User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 25

Untitled
Igorkaminski (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hello there, you recenty deleted one of my articles on a Norwegian novelist; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_(Author). You claimed I did not mention his importaince however I did state that he had be futured in several Norwegian news papers. Why was it removed? Edit; I also stated Why the person was importaint. Stating it was an author. Edit2: I'd like to have copies of the page Emailed to me if they are not restored. Again, I do beleive I did state why the person was of some significance.Igorkaminski (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Igor Kaminski
 * Thanks for your note. I read what you had to say about the potential notability of this individual.  However, self-publishing one's novels on a website and having two articles published in the newspaper don't add up to notability in the way that Wikipedia defines it.  Self-publishing doesn't attract any notability (and there were no reliable sources to suggest that anyone else thought the published material was of any notability) and professional journalists, to be notable, have to be thought so by multiple expert sources, none of which were present.  I will restore the deleted material to a "sandbox" page for you at User:Igorkaminski/Sandbox but if you repost it without addressing these crucial issues, you'll simply be having this same conversation with another administrator.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll be more picky on who I make articles about :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorkaminski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU DELETE MY PAGES
I will not stand for this. Please undelete it. I am a good person only trying to give people insight on my culture. --KhamaPula (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me give you a little insight into Wikipedia's culture. All articles in Wikipedia are about notable topics -- notability has some specific definitions, but for a person it usually means that that person concerned is special or unusual in some way.  For instance, an athlete competing in the Olympics.  After that, all articles in Wikipedia have to contain reliable sources -- the written opinions of arm's-length third-party expert sources writing in reputable publications in a verifiable way.  The article I read and deleted was about a person who didn't seem to me to be notable, was not stated to be in any way notable, and there were no reliable sources.  Therefore, I deleted it.   People who approach me about the possibility of undeleting articles generally avoid phrases like "I will not stand for this", because, in my culture, that's considered disrespectful.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Myzerr
Could I please have a copy of the original page added to my page? Also, was the reason it was deleted simply due to the lack of a categorisation tag? We are a unique social networking website / company with a concept different to any other coupon marketing website. There are plenty of similar sites to us, with a similar amount of notoriety that are on Wikipedia. Could I at least have the article back so I can create a special page and seek advice on cleaning it up in preparation for it to become a proper article? I wish to do this the right way and abide by the Wikipedia guidelines. Myzerr link: Myzerr :) Brendanmarsh (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I've placed the deleted content into a "sandbox" page at User:Brendanmarsh/Sandbox as you requested.  I think the most serious problem with what I saw was that it lacked reliable sources -- links to the written opinions of arm's-length, third-party experts who state that the company is somehow notable, unusual or special in a verifiable way.  Reliable sources, notability and verifiability are three key elements of every Wikipedia article.  You may want to have a look at the pages behind the links in this paragraph; you can find some good introductory material at this link and some background as to why articles are deleted for a lack of reliable sources at this link.  Best of luck with your future contributions here; if you have further questions, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Accounting4Taste, I'll work on it in my Sandbox and then seek approval / feedback. Appreciate you restoring my article. Brendanmarsh (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

SALT?
You just deleted Pen island. This has been speedied at least four times and been edited by at least three spammer editors. Shouldn't that be WP:SALTED? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Ordinarily I'm near the front of the line when it comes to applying SALT, but I tend to hang back on the names of geographical features since these may have to be reversed in the future.  I had a look at the history of this and did a brief Google search; apparently there is a company called Pen Island but it doesn't seem especially notable, and there doesn't seem to be a real Pen Island anywhere.  And I hadn't known about the extensive childish pleasure in "Penis Land".  I'll take your suggestion and SALT it; thanks for bringing this to me.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. And yes, I understand the "geographical features" thing for lack of salting, but glad you understand the mess that is pen island. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Autograph-Cards LLC
You deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autograph-Cards_LLC. It was posted with links, including an encyclopedic interview with owner/creator of the company. It is a big company, and having a Wikipedia page is important. Davidomansky (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Not the one I saw, but perhaps it's difficult to recall since this has been deleted three times in the past few days by three different administrators. Publishing your own interview with your own founder on your own website is pretty much useless as far as reliable sources are concerned.  I see nothing here that remotely meets Wikipedia's notability standards so I'm going to decline to take any action -- I think you need to take these assertions to WP:Deletion review.  Best of luck with that.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is protected and can only be edited by administrators. Thus, I am unable to do the Wikipedia: Deletion Review until that is fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidomansky (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent version was deleted by User:JzG, so I believe your first step is consulting him/her and requesting a reconsideration of the deletion. Best of luck with that.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, adding that promotional piece of WP:SPAM again after it was deleted at least 3 times validly could lead to an enforced, extended break from Wikipedia ... but that's beside the point :-) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hello A4T. I havent been on for awhile but I decided since I was on tonight I might come over and say hello and see how things are going for you. I see you continue to solicit "Undelete my page now!" comments from folks. An unavoidable battle scar in the CSD war, I suppose. Anyway, I hope things are going well for you. Happy editting!....now if I could only figure out how to add my signature on this new layout. Oh here it is!--v/r - TP 04:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Paris -- nice to see you. I suppose I'm still sufficiently Pollyanna-ish that I'm hoping new page patrol isn't a war but an opportunity, but it certainly does feel that way from time to time.  Everything is great with me -- and I trust with you and yours as well.  Happy editing! Accounting4Taste: talk 12:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Decline of the Roman Empire
...don't forget, when you decline an unblock, you replace the original unblock template :-) ... and, since your signature is automatically placed inside the decline, you don't need to sign outside of it! Cheers!  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you know, I didn't know about replacing the original unblock template. (I'm not sure that that's entirely clear from the instructions, but it could merely have been a misreading on my part.)  Thanks very much for this very helpful hint; I'm going to be spending more time in requests for unblock and I want to get it right (and not cause folks like you extra work).  If anything else occurs to you of which you feel I should be aware, I would welcome your comments.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob...have a look at User_talk:Esmith747 ... the section for admin's gives fairly good instructions:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification, replacing with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, completely missed the "replace this template with the following" part; 100% my bad. Hell, it took me 15 minutes to work out the "replacing  with any specific rationale" part, and I'm very glad for the sake of the edit history that I was previewing until I got that right.  I'm obliged to you for your careful and thorough instruction.  (Fellow Canuck, I see ; I should have known because it was the most polite note about my dumb mistakes I've ever had!! LOL)  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, we Canucks are overly polite. Hell, I still make the occasional error :-P  <- see, that was one right there!  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

...and I just undeleted the usertalk page from the other place ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by this and I think I need to be, if only that I've apparently done something (else) wrong here. I very recently deleted the talk page of a user page that was deleted by another admin; is this what you meant?  Sorry to trouble you further.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I undeleted the usertalk page of J Callum, or something like that ... since we don't typically delete them, and I could see no really good reason to delete it, I undeleted it ...do I make more sense, or is the nice cold beverage clouding my communication skills? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:Jake Calum is what you're referring to, I think. The user changed his username and then asked that his former userpage be deleted; while I was still looking up the policy the userpage was deleted by User:JohnCD, and I figured that the associated talk page was therefore fair game too.  (The user had actually written his account's password on his userpage, which is something I'd never seen before.)  If you think it should be there, I'm happy to leave it; just that the user apparently wanted it gone and it had a history of about two hours.  I surely don't have the policy at my fingertips; I looked but saw nothing specifically relevant.  Lordy, I wish I had one of those nice cold beverages... still working hours on the west coast.  Now you've made me want one; I think I'm cutting out early!!   Accounting4Taste: talk 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cold ... brewed in Europe ... and tasty. But I won't rub it in. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BeckyRoseMusic
Hi there,

I was wondering if the BeckyRoseMusic page could be reconsidered for inclusion in Wikipedia.

BBC Hereford and Worcester Friday Sessions Introducing said that Becky Rose and other local artists are classed as 'notable' artists if their music has been aired on this show and other BBC radio shows including BBC6 Music and if they have had reviews written by BBC local reviewers as long as links to these were added wikipedia would not delete the page.

Please check out this link http://sites.google.com/site/bbcartistpages/home/biography

Thank you for your time (Becky Rose Music (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your note. I looked at the link above and I have to say that the authors are slightly misinformed.  They suggest that "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network."  The actual standard for musicians, which is found at WP:BAND, says "Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."  What that essentially means is that the network in question broadcasts a "special" about the group in question, so that the entire broadcast is devoted to the group's work and comments about the group; I think the BBC page is suggesting that if your music is played on the radio, you become notable, which is absolutely not the case.  Unfortunately we cannot be responsible for how other agencies interpret the WP:BAND standards, which are very specific and which have been developed and annotated by a large group of editors over a period of years until their precision and breadth achieves community consensus.  As far as the reviews are concerned, yes, they're reviews.  It's not absolutely clear why we should consider the reviewers to be expert in their field, and it's definitely not clear that anyone is exercising any form of informed editorial control over their opinions, which is a fairly crucial element of the reliable sources policy.  More particularly, I can't say that these two reviews strike me as being of the number and breadth that would be required to qualify under item #1 of WP:BAND; two reviews aren't "multiple" and the coverage seems to be entirely local.  For those reasons, I'm going to decline to remount the article in question.  You should be aware that you don't require either my permission or my assistance to do that, however; I'll even place the deleted content into a "sandbox" page for you if you wish, so that you can transfer it into the "mainspace" if you think it's ready.  I will suggest that if you do that you'll just be having this same conversation with the next administrator to delete the article, but I've been wrong before.  You can also bypass this process and proceed directly to WP:Deletion review (if you decide to do that, leave me a note and I'll create the "sandbox" page that you'll probably need for that process.  I should also mention that, judging by the correspondence between your username and the name of the article, there's almost certainly a conflict of interest situation in play; creating articles about yourself and your work is "strongly discouraged" and you're likely to hear comments to that effect if you decide to continue with this process.  I think the best advice I can offer is that you should wait a few years until your career accumulates the breadth and depth of coverage that will be required -- as I said above, I've been wrong before, so if you'd like to continue despite that advice there is nothing stopping you and I'll help you (as will anyone else here) if you ask.  Best of luck with your career and your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Assistance request
Hi. Would you please take a look at Requests for page protection, as it concerns continued action by the holder of an IP Address whose unblock request you declined? Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 05:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to me. I see it was dealt with while I was away from my desk but I'd have done the same thing.  I'm off for the evening but I'll certainly check this situation tomorrow.  Accounting4Taste: talk 05:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Front Page Deleted
Hey I was just notified that the page for CoH: EF was speedy deleted. I understand the criteria (G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.) - but from what I understand "This excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", to my knowledge the reason to which the original page was deleted no longer applied. Third party sources - including an interview of an EF dev, by the Community Manager of Relic Entertainment - had be attained with the new page.

So what was the reason this time? Cheers. --Drachegeist93 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's basically a mod of an existing game .. therefore WP:FORK applied anyway. Does adding an interview make for a major change from WP:FORK?  EF does not deserve a separate article - it should remain part of the original. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You're right that my primary reason was that the article had failed an articles for deletion process. My estimation was that the sources present for the article didn't qualify as reliable; they were essentially forums, and didn't exercise the kind of editorial oversight that would be necessary for the opinions expressed to qualify as truly expert. Since the comment about the sources not being reliable was made in the original AfD a number of times, I felt I was on solid ground in assessing that nothing had changed sufficiently to make this revision any different. I've been wrong before, and if you still disagree I think the best path forward would be that you take this topic to deletion review where the topic will receive the scrutiny of experienced Wikipedia community members. You should also be aware that you don't require either my permission or my assistance to simply re-mount this article in the same form; however, it's likely that if it is deleted again for the same reason the deleting administrator will strongly consider making it impossible for the article to be recreated without passing deletion review first. If you have any questions please feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated, I felt the original beliefs of "unreliable" no longer applied due to more reliable/numerous sources, versus a more or less lack of sources in the previous page (January). Since our release 5 months ago we have been featured on numerous websites, come 3rd place in the Unreleased Mod of the Year competition at Moddb, been the "Staff Selection January 2010" (and featured for May), featured in PC Gamer magazine - and on their DVD, and will soon be in the german magazines, and their DVDs - PC Games and PC ACTION, along with this we have been contacted about a gamer radio interview.

To be honest I'm unsure what kind of sources are wanted, or qualify as valid and reliable.

Bwilkins argument that EF is just a mod and therefore shouldn't have an article is invalid in my opinion simply due to the existence of the "Video game mods" category page, which links to many pages just like EFs.

Hopefully you can explain what it is we're missing. --Drachegeist93 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You can find a definition of "reliable sources" at this link.  To the best of my knowledge, your note above is the first time that anyone has been made aware of a feature in PC Gamer magazine; that might actually qualify as a reliable source, but a single reliable source is not going to be sufficient.  However, I do think you have now gone beyond the limits of my knowledge in this area; I'm not really prepared to accept that any fora are reliable sources, and apparently you seem to be saying that they are.  (To me, reliable sources are books, professional magazines, newspapers, scientific journals and a very, very small number of websites.)  I was relying on the previous Articles for deletion process's comments and, as above, I felt I was on solid ground to do so.  I'm also not sufficiently knowledgeable to assess the difference of opinion between yourself and User:Bwilkins.  As I noted above, you'll either have to try deletion review or keep recreating this article until you get the attention of someone who will either accept or conclusively refute your arguments; that's not me.  I recommend deletion review.  Good luck with that process.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Accounting4Taste - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah go fuck yourself....!! You are nobody in the real world, and a somebody on here. Why do unempowered assholes like you always have to make other people lives a misery?

If you seriously think that what you do helps this project, I can only assure you that you are better off looking at yourself first rather than judging others.

I don't pay much attention to notes from pussies who haven't got the balls to sign their notes; grown-ups take responsibility for their actions. Be sure to keep leaving these notes; I'd enjoy the opportunity to send an abuse report to British Telecom and get your Internet account shut down. Accounting4Taste: talk 13:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Did you dewete his wittle awticwe about some wittle-known musicaw gwoup? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my page, Dennis K. Hardison
The information in the biography listed on my page was not taken from any source other than my own personal experience. I didn't know that talking about how I got started as a Music Promoter, by actually being a musician and singing in groups was under the guidelines of unacceptable materials. Several people suggested that I should submit the background of my career and experiences to Wikipedia; and I admit that to this point, it has been a very difficult task. If you would so kindly restore the page in sandbox; I can take the advice stated herein, and re-edit the information to acceptable form. I greatly appreciate this opportunity.

Sincerely, 66.4.209.194 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You'll find the deleted material in a sandbox page at this link, which is attached to the username you used to create the article in question.  A few hints: "The information in the biography listed on my page was not taken from any source other than my own personal experience."  That's a problem.  All material in Wikipedia has to be referenced from secondary sources; your own personal experience is a primary source and we can't use it.  Look at the reliable sources policy for details.  "I didn't know that talking about how I got started as a Music Promoter, by actually being a musician and singing in groups was under the guidelines of unacceptable materials."  Actually, talking about yourself and your own career in that way does come under the guidelines of unacceptable materials; autobiography violates our conflict of interest policy.  If you are sufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, someone other than you will generally write one.  What I read and deleted had many qualities of self-promotion; you make a number of statements that have no sources directly attached so that the reader could verify their truth.  All these things considered, I think it's very unlikely that the article will be allowed to remain without significant alterations and the addition of a large number of reliable sources.  You may have to accept that "the background of your career and experiences" is information that may have to find a home elsewhere.  You can find more background information for these concepts at WP:Why was my article deleted? and some useful introductory material at this link.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rapper "Souleye" deleted page request
Thanks for your note. The deleted material has been placed into a sandbox page found at this link, which is related to the username that was used to create the article (I'm assuming that was you). You should be aware that Wikipedia's notability policy is based on the actions of the individual concerned and has nothing to do with anyone to whom they may happen to be married, related, etc. As far as his being a "known recording artist", the single sentence that I deleted contained nothing that made that clear; the individual would need to meet one of the requirements of the relevant policy covering the notability of musicians and that would have to be verifiable from reliable sources contained within the body of the article. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the deleted material. It's too bad there wasn't more material there.

I didn't create the article, but wanted to know more about the artist because he was mentioned in a news article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.153.96.15 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Morecraft
Hi, I read your note to the user who created the now deleted Christian Morecraft page. Re-creation after his upcoming fight is also something I'm wary of. Now, it is very likely that if he wins next month, that his page will be re-created. Recently, the more frequent members of the WP:MMA (myself included) devised a page for establishing notability in mixed martial artists (seen here > WP:MMANOT). Given that the usual notability factor for MMA fighters is 3 fights in top level organisations (and the upcoming fight would be his first), any re-creation would again be advised to be deleted.

As such, I was wondering what your opinion would be on page salting for a certain period of time (for me, I'd suggest 2-3 months of full protection/salting, until someone requests it to be removed, to have the page created). How would that request sit with you? Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, and I do apologize for not having been aware of the standard to which you've referred. Apparently I have made more trouble for you.  However, I'm very hesitant about SALTing a page preemptively -- that doesn't really meet the criteria of "repeated recreation".  My rule of thumb is to apply SALT after the third speedy deletion unless it's very clear that the title in question will never be required.  In this case, Mr. Morecraft may some day actually qualify.  I'd also like to assume good faith in that, if I leave a further note explaining the "three fights" provision, I would hope that the editor would not recreate the article until the third fight has occurred.  I'd like to suggest a compromise, if I may.  I'll leave the note explaining that I was unaware of WP:MMANOT and saying that the standard is three such fights (and pointing the editor to this discussion); both of us will maintain the page on our watchlists; if it was actually recreated after fair warning, I think I would be much, much closer to SALTing the page.  I hope you find this acceptable; I'm certainly willing to discuss it further if you don't.  Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention; I'll also thank you for informing me about WP:MMANOT, which is a standard I was actually wishing did exist so I'm happy to know that WP:MMA has created it.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I'm fine with the wait-and-see mentality. To be honest, I know that's really what the ruling is regarding salting, but I was wondering if there was a possible breaking of the rules, considering that UFC 117 (the event that Christian Morecraft) will compete on) is a highly viewed page by IPs and inexperienced editors. As it's highly viewed, I can see it being re-created within about 4-5 days. However, I have it watchlisted (though I do have 1100 articles watchlisted, so it may slip through the net), so I'll just tag it again for CSD or AFD if I see it.


 * I should point out the WP:MMANOT is flexible, but not in this case. There are certain organisations that aren't on the list of MMANOT, but could be argued for being candidates for inclusion; however, Morecraft has only fought at very basic (albeit professional) level.


 * Cheers for the quick response! Paralympiakos (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and for agreeing to my compromise. (Only 1100? )  I too have watchlisted Christian Morecraft; I've left the note for the editor as I outlined above.  If it's recreated by a different editor, well, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.  Please do bring anything you see happening with Christian Morecraft to me and I'll do my best to help.  I'm less confident about my ability to assess UFC 117, since my knowledge of MMA is nil (I'm a bridge player type, the exact opposite), but I'll help you if I can see a clear problem with a clear solution based on a policy that I"m confident I understand.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. MMA is my thing on wikipedia, but issues like this need the admin touch. Also, thanks again for the response and your general attitude. It's nice to see admins who aren't cold to the little guy! All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, makes me want to recreate the page, and merely redirect it to the UFC 117 article ... we've done that in the past with articles such as the models from that Howie Mandel game show. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's an interesting idea -- since he has been announced to appear in UFC 117, that would be a useful redirect. Paralympiakos, do you have any thoughts on that? Accounting4Taste: talk 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of BWilkins, I'm copying my response and putting it here also.

Redirects are what I usually do in this sort of instance, as then we avoid the issue of having stub articles about fighters with no notability. However, in recent times, I've had a user on here complaining that when they click on the name of Morecraft, it sends them right back to the page they were on (e.g. UFC 117) and that, I suppose must annoy them slightly. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a sort of P.S, I suppose the mindset of the regular user would be: "ooo, a new guy at this event. Let's see what his record is and who he has fought previously! .......hey? what? Why is it leading me back to the UFC 117 page I was already on?"
 * I totally agree with the redirect system (I've already had the inactive pages of UFC 122 and UFC 123 (the events) redirected for a while to prevent pages without notability. It's your call though, as admins. I'm more than happy to continue with the redirect system and remove the linking (to just have black text) for his name on the UFC 117 page. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL I really hope it has nothing to do with being admins... we definitely don't get to have the last word, believe me, we just have a heavier tool kit. For me, it's all about what works and what's useful.  Anyway, I think we have consensus, so I'll do the redirect and get rid of the circular redirect to avoid the problem you describe.  (I believe circular redirects are strongly discouraged if not forbidden, because they do piss people off in precisely that way.)  In a related note, a friend called last night and asked if I wanted a ticket to the Saturday MMA inaugural event here in Vancouver.  If he'd've asked a week ago, I would have said no... but now my curiosity has been aroused.  I agreed, on the condition that there wouldn't be a quiz or anything ;-) but I think I will read a lot of MMA articles between now and then.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Damn! Nice! It's UFC 115 you're talking about (in case you didn't know). I'm really jealous. I'm going to say it right now, Tyson Griffin vs. Evan Dunham will surely be the fight of the night (that's the last preliminary fight before the pay-per-view broadcast).

On a wikipedia note, I didn't know they were "forbidden," I just thought there was disagreed with. I'm glad that it's sorted though. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, talkpage stalkers rule! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And in case it's not obvious from the context, Bwilkins, thanks for coming up with a useful and appropriate solution. You can stalk my talk page any time!!
 * I'll feel much more au courant when I tell my buddy about your opinion about the "fight of the night" -- but I'll be sure to credit the source. Who knew you could learn so much about MMA from Wikipedia?   Accounting4Taste: talk 15:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Latrobe Hockey deleted
Hey, I made the Latrobe Hockey page that was just deleted today June 9th, 2010. A7 was the reason because I guess I didn't show enough significance. The Latrobe Hockey team has won three PA State Championships in a row which is the 2nd team to ever do that in this state. They have been nationally recognized in magazine, they were in ESPN Rise Magazine, FaceOff Magazine, noted in Sports Illustrated, posted several times on the Pittsburgh Penguins website and news articles. Almost every player has gone on to play college hockey somewhere, one player made it to a NCAA D1 school, another is the head coach of a NCAA D3 school. The list goes on. They do have credibility and significance.

Also, since the team has done well, hockey has risen in the area creating more money for the town and school. More people go watch the hockey team than the football team anymore and the Latrobe Football team has a page on here. Signs are posted throughout the city about the team, and they have been in the last 3 parades. Everyone in the area knows of the team, and hockey players Nationwide have heard of them due to NATIONAL RANKINGS.

In sum, I believe the page should be valid, if not please send me a copy so I can make the changes to make it valid.

Thanks! Dirtysydney
 * Thanks for your note. I'll refer you to the notability standard which is specific to athletes/teams, found at WP:ATHLETE, and quote a section from it for your convenience.  The standard for amateur sport is "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships."  I'm sufficiently familiar with hockey to realize that the Latrobe team is neither at the highest level of amateur hockey or at the fully professional level; my experience in assessing articles leads me to find it very, very difficult to accept that a state-level high school hockey team can possibly have achieved the level of media coverage that would be required.  None of the other assertions you make above has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability standards, except where you suggest that there is media coverage that might qualify the organization under the general notability guideline.  While I certainly doubt this, I will assume provisionally that you can demonstrate this to the satisfaction of other administrators.  Therefore I will restore the deleted material to what we call a "sandbox" page, which you will find at User:Dirtysidney/Sandbox (you can go to that page by clicking on the immediately previous link).  You don't need my permission to restore the page to Wikipedia -- just edit and then "move" the page, or cut it and paste it into the title you wish -- but unless you can add a reasonably large number of reliable sources, you'll almost certainly be having this same conversation with the next administrator to delete it.  I urge you to look at the material that I've linked to in this paragraph, to understand the specific definitions that I'm discussing; you might also find WP:Why was my article deleted? to be useful.  Best of luck with your contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Elegibility for Non-Deletion of Richard "Richie" Peter Davis page
Hi...to respond to your inquiry as to why this page should not be deleted...this individual meets the criteria for a music bio as follows: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. I need more time to add the references for verifiability as well and complete the article. I would appreciate it if you would not delete this page. I am also trying to get the page on the band Chicago Catz restored due to the same reason. Thanks.Jazzfann (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for re-instating the Chicago Catz page and giving me the opportunity to improve this musical organization's page as well as the individual's page.Jazzfann (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your thanks are misplaced; it wasn't me. An examination of the page's history reveals that it was a colleague, NawlinWiki, and he has reinstated the page with the addition of what's known as a "PROD tag" ("PROD" = "proposed deletion"),  which suggests that you will have about a week to add useful citations to the page in question.  I wanted to mention that what struck me about both pages was that you were spending a considerable amount of time and effort adding material that is completely uncited -- in other words, there are no reliable sources that would allow the reader to verify any of the assertions in the article.  For instance, the material about Mr. Davis's early life and musical influences -- indeed, the two largest sections of the article -- are uncited.  This should concern you because uncited material is subject to removal by any editor who chooses to remove it; it's your responsibility to provide these citations if you wish the material to remain unchallenged.  If I were you, I'd be focusing on adding material that specifically relates to any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, because that's what's being requested with all these tags.  Incidentally, I should add that I am in no way trying to suggest that any of this material is untrue; it's easy to see that you intend it to be useful.  I'm only trying to help you understand how Wikipedia's standards are likely to be applied here, and to potentially save you from wasting some considerable effort.  Best of luck with your contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Elaine Carter
Thanks for the digging, I have nuked the page as a result of your searches as discussed on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you assist me or review edited version?
Hi, would you care to help me to re-write, or review my re-written version rather, the Flow Drinks article in acceptable manner for republishing? It is my first article and kind of confused why it was deleted actually. Also I spent lot of time writing it and think it's useful information for many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittosporum (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you assist me or review edited version?
Hi, would you care to help me to re-write, or review my re-written version rather, the Flow Drinks article in acceptable manner for republishing? It is my first article and kind of confused why it was deleted actually. Also I spent lot of time writing it and think it's useful information for many.

(Pittosporum (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I can't agree -- it's an advertisement. Advertising, in Wikipedia terms, is a claim as to the excellence of a specific product or individual that is not supported by any reliable sources.  When you say " increasing mental and physical performance and concentration." for instance, you have to prove that by reference to an arm's-length, third-party expert source of opinion writing in a reputable publication in a verifiable way.  In fact, in terms of my country, Canada, it's even worse than advertising; we have laws that say that if you make a statement like that in an advertisement, you have to be able to prove it; you wouldn't have been allowed to publish what you did as an advertisement without proving it to Health Canada's satisfaction beforehand.  Similarly, when you say things like "now becoming popular among other endurance sports and general public for general well-being, good health as well as mental balance and stamina in everyday life" -- what does "popular" mean and who defined it that way?  Can you point to peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals that demonstrate that this provides "general well-being, good health," etc.?  What does "general well-being" mean and who defined it that way?  Et cetera.  If you truly think this is "useful information" -- a concept with which I disagree, because if I found any utility in that information about a specific beverage, I would be likely to look it up on your website, where the grain of salt is implicit -- then you should be able to re-write the article from scratch using only quotations from reliable sources except for undeniable commonly-known facts such as the street address of the manufacturer.  Every other claim -- every other claim -- has to be backed up by at least one reliable source.  I recommend that you read Wikipedia's advertising policy before proceeding further.  I won't be helping you personally with the re-writing, but you might find that kind of assistance at Requested articles; you will also find useful information at this introductory link.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Slaughterhog


A tag has been placed on Slaughterhog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Help Please  I was working on the wiki page for the band Slaughterhog, i saved the page so i wouldn't lose my progress while i was gathering all of my links and references. This is my first wiki creation and i would like some help on getting back the work I've done so far so i may complete the page. I'm already having a hard time trying to connect with whoever it is i need to speak to about my situation.
 * I can easily retrieve the deleted material; you can speak to me (or any other administrator) about your situation. Are you suggesting that this band meets any of the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO?  I didn't see anything in what I deleted that came close to meeting any of those requirements, and that's the threshold that has to be met by any Wikipedia article about any musical group.  If you can provide me with some assurance that any one of those standards can be met, and that that assurance can be backed up with reliable sources -- arm's-length, third-party expert sources that back up the assertions in the article -- I'll be happy to return the deleted material to a "sandbox" page where you can work on adding those crucial elements at your leisure.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning

My name is Aaron Detlor and I am a Kaninenkehaka (Mohawk) from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory which is near Belleville Ontario. I am also a lawyer.

For the past 5 years I have been working with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council ('HCCC') who are the 'traditional' leaders of the Haudenosaunee people.

My involvement with the HCCC was initiated by the reclamation of land, by the Haudenosaunee people, near Caledonia Ontario

One of the contributing factors to the reclamation was the lack of any formal process whereby developers could approach the HCCC to begin a dialogue about proposed development.

The HCCC noted that they were not institutionally structured to accommodate requests by developers to discuss projects and they formed the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) and appointed three individuals (myself included) to provide for a process which would address development.

One of the steps which I have undertaken is getting the message out about the HDI and thus the wiki page which has been deleted. From what I understand our page appears to have been deleted on the grounds that we have infringed copyright of www.reclamationinfo.com.

All of the material set out in our proposed wiki page is self sourced from the HCCC and/or HDI and is being used with the knowledge and support of the HCCC and/or HDI.

I have gone to www.reclamatioinfo.com and it appears to be an attempt to sell perfume and other merchandise using the Haudenosaunee information that we are directly authorized by the HCCC/Confederacy to use.

I look forward to your response so that this matter can be clarified. ( I am not a copyright lawyer unfortunately).

I also don't know if this helps set out the fides of our position on the copyright issue (ie we are not infringing) but here are some links

http://news.therecord.com/article/241305

http://www.thespec.com/article/273692

http://www.thespec.com/article/266418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.6.126 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I have examined [www.reclamationinfo.com the web page that was cited] and it does contain material that is exactly the same as that which you attempted to contribute (I identified a list of seven points; there almost certainly are other points of similarity).  Yes, the page in question appears to have been hacked and contain perfume ads, etc., but that doesn't seem especially relevant.  Regardless of who owns the copyright to that material, it is clear to me that someone does; I suspect that the page in question may be violating your copyright.  However, that leaves Wikipedia with the same problem; we can't use that material unless the necessary arrangements are made.  Those arrangements are covered at the policy page found at WP:IOWN, and I urge you to read it.  (I left a note yesterday on the talk page of the article but you may not have seen it.)  I hope you appreciate that we are actually trying to protect the rights of the Haudenosaunee here; although I do believe that you are who you say you are, anyone can leave me a note saying they are anything at all, and my responsibility is to protect Wikipedia from a copyright infringement action which could legitimately be brought by the copyright's owner.

There are, however, equally serious issues which will also have to be addressed. I have to say that Wikipedia is not here to help you in "getting the message out about the HDI". We call that advertising and we don't allow it. Articles on Wikipedia are about topics that are demonstrably notable, which is to say that arm's-length third-party expert sources have stated in writing that the topics are notable and that reliable sources have been provided so that a reader can verify that those assertions of notability exist. Nothing less is acceptable. We have a strict policy of neutrality; that means any article on these issues has to be completely fair and balanced, representing both sides of any issue. We are not here to publish one-sided manifestos, lists of your issues, or press releases; the good intentions of the organization in question are not relevant here. The article I saw would have been deleted within a very short period of time for multiple infractions of those key Wikipedia policies even without considering any copyright issues; there were no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, and no verifiability, all of which are key elements of every Wikipedia article. As well, if you want to contribute an article about the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, that article should be about the Institute itself, not similar or related topics or your unsupported assertions about the purpose or function of such an Institute. My rough estimation is that only the first three paragraphs contained any useful information about the Institute in question, and I would be hard-pressed to defend the existence of an article that putatively provided such information when the article doesn't even bother to state the country in which the Institute is located. For these reasons, here's what I suggest: if, considering the above, you still feel that Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for some of the information you wish to contribute, start by taking the time to find out the rules of this encyclopedia. You can do so by tracing the links in this note for specific policy definitions or by reading and understanding the material at this introductory article. Then, write an article in your own words that is about the topic of the heading you choose; ideally, every single statement in the article that is in any way an opinion will be referenced to a reliable source -- something like the legal concept of "precedent" -- except for unambiguous facts such as the street address of the building. You are under no obligation whatever to submit such an article to me or anyone else for approval; however, if you disregard the guidelines that I'm trying to provide here, you will find yourself having this conversation with the next administrator who assesses the next version. If, after following the links in this note, you still have questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a further note and I will do my best to assist you, as will any other administrator or editor, I hope. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste: talk 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please restore article "TradeWallStreet" to sandbox :)
Hi - today wrote first article re TradeWallStreet Financial. Should've kept it as a sandbox, probably, wasn't sure which information to include - and thought i'd come back to it later. So I erred in keeping it short - and did not mention the several reasons why the article (and the company) are both important and unique to the history of financial markets. Which was of course the reason for posting - but it's a rather longer story. Ahh well/

Would you please be so kind as to return the article to Sandbox (if I understand correctly I can edit later and then post when ready?)? Thank you very much. I think I better understand how this works now... Interesting. Thanks again, e-arduino E arduino (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I have placed the deleted material into a "sandbox" page which you will find at User:E arduino/Sandbox.  Apparently you have grasped the concept of notability, although you might have a look at the specific policy that applies to organizations and companies.  I'd also suggest that you have a look at the policy on reliable sources; all Wikipedia articles have to be backed up with reliable sources so that the reader can verify their contents if desired.  You may find this introductory article or WP:Why was my article deleted? to be useful.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Sussman

 * I don't think this was a legitimate speedy deletion. There was an entire article about her cited to the WSJ. Please restore it and take it to AfD if you don't think she's notable enough for an article and you think the public is better served not knowing about her photographic work documenting the earth's oldest living species. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * She doesn't seem all that notable to me. She takes pictures of old things - so does my local Sears photographer. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should let the editors at the WSJ, Wired, New York Magazine, NPR and other periodicals and news media know about your Sears photographer if you think his or her work is equally notable. They might want to give it substantial coverage. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to do you the favour of not proceeding as you suggest; my estimation is that the single sentence I deleted would never pass an AfD process without significant improvement and, after it failed at AfD, it would be subject to immediate deletion henceforth. I'm willing to go as far as restoring the deleted material to a sandbox page which you will find at User:Freakshownerd/Sandbox, which will give you time to add (a) an assertion of notability, which is entirely lacking; (b) more than a single reliable source documenting that putative notability; (c) information within the body of the article about Ms. Sussman that would make the article somewhat more detailed than the entry in a business directory it currently resembles. Should you wish to restore the article in its present form, you require neither my permission or assistance to do so; I strongly suspect you will be having this same conversation with the next administrator who speedy-deletes it for the same reasons. If you decide to take the article through the AfD or deletion review process, both those processes are available to you; I would appreciate being informed should you choose to do so. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for moving it to my sandbox. I added some additional citations and expanded it a bit. I couldn't figure out how to move it, but I cut and pasted it back in mainspace. Thanks again for your help. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Minecraft
Uh, why did you delete the minecraft page? It's a legitimate online game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.146.214 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broodjekaas92 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this game is described as "being in development", it is highly unlikely that it will have attained the level of notability necessary to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are about things and people who are thought to be notable by arm's-length third-party expert sources (which do not generally include blogs and forum postings or other sources of opinion where editorial control is not exercised by expert editors).  If and when the game goes beyond the development stage and you can provide three or four such references, you may want to remake the article; should you require assistance at that point, I'll be happy to help you.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Poesipedia
Hi,

last week I wrote an article for Wikipedia about Poiesipedia. Poesipedia.com is a new website which will be published within a few weeks. I didn't bear in mind that only relevant information can be published on wikipedia (honestly because for me this project is already quite "real" but of course for the rest of the world not yet :-)). Above all I forgot to save it before trying to publish it on wikipedia so I would be very grateful if you could send the wiki back to me: marten.johannes@yahoo.de  . I'm going to ask for a new publication as soon as Poiesipedia.com has been gone online and you can assure yourself that this project is a serious one.

Many thanks Johannes 77.185.230.79 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I prefer not to exchange e-mail with reference to Wikipedia, but I have placed the deleted material into a "sandbox" page for you at User:Johannes.marten/Sandbox and trust this will be satisfactory.  You should know that it's not that a project is "serious" that it will merit a Wikipedia article; it must be considered notable by arm's-length third-party experts writing in reputable publications so that those assertions of notability can be verified.  You may want to trace the links in this paragraph for more information about those ideas.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahmetk (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadioglu Baharat
user: ahmetk Hello, you've just deleted my page Kadioglu Baharat, I was still working on it on explaining its importance. Can you please give it back ?

I am a 50 year old spice expert and you just claim that you know more than i do. I don't think you have the same expertise. Please let me explain. Can you please give back my original article so I can continue. I am old and I can't write it again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetk (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Since you have already recreated the article, I have to think you don't want me to "give it back".  You are correct to suggest that I am not an expert on spices.  I am, however, an expert on whether an article is qualified to remain in Wikipedia; what I just finished looking at had no references, no reasonable assertion of notability and was essentially advertising for the company in question.  It has already been tagged for deletion by another editor; I'll let another administrator make a decision.  I would recommend that you retain a copy of the material if you think you will want one, and that you look at some introductory material about Wikipedia's standards for the inclusion of articles.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-== Hillman cricket club ==

You might want to take another look at Hillman cricket club; either the creator did a "save" just after you deleted or has recreated. Just FYI, your call. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged for the heads-up; I've deleted the remounted version. I left the creator a note after version #1 explaining WP:ATHLETE which seems to have been ignored.  I'm signing off for a while but will look at this again in about an hour; please do feel free to keep me posted if it's convenient.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This is Jason Bushe-Jones, I created the (under construction) Hillman Cricket Club page and am also president of the club. I noticed the article was deleted as it was not involved in the highest amatuer competition. In response, the club is now involved in 'A Grade competition' within the Peel Cricket Association, which is the highest semi-professional competition in western Australia and includes 6 grades and over a thousand competitors region wide. It is a historic competition that requries encyclopaedic recognition. Please Reconsider

Thanks for your note. I'm always happy to reconsider any situation upon request. In this case, I looked up the very specific policy boundaries with respect to Australian cricket, which were developed by a specialized group of Wikipedian editors with an interest in cricket. You can find these boundaries at this link and I strongly urge you to read them thoroughly. My understanding of the specifics of the policy, from which I'll quote for your convenience, are "for Australia, clubs that have played at Grade cricket level—the highest level below the state representative team—meet notability requirements". The link in the previous sentence to Grade cricket takes one to a page that lists six competitions, none of which appear to be the Peel Cricket Association. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, your organization doesn't meet the relevant standard. If you believe I have made a mistake, frankly, I would be going directly to the Cricket WikiProject and asking them for comments; you can bypass a step by contacting them directly at this specific talk page and I would recommend that you do that. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste: talk 13:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pizza Acrobatics
Tell me then- the second sentence of the article says that "pizza was invented in prehistoric times" like 20,000 bc? are you trying to tell me that pizza is prehistoric even though the following sentence claims pizza was invented in Napoli 1889? Why are they even mentioning the history of pizza itself?Sopher99 (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I actually said that it was a well-written article -- it's not, and I tagged it for clean-up and left the creator a friendly note with a basic suggestion. All I said was that it wasn't a hoax, vandalism or nonsense, and I still think that is the case.  Instead of pasting the article with multiple tags, why don't you re-read WP:BITE -- which suggests that "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." -- and consider improving the article yourself to address the points you've raised?  Judging by the complaints on your talk page, more administrators than me think you may have some problems in knowing the details of the policies you are so anxious to apply.  You might find it more valuable to address the mote in your own eye before dealing with the beam in others'.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thnks for the CSD removal
Thanks for the CSD removal of Lev Nikitin yesterday. Greatly appreciated. Chris (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Myzerr: redraft
Brendanmarsh (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Myzerr

Hi A4T. Thanks for your advice regarding the Wikipedia entry on Myzerr. I was wondering if you would mind having another look at the Myzerr article to see whether it meets Wikipedia's standards now? Recently, Myzerr has been featured in a couple of publications, that were not released prior to the first Myzerr Wiki. I haven't posted the article back up again though, keeping in mind that it did not meet Wikipedia standards before. I would really appreciate it if you could have another look, just let me know if you need me to email it to you or where I could put it so you can see it. (I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I'm stil figuring Wikipedia functions out.)Thank you for your time. 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I had a look at User:Brendanmarsh/Sandbox, which I see is a draft from a couple of weeks ago.  You could put a revised version there, if you wanted.  You don't really need my permission or my assistance to remount this article, you can just put it into place and deal with whatever objections come up... but if you want me to have a look at it first, I don't mind at all and may be able to offer you some observations based on my experience.  My instinct is to suggest that a website that's still in beta may face some problems in finding reliable sources, but I see that the draft from a couple of weeks ago has tried to address this.  One note: adding a citation to the company's own press releases is not only NOT a reliable source, it tends to ring alarm bells with new page patrollers.  Let me know when and where you want me to have a look.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Brendanmarsh (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Hi A4T. Thanks for your quick response! I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the Sandbox at your earliest convenience. I wouldn't want it to go live when it's not up to scratch and the article would be much better with your input. The content hasn't changed too much, (unless you think it should) but I've taken into account your advice about the press releases and tried to streamline the references. This is all the third-party content that's available online for Myzerr at the moment, but there will be a few more published articles to come in the next few months. If you didn't mind, (you can be as harsh as you like) could you please advise on how to improve the article? Brendanmarsh (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a fairly long comment, so I will reply on your own talk page, found at this link. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi A4T, thank you for taking the time to comment on the article. My next step will be as you advise, sending it off the W:AfC, but thanks again for your contribution!Brendanmarsh (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dany Georges
would you be able to add the dany georges to my user page as Fiddle Faddle recommended please?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur davtyan (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll find the material at this link -- User:Arthur davtyan/Sandbox. Please be sure to look at the material I linked you to about the criteria for notability for poker players.  If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 05:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

09:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why you would delete such a comprehensive overview of the practice of dialyzer reuse. I only mentioned the products available to date, it was not meant to be an advertisment. I even adjusted it when i posted it the second time to sound even less bais. You should give it a chance if you know anything about the practice, procedure and players. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.145.78 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's articles for deletion (AfD) process is a comprehensive discussion whereby the community decides whether articles on problematic topics should be retained or deleted. You will find the record of the AfD process with respect to the article in question here -- it failed, and extremely recently at that.  That failure means, as I noted in the tag on the article, that articles on that topic are subject to immediate deletion unless there are significant improvements that address the underlying problems with the article.  If you truly think that anyone should "give it a chance", I recommend the deletion review process, which is just about the only way that this topic will be allowed to return.  Best of luck with your future contributions.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)