertising or was completely unreferenced; there were no reliable sources, a crucial element of all Wikipedia articles.  My advice would be to re-write the material from scratch, trying to say only things that can be verified in writing/in vivo by an arm's-length, third-party expert communicating in a reputable medium.  I should say that you require neither my permission nor my assistance to re-mount the page imnmediately; you can do so by 'MOVE'-ing the page into the name of the deleted article.  I think you will find, however, that you'll be having this same discussion with another administrator soon unless you address these issues.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for restoring the article to a sandbox page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyshorwith (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of 009 Sound System Article
Accounting4Taste- I have been contacted to create a Wiki page for the new techno project "009 Sound System" by the group's founder, Alexander Perls. I see that this article has been attempted to be created three times, and has been deleted by three different administrators, one of them is you. I wish to create the foundation of an informative and substance-based Wikipedia page about one of the most currently-downloaded techno groups on iTunes. I have in my possession artist facts, published artist interviews and copies of his released work. If the article's notability is in question, I would like to point out that Alexander Perls has produced 15 techno Billboard Top 40 hits since 1989, and his most recent project is gaining even more respect in the trance/techno music universe. I would like to hear from you and if possible hold a brief discussion concerning any such article's standards and what Wikipedia expects from articles, especially first-time authors (I have in the past contributed to other author's works on the site but never created my own). Thank you for your time and work, Benjammin2u (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Benjammin2uBenjammin2u (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I think the problem might be that Mr. Perls himself is potentially notable but the group doesn't seem to be.  Notability is a key element of every Wikipedia article and the link in the last sentence will tell you precisely what that term means here.  There seems to be another project of his which is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article.  One thing you might consider is creating a page about Mr. Perls and mentioning the name of the project within it.  I would recommend that you have a look at the very specific notability standards that govern music and musicians, found here.  If you can produce two or three reliable sources that document that the group meets any of those qualifications, it's unlikely that an article about the group would be deleted; if you can't, it's unlikely that it will be allowed to remain.  I'm not intimately familiar with the details of what constitues a ranking on Billboard implies; I wasn't aware that there was a specific ranking for techno.  It's therefore unlikely that I can help you with the specifics of this article since I'd be unable to assess the specific reliable sources.
 * There are a couple of other paths you might consider, especially since you say you have been "contacted" by the group's founder. It may be that you are in a conflict of interest; I recommend you investigate the ramifications of that and proceed carefully.  It might be that the most useful thing you can do is find out exactly where to suggest that the article be created by someone who has an interest in and knowledge about the techno charts.  The precise link for that slips my mind, but I'll look it up and add it after I finish this paragraph.  I would strongly recommend that you read WP:Your first article and find your way to the Article Wizard before beginning to create an article; I would also recommend that you follow all the links in this note and be aware of their content and ramifications.  Best of luck with your efforts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can start the process of requesting an article at this page; there's a set of instructoins there and pointers to a specific page where one requests the creation of articles in the music topic area. If you have any further questions or problems, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One further note; article topics that have been created and deleted three times are on shaky ground. If you make a further false start, it might be that the administrator who next deletes the article will "SALT" the title, making it impossible to recreate any article without success in a long appeal process.  I would advise you to proceed with extreme care to follow Wikipedia's rules.  It may be best for you to create the article offline, complete with references, before posting the page; you can make what we call a "sandbox" page where you can work on drafting the article by following this link and accepting the invitation to create a new page.  You may also get help by asking just about anyone on Wikipedia, particularly administrators; we're here to help you, not punish you for not knowing the rules.  If you have any questions, you can leave me a note here and I'll see what I can do to assist you.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Modiplace
Dear sir

Can anybody please explain me the removal of Modiplace article, taking into account that lots of companies put their intro page here in wikipedia:

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_of_Portugal

In my talk page you wrote "indicate how or why the subject is important or significant"

half of the companies in the page Companies:Companies_of_Portugal did not "indicate how or why the subject is important or significant"

Can you please justify this?

The company Modiplace has an history that we will provide in the article but you didn't gave us time to update it. I created the article in one day and you remove it 2 or 3 days after that. I would like to understand if wikipedia.en is giving the same kind of treatment to all companies? Because it seems that we were an exception. I've seen Speddy deletions articles in that state for days and days. But in our case you simply delete it. More sadly is the fact that I didn't saved the text because I wrote the article while I was on the train and now I will have to write that text again. I don't understand the hurry in the deletion. And I don't understand why is that wikipedia did not notify me by email at first place. People don't come to wikipedia all the days so wikipedia should notify the people by email before delete the articles.

Best regards and good work

Jorge Machado —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machadofisher (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to answer your questions and comments, at least those that have answers. Yes, Wikipedia gives the same treatment to every company and, indeed, every article.  The time between the tagging of an article for speedy deletion and the deletion varies according to a number of factors, most of them random; in my case, I select tagged articles at random from a list, examine then and delete them if appropriate.  If your article lasted as long as a day, that would be an exceptionally long time; many are deleted within minutes after tagging and most within hours.  No one here has time to notify anyone by e-mail about deletion (or anything else); whether or not that is a good policy is debatable, but that's the way it works here.  You will almost certainly have found a notification on your talk page and that's the most notification that anyone ever gets here about anything; you're responsible for keeping track of things that are important to you.  And finally, as to the main reason for your note: the subjects of Wikipedia articles have to be notable, and that notability is defined entirely in Wikipedian terms (so I recommend you follow the link in this sentence to learn what it means).  The article I saw and deleted did not contain any assertion of notability -- there was nothing in the article that would lead anyone to believe that the company was special or unusual or in any way better than its competitors.  It is not considered useful here to compare one article to another and make arguments for retention based on that comparison; if you feel there are articles here that don't meet Wikipedia's standards, you are welcome to tag them for deletion.  Because of the way new articles are assessed, many people find it's a better plan to create an article complete with references and reliable sources before mounting it; as you have learned, new Wikipedia articles are subject to an intense scrutiny immediately upon their mounting and must contain all the essential elements.  Thousands of new articles are created daily and I would estimate that 80 to 90 percent are deleted, for one reason or another, within 24 hours; if we were to leave all articles in place in the hope that someone was coming back to improve them, all the useful articles would soon be outnumbered by the useless ones.  Based on what you said above, you will be pleased to know that nothing is ever "lost" on Wikipedia; I have retrieved the deleted content and you won't have the burden of re-writing those three sentences.  I will place the deleted content into what's called a "sandbox" page which you will find at this link.  I would strongly recommend that you read some of the basic material about the necessary elements of a Wikipedia article, starting with this link; some of your questions above may be answered in more detail at WP:Why was my article deleted?.  You don't require either my permission or assistance to re-mount the article immediately but I guarantee if you don't improve it to meet the standards found at WP:YFA, it will be re-tagged and re-deleted and you'll be back in this position again.  Should you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a further note; best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I'm trying to recreate the page on the Sacred microdistillery, now that it has a lot more press coverage. Initially I created a page for Sipsmith, and a page for Sacred, which got deleted on notability gounds about 6 mnths ago. Since then things have changed with a whole lot more press coverage, and I think that NOTABILITY of the article should be reconsidered. Can you help me do this? I have entered something on the deletion review pages, but am not experienced at this at all. Thanks, Beefeaterdinker. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will reply both here and on your talk page. I agree with User:C.Fred; WP:Deletion review seems quite clear to me also.  I can add that arguments that are not based on specific Wikipedia policies are unlikely to be successful; you may want to examine Notability (organizations and companies) carefully for useful information.  I note also that an examination of your recent contributions shows that you haven't actually contributed anything to any deletion review process; the link in this sentence, WP:Deletion review, will take you directly to the correct page.  Some people find such processes easier to navigate if they have two windows open simultaneously so that they can keep the directions in front of them and do the application in the other window; you might try that.Accounting4Taste: talk 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I put this at the top of the discussion page:

:


previous 2 deletions about 6 months ago were on grounds of NOTABILITY, and there is a substantial new body of national media and press coverage since, which should pass the NOTABILITY hurdle by now. See the wikipedia article on "Sacred microdistillery" for links, as well as the press page on the www.sacredspiritscompany.com website. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

is that right? the instructions are not that clear to a first time user of the deletion review process. thanks Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

please help get the Sacred microdistillery reconsidered now there is a whole lot more news coverage - ie NOTABILITY review
Hello - I'm trying to recreate the page on the Sacred microdistillery, now that it has a lot more press coverage. Initially I created a page for Sipsmith, and a page for Sacred, which got deleted on notability gounds about 6 mnths ago. Since then things have changed with a whole lot more press coverage, and I think that NOTABILITY of the article should be reconsidered. Can you help me do this? I have entered something on the deletion review pages, but am not experienced at this at all. Thanks, Beefeaterdinker. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) sorry for the accidental duplication of my message... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefeaterdrinker (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I have followed the instructions to the best of my ability, but it does not seem right - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_31

there seem to be a lot of blanks - have I submitted Sacred microdistillery for deletion review correctly? Thanks for your help. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you have entered the wrong material on the wrong page. Here's what to do: go this page in one window: WP:Deletion review. Copy the first five lines into memory, the piece that's called the "template skeleton". The first line contains the letters "subst" in it. Further down the page, click on the green link that says "Follow this link to today's log" and open it into a new window. So, you have a window that has the steps, and a window that is "today's log", which today is called Deletion review/Log/2010 January 31. Edit "today's log" and paste the template skeleton at the TOP of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). THEN FILL IN THE BLANKS. Leave line 1 alone; line 2 should contain the name of the deleted page after the equals sign, which is Sacred microdistillery. Line 3 should contain, after the equals sign, the name of the place where the content of the file can be read, which in this case is User:Machadofisher/Sandbox. Leave line 4 alone; line 5, after the equals sign after "reason", should contain the argument you wish to make as to why the deletion was incorrect. Leave line 6 alone. Save the "today's log" page and close it. Then go back to the list of steps and follow steps 3 and 4; you must inform the administrator who deleted the page, me, by adding the code (and changing the phrase PAGE_NAME to the name of the page in question) to my talk page. I am going to decline to do this all for you, since I actually believe the page should remain deleted; if you believe this article deserves to exist on Wikipedia, then do the work to make it so. Incidentally, I can't think of a way to make these instructions any easier than they are in this paragraph; if you can't now accomplish this, I have no further help to offer you. Best of luck with the process. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Force Fed Lies
can you please revert the deletion you made on the Force Fed Lies album by Dirge within they do have a page. If you could also capitalise "within" on the page name that would be great, Ben 14:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xididthepopex (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I examined the page to which you referred me and didn't see any indication that it met the requirements of WP:MUSIC, which is the standard that governs Wikipedia articles about musical groups. I note also that the last administrator with whom you raised this point was quite clear about the requirements and you said you would "take care of it".  It doesn't appear to have been taken care of, in the sense that there were no references of any kind in the article I saw, and a brief Google search doesn't give me any faith that it could be taken care of, because as near as I can tell there is no way in which this band would meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC.  I have therefore marked it for speedy deletion and thus will decline the opportunity to restore the article about the associated album since there would be no point in retaining it.  Incidentally, you can change the title of pages by using the "MOVE" function -- you move the page to the title with the spelling you prefer.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul's Pastry Shop
Please reconsider deletion of the Paul's Pastry Shop page. This bakery made a significant contribution to Mardi Gras history when they invented the New Orleans style king cake. --Webdevology (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, even though I could accept your suggestion as proving notability, what would be required is reliable sources demonstrating that other expert sources think so. Can you provide two or three references -- recognized experts on the history and customs surrounding Mardi Gras, writing in publications like newspapers and magazines that are at arm's length from the pastry shop -- that lend credence to this assertion?  Otherwise, if I were to undelete the article, it would be immediately tagged and re-deleted for exactly the same reasons; it looks and sounds like advertising for the shop.  If you think you can meet the standard of evidence required, let me know and I'll restore the deleted content to what's called a "sandbox" page where you can add the references before returning the article to its former location.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I found the following articles for your review:
 * http://www.sunherald.com/ggcl/story/1424728-p2.html
 * http://www.southernliving.com/travel/south-central/picayunes-pastry-king-00400000006883/
 * http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-mississippi/1014135-1.html
 * http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=214294
 * http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=11861654 (watch video on right - this may not be relevant but I figured that I would include it anyway)
 * http://modern-baking.com/retail_baking/mb_imp_18279/
 * http://www.childfun.com/index.php/holidays/spring-holidays/mardi-gras/659-mardi-gras-activity-theme-ideas.html
 * --Webdevology (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and your efforts. I have placed the deleted content into a "sandbox" page for you at User:Webdevology/Sandbox. I have to be honest and say that, although these are certainly references, I am a little dubious about their reliability; much of this material reads like a press release and it doesn't seem to me as though editorial control has been exercised (which is an important element of reliability). However, you don't require either my assistance or my permission to restore the article once you've added the references; simply "move" the page to the correct heading when you're satisfied. I suspect that you'll have no problem because of the sheer volume, but you may find yourself having to address the point of the reliability of the references and I'd advise toning down any advertising-like material. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste: talk 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alliance Precious Metals
I see you deleted Alliance Precious Metals under WP:CSD: "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". Howver I note 5 edits by User:Rob1Andrews and 3 by IP editors, who may or may not have been User:AlliancePreciousMetals. I also note that User:Wexeb reverted a previous application of a G7 tag on this page. I ask you to review your own deletion and consider restoring this as not properly subject to G7 (ONE author). DES (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; happy to oblige. I have restored what looks like the last useful version.  I should say that I think it's a very borderline article that is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion as either a non-notable company or as advertising, and that the references provided are not absolutely nailing this down as a notable article, but perhaps you can make a useful article and undeniably demonstrate notability; good luck with that.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul's Pastry Shop
Yes, I think this article probably belongs in AfD. It appears that Paul's Pastry Shop is a major shipper of king cakes, and they claim they invented a certain style of king cake, but so what? Are there reliable, serious, third-party sources saying they're notable? --macrakis (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just noticed Alliance Precious Metals from your Talk page and thought I'd poke around. --macrakis (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No Page on Paul Halter !
Why not u make it...? Jon Ascton   (talk)  20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that he merits a page; there are two problems with me creating it, though. One is that I've only ever read a couple of his short stories, because none of his novels has been translated into English and my French is only at an intermediate level, not sufficient to get the nuances of his prose; the other is that I don't have access to ANY reliable sources about his work that would bolster such an article, and it would be quickly deleted for lacking such sources.  I can't verify a single thing about him, I'm sorry to say.  But if you have a command of French and access to sources that I do not, by all means feel free.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

esoteric healing
Page referred to is in alanhopking/sandbox. I have reworked the material and submit it to you for approval before launching. I can's see why there should be resistance to this information. All it's doing is stating what esoteric healing is and what esoteric healers do. This is of interest to readers who know nothing about esoteric healing. After all you have a page on spiritual healing (to which I refer), to the soul (to which I refer), and many other scientifically unproven pages and religious dogmas that are plainly absurd, but are believed in by many, so why not esoteric healing that is a little less absurd and little closer to being scientific? I look forward to your feedback and thanks for your help in this matter. Alan Alanhopking (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't require my assistance or my approval to return this page to Wikipedia; you can simply use the "move" function when you feel the article is ready. I am glad to know that you feel my feedback about Wikipedia policy has been of assistance.  My personal opinion on the topic will neither be of assistance to you nor would it be pleasant for you to hear, so I'll simply decline to offer it; as I said, my expectation is that the topic will meet with considerable resistance here and you should be prepared for that.  Best of luck with your endeavours.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Croposition
Hi A4T! Just wanted to let you know that croposition, a page you proposed for deletion in December 2009, has been restored due to a request for undeletion. Feel free, however, to nominate this article to AfD if it seems appropriate. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting "Future World Music" Article
Hi, Sorry to disturb, It's just I'm not fimiliar with all the precedures of writnig an article

Now, I opened Future world music official website and found some information about the movies they made songs for So, I just typed thier names in this article Then, I found some info about Future World Music in the same site so, yes, I admit, I copied it but it was a couple of sentences only!! At last, I havent finished the article yet, and was planning to continue to inhance it and adding the references "The official site"

And I looked up the articles of similar companies like X-Ray Dog, Two Steps From Hell And Immediate Music And made my article in the same way So why were they accepted while mine wasn't? What should I do to make it accepted??

What's wrong?? And, how to avoid that again for this exact article??

Thanks And Sorry Again

Best Regards, A.Rami (Beretta) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beretta f-92 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. My personal opinion is that it is unlikely that you'll be able to have an article about this company because I cannot see any evidence that it is notable; and creating an article about a non-notable company is seen as being pretty much advertising.  Notability is defined by what experts have had to say about the company -- arm's-length third-party experts writing in reputable publications like books, magazines and newspapers.  So if you can find three or four of that type of reference and add them to an article, that would be a basic way to add material that would ensure that the topic stays around.  Without that type of information it is unlikely to stay.
 * I also had a look at the three other articles you noted. Frankly, I think that two of those companies are also not notable and, if someone tags those articles, they will also be deleted for precisely the same reason as I've outlined above; no reliable sources.  The third company has won an Emmy Award and that to me would be prima facie evidence of notability (I believe it would automatically qualify because of the award).  Notability does not "rub off" from your famous clients -- doing music for the commercial of a notable movie adds nothing to your notability.  I have in the past mentioned an example that helps people understand this principle; Brad Pitt's garbage collector is not notable.
 * I hope this helps. If you want to tag the other two articles for deletion, you are of course welcome to do that.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Hope I'll do better next time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beretta f-92 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jammie Jolly
Hello,

Can you please replace my page back to my user page. I am working on getting some additional information that will validate my article.

Thanks

Jammie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnice27 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have placed the material into a sandbox page for you at User:Jnice27/Sandbox. If you find that this is not the latest version, please let me know -- I had a little trouble locating it and I'm not sure this is exactly what you need.  I gather that you have talked to a number of users about the requirements for a Wikipedia article already; I'll just make sure that you know that WP:MUSICBIO contains a set of those requirements and that the material I placed into the sandbox page didn't meet those requirements, and leave it at that.  If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a further note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ross Straw
Hello Accounting4Taste. This isn't a complaint or criticism or anything, but I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the Ross Straw article that you declined at CSD as it was a copyright violation. I had a quick look on google and found it had been cut and paste from a baseball.com page that has a "copyright, all rights reserved" notice on it. So I deleted it and just restored the clean edits from you and the editors after you. Cheers, Sarah 03:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarah, good catch. I knew there was a useful stub in there somewhere, it just took a bunch of us to find it!! Accounting4Taste: talk 16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hello A4T, how have you been? I just wanted to stop by and say I finally gave out my first bit of A4T quality advice to someone. Someone asked me a question about RfAs and I hope I answered it like you would. Not just in length, but hopefully completeness and accuracy as well. It's on my talk page.--v/r - TP 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. All I can say is, that's probably better than the advice I would have given; I'm tickled that you think there is such a thing as "A4T quality advice".  I feel a little guilty sometimes about the length of the responses I give to people, because I know that many people just want the sound bite.  I am both happy and flattered to see that people other than myself feel that if people ask a complex question they want a complex answer, one that gives them multiple "hanging threads" that they can take and start to unravel a complex situation.  My immediate reaction to what you offered your questioner, other than that it was perfectly useful, was that I would have distinguished between dispute resolution situations which do/do not involve yourself.  I think on RfAs what people are frequently looking for is how you handle situations where you personally come into conflict with another editor; it's very rare, in my experience, for people to act as third-party dispute resolvers unless they (a) sign up for "third opinion" or its equivalent, or (b) are already admins, and I also think it's rare that that topic comes up in an RfA.  But you certainly hit the right note when you noted that the best thing to do was to focus on what the best thing is for the 'pedia in the long term; I absolutely agree with you there.  I'm not sure that I would recommend that you emulate the kind of answers that I give people.  My legal training makes me constantly try to see all sides of a situation and look for written precedents; your military background may make you more usefully engaged in providing instantaneous "workarounds" that get the job done without a lot of my dithering.  You give Tom-Paris-style answers where I'm more the Tuvok type; both are equally useful, and I think you might want to play to your strengths where it seems appropriate.  But the question you answered is the type of diff that I think will be useful in the future for you to provide to others; it's always useful to save keystrokes.  Thank you, as always, for the honour you do me in consulting me; it's my great pleasure to be of any assistance I can in what looks like a shorter and shorter path to your admin tools being granted.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I love your metaphor of Tuvok and Tom Paris. Ironically, those two did not seem to get along well together, but I rather enjoy your opinion on things.  Actually, my specific military training is in computer programming which actually does encourage me to see all particular angles of a situation.  The key to programming is that there is more than one way to solve a problem and no two programmers program alike.  But you're right, usually I am very straight forward and more Tom Paris like - I think it's my personality more than training.  As far as feeling guilty, I wouldn't do so if I were you.  Your completeness is what saves someone the trouble of coming back with more questions and saves time and confusion.  Not that anyone feels unwelcome to ask questions, only that you are so thorough your message is understood.  At least, that's how I feel.  You usually have anticipated my questions before I give them and get me from step a to step d by guessing b and c for me.  Something I've always appreciated in you and it is why I ask you when I have policy or process questions.  I could go on, but I have to get back to the office so until next time, thanks again for your advice and mentoring.  P.S.  My path to adminship is growing as I have less and less time for Wikipedia.  The project needs active admins and I am finding myself editting less and less.  I could not ask for the tools if I was not dedicated to using them to better the project.  Adminship is not a status and I do not seek it if I cannot be useful to the project.  Maybe someday.  Thanks.--v/r - TP 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have pinpointed my style with your a--> d metaphor; don't tell anyone that it's because judges seem to lose their logic the minute they get to the bench, and need to have everything spelled out for them in pinpoint detail!! I appreciate your point about not wanting the mop unless you can spend the time to make it worthwhile.  I don't actually agree with you; I think administrative tools that get used even if only occasionally shoulder a small part of a large burden, but I think my point of view is in the minority (and may, as I recall, actually be against policy).  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Halter
There was no page for this great writer, heir to JDC ! I made it. Have a look at it Paul Halter, and tell me what you think about it ? Jon Ascton   (talk)  02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, and for creating this useful article. I've made some corrections based on bibliographic information -- it seems as though paulhalter.com is in error on a couple of publication dates, which I confirmed using abebooks.com and the other reference you cited.  (Not absolute proof, since I don't have the books themselves, but two sources seem to trump one.)  I've removed a little bit of unreferenced NPOV material and I'm now going to go back and add relevant categories.  If you feel like adding a complete bibliography, I'm sure that would be very welcome for people looking for information.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure The Night of the Wolf has nine stories ? I think they are ten... Jon Ascton    (talk)  04:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources give both nine and ten; http://www.amazon.com/Night-Wolf-Paul-Halter/dp/0809562596 makes it ten, so let's go with that. I'll make the change.  Thanks.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You already did; great. Thanks for making this article more precise.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does this mean!
Can you please tell me what this means : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Locked_room_mystery#Locked_room_puzzles Jon Ascton   (talk)  05:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * rot13 means that you take the alphabet and "rotate" it such that each letter is the equivalent of the letter that is 13 letters to its right. Thus, a = n, b = o, c = p, d = q, et cetera.  I haven't bothered to figure out what the note is talking about; I'll leave it to you.  It doesn't seem to me to have much to do with the topic.  I believe there are websites where you can take the rot13 text and have it translated.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was sufficiently curious to translate it after all. It's "He stood on a block of ice, which melted and evaporated".  This is a "logic problem" I've seen before; it was certainly used in Old-Time Radio detective programmes as the basis for a mystery, but I can't precisely remember which one.  The Shadow, perhaps.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! Man, brilliant. By the way have you read The Night of the wolf ?  Jon Ascton    (talk)  10:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article HOLY HOUNDS
Hello again! Thank you for your decision, I hope that I can add some credible references to the page that will hopefully change your mind and also make the page fit into the criteria. Would you be willing to restore it back to a Sandbox form so I can make the adjustments? Thanks again. - Matthew Matthewdead (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note; the material has been restored to a sandbox page at User:Matthewdead/Sandbox. As I noted on your talk page, you should have a look at WP:MUSICBIO, which contains the standard against which such articles are measured; the general notability guideline about significant references in arm's-length publications is usually considered a fairly high threshold and isn't generally met by articles in local papers or university newspapers, etc.  You don't need my permission or my assistance to return the article to articlespace, simply MOVE the page when you think it's ready; however, if it doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, you're really just going to have the same problem with another administrator, so I would advise knowing the standard and ensuring that it's met.  If you have further questions about Wikipedia policies, feel free to leave me a note.  Best of luck with your contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Whosend
Can you provide the reason for deletion so I can make necessary updates for reconsideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatihn (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article did not contain any citations for reliable sources -- arm's-length, third-party experts writing in reputable publications like books, magazines and newspapers -- that demonstrated any notability for the website in question. It is not enough that something exist for it to be the topic of a Wikipedia article; it has to be notable.  Notability, reliable sources and verifiability are three absolutely crucial elements of any Wikipedia article.  It was tagged for lacking notability, that's what I found when I examined it, and that's why I deleted it.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will add some references, can you move the deleted page to sandbox page.
 * User:Fatihn/Sandbox; you're welcome. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatihn (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sacred microdistillery
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sacred microdistillery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hello Accounting4Taste - I have made substantial changes to this article, with some guidance from C.Fred, and I have put it up for deletion review, your opinion is appreciated. thanksBeefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Job!
Thanks for noticing! I really dislike hate speech like that and get rid of it as fast as I can (and pick up the pieces later if necessary). Accounting4Taste: talk 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ben Mercer CSD
I've not been active in Wiki deletion procedures in a while, I forgot about the CSD category for recreated articles. I'd have gone that route myself if I'd thought of it instead of the AfD route. Anyway, will you or another admin be closing out the 2nd AfD, or is that something a regular editor can do? Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note; it seems to have escaped my notice the first time I looked at it that the AfD #2 had not actually been closed. I closed it and have deleted the re-re-re-mounting of the article under an incorrect capitalization pattern, and have SALTed both, leaving a note for the editor in question that deletion review is his only option at this point.  Incidentally, although I'm very active in speedy deletion, that was the first time I've actually closed an AfD (I'm usually the one who starts them and thus cannot finish them). If you notice that I've done something incorrectly, please feel free to let me know.  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of PEJ News article
Hello,

You recently deleted a new page I authored on the news service which can be found at www.PEJ.org. It was located here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEJ_News_-_Peace,_Earth_&_Justice_News

Please send me the deleted article as the only one I can find is missing several citations. I can be reached at rycroft@SunshineCommunications.ca.

I don't understand what better source of information could there be than the news service itself and the founder? (which in this case is myself) Why do Wiki policies consider unimportant first-person knowledge? (I am the founder of this news service.) Who, for example, could write a better article about walking on the moon than someone who had been there?

The original speedy deletion notice made reference to the fact that the article had to be about something significant. Why is a news service not considered significant that serves 25,000 pages daily (much more than many local newspapers), has existed for over a dozen years, and is regularly cited by Google News and Wiki authors?

How can this deletion be appealed?

I am brand new to Wiki so please forgive any breach of protocols.

Thank you,

Alan Rycroft (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded at length at your talk page, found at User talk:Alan Rycroft. Accounting4Taste: talk 01:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your thoughtful response. We are obviously not publicity hounds at PEJ News - this is the first time we have even attempted to put an article on Wiki even though we are referenced on many Wiki pages and thousands of other web sites around the world. In fact, we don't really market the site at all. I just thought after 11 years it was time to put something up.

I find the Wikipedia policy ridiculous - as if first-person knowledge were unimportant. However, I also understand that you are only doing your most likely volunteer job well and following the rules.

I will get a third party to write an article - someone who better understands the Wiki ways. :)

Appreciate your time if not your decision. No need to reply.

Sincerely,

Alan Rycroft (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of learn2lingo
Dear Accounting4Taste,

I am writing regarding the speedy deletion of my article on the topic 'learn2lingo'.

It was deleted under the grounds "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

I wrote the article because I tried a lesson at that website and thought it was a really interesting way to learn. When I wrote the article, I deliberately avoided trying to make it sound overly important for fear that it would be too spammy. I think my article was unbiased and fair. What can I do to get it included in Wikipedia? If I make a list of the interesting features and their academic relevance, would that help?

Kind regards,

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Calhoun (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. No, it's not that you need to make a list of the features; it's that the organization has to meet our guidelines.  The specific one that needs to be met is found at Notability (organizations and companies) -- essentially, what's needed is references arm's-length third-party experts writing in reliable sources like newspapers and magazines that say that the website is somehow important or unusual or notable.  I certainly appreciate that you enjoyed using the website and wanted to pay tribute to that experience; have a look at WP:YFA for some guidelines about how you might be able to make that happen within our guidelines.  I'm sorry that your experience with Wikipedia wasn't as welcoming as you might have liked, and I hope that everyone here will offer you further help if you need it; I certainly will if you leave me a note. Accounting4Taste: talk 02:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help
Dear Accounting4Taste,

Regarding the learn2lingo deletion. Thanks very much for your feedback. I am new to editing Wikipedia and I guess I rushed in a bit too quickly. I'll take some time to review the article, add more sources and make sure it is closer to the guidelines you linked to.

I'll also remember to start signing off with the four tildes (sorry).

All the best,

Dave

Dave Calhoun (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fencing tactics
Hello Accounting4Taste, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Fencing tactics - a page you tagged - because: Per talk, can be merged and is a plausible redirect. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I make a judgment call as to the disposition of a page and decline a speedy deletion, and I'm dealing with an experienced editor or another administrator, I don't usually suggest that they review the criteria for speedy deletion. As part of your administrative review process. you may want to speculate on how you would have reacted to the above suggestion.  Thanks for your note.   Accounting4Taste: talk 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Anthony Howie
User:Anthony Howie, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Howie & and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Anthony Howie during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wine Guy ~Talk  22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, the notice was auto added by twinkle; you "created" the page when moving a deleted auto-bio from the mainspace. Wine Guy  ~Talk  22:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all -- as I said, I appreciate thoroughness in such matters, having been bushwhacked a couple of times by NOT being notified. I'm sorry not to have been able to make much of a useful contribution.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Seagram
Certainly if you're familiar with the subject, do rescue it. I've placed maintenance tags on Mark Smith's page as well. They definitely need work to meet WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and I agree with you that both need work; I'll see what I can do. It's not often that I'm personally familiar with a subject, I'm quite tickled to see a name I actually recognize from personal experience.  Ms. Seagram's website is not forthcoming about her tournament experience but I know it must be extensive; I've left a note suggesting it be added.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found and added evidence that Smith meets WP:ATHLETE; he has represented England in international competition. Ms. Seagram's cites are slightly less solid. I have taken the liberty of removing both sets of tags but, if you disagree with me, I urge you to return them; I hope you will realize this is not unilateral action on my part. I'm still looking for cites for Seagram and will add them if I find them. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I've added an underconstruction tag to it so that others don't think it's being left as is. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk  18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Recovery
Hi I recently had a page of mine deleted and I need help with recovering the coding. I found your name on a list of admins who could help me so if I have contacted you in error please inform me of such and I appreciate any help in this matter. I am very new to Wikipedia and as such it seems that I was a bit hasty in putting a page into the main Wikipedia space. It apparently did not meet the notability requirements and the neutrality was in question. I would like to recover the lost coding so that I can continue to work on it on my own user space so that it may one day meet the requirements and to continue to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia system. The page name is TG Blizzard and it was deleted some time between 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC) and 21: 03, 22 February 2010 (UTC). Once again I thank you for any possible assistance. Damien TK (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note; I'm happy to assist you (and thanks for the level of detail you provided, which made it easy to help you). I have located the content in question, retrieved it, and made it available to you at this location: User:Damien TK/Sandbox.  I can also point you to a policy page that I think you may find useful: WP:ATHLETE.  This policy says, boiled down, that your team either has to be fully professional (which I believe is ruled out specifically in the content of what I retrieved) or operating at the highest level of amateur competition.  I confess I am unfamiliar with the various levels of amateur competition in on-line gaming; I'm also unfamiliar with the various sources you used to reference the article.  My instinct is that your team is not at the highest level of amateur competition, but I know there are many people here who know more about this area than do I.  I think that reliable sources will be absolutely crucial to a decision to retain this article, and I advise you to add as many as you possibly can, and from the best possible sources (not forums or blogs, in a general sense).  You might also consider revising the article, then rolling the dice and remounting the article, then immediately submitting it for an articles for deletion process.  In that way, you'd learn once and for all whether others consider the article to be worthy of retention.  If and when you think the article is ready to be returned to article space, you can simply use the "move this page" function to return it.  Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, etc.  Good luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help. After looking at the requirements for athletes I can see why it would be hard to make a judgment on an e-Sport team. Your advice is also very clear and will be of great help to me in the future when I am more familiar with the rules and when the time comes to see if the article is ready. I will also do my best to find more solid and specific references. Damien TK (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of assistance. I think in the future you will get much better advice than mine if you find people here who have specific knowledge about this area of gaming -- I feel sure there must be some sort of portal, or project, or group of some kind, on Wikipedia that will be able to help you in a more detailed way.  What you might do is look for people who contribute to articles about professional gamers and see what groups they belong to, noted on their user pages.  I'm sure that everyone here will be willing to help if you ask.  I hope this helps you get better advice.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Delayed Surreal Recall Disorder
(copied and pasted from User talk:Quartermaster)

I noticed this in my watchlist and was a little surprised to see that no one had notified you, but since you have actually edited the article (unlike me) I think it's not out of line to mention it. Accounting4Taste: talk 05:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the oversight and heads up. I fully expected this to go to AfD (the originating editor seems to be proceeding in good faith) and have relayed my rationale (for deletion) there. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)