User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 4

Omer Lavoie
I had written a very short entry on this Canadian officer which you deleted. I was in class when I wrote this up and intended later the same day to expand upon it, I mentioned this when I tagged the article for a hangon. The notibility of this person is his name is mentioned in the much larger article Operation Falcon Summit and you will find his name with an internal link that does not go anywhere but to a Create this page notice. I was reading the article Operation Falcon Summit and inquired as to the commander's involved, and, upon noticing that BOTH commanders did not have pages I, being the helpful person I am, created them as a base for expansion but just to give even some very basic information on this person for someone who is researching this topic (although I did plan on expanding both the articles later)and I believe that it is mentioned under the notibility policy that it says these are reasonable grounds to create these articles (As my other article on the 2nd higher ranking officer is a candidate for speedy deletion as well). I am new to Wikipedia and I just want to help, so please, if I am wrong on any of these points please feel free to correct me so I may learn to be better at creating articles, thank you for your time. Bretonnia (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mapepire Balsain
Could you please restore the talk page at least. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather and User talk:Guettarda. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought this to the attention of User:Jwinius, a member of the reptiles project, with whom I've been working to eliminate superfluous redirects. Whatever he wants to have happen is fine with me; I note as though it seems he requested this deletion and if you type the name into the "Find" box, you get the appropriate article.  I'm not sure what's going on here but I rely on User:Jwinius for scientific rigour.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And at the request of User:CambridgeBayWeather, a fellow administrator, I've restored both the page and its talk page. I think I see what's going on here and I know that User:Jwinius has more science to offer than I do on why he wants this deleted.  I'll help this discussion however I can.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot about this. I've replied at User talk:Jwinius. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

KKK (Kl Krew Kamp)
I am confused upon why you have deleted my page. I do not understand the actions you are asking from me.

View a deleted article
Hello. Is it possible to view the deleted article Nariat? I'm just exploring the speedy deletion system and I'm curious, as you deleted it before I got to it on the category page.

Oh, and I'd have labelled the Screaming Monkey's as nonsense rather than non-notable. Look at the album sales! :) Skittle (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I quite see :P Skittle (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam W@@rz
Congrats, you're probrably the third person to delete that page! Well done. Anyway, here's the argument I was gonna post on it, when my computer crashed...

"...Has spam happened yet? And as you can see (or could see, hey you deleted the page) the spamming is restricted to the contestants discussion pages only. Also, spamming of said discussion page is only allowed if the said user filled in + placed the form I made on their user page."

Bring it back, or i threaten to make another page. Heck, I might even name it 'delete this page.'

Best wishes, Napster964 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Article- Tasflow
I'm confused, if your an admin and you believed this article is a speedy delete, why didn't you delete it right away? Just wondering. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Michigan Ballroom Dance Team
I think winning national and international contests is a claim to notability. I was in the process of cleanup when you deleted it. Gimmetrow 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume this means you'd like me to reinstate it? I'm not as convinced as you with respect to notability, but I will do that if you care to take on the task of improving it, noting that it's not possible to assess the claims of this organization because there are no citations; under the auspices of which international organization were these titles won?  That would be a useful indicator of notability.  I'm sorry it will take me a minute to find it, but you don't seem to have made any edits to it and that makes it more difficult to find.  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Unreferenced" isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. The article makes a reasonable, non-vandalistic claim to notability. Assessing the validity of that claim is an issue for AFD, not CSD. Gimmetrow 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic: Raymond Evans [Engineer} I am querying why the article was speed deleted after I had responded to a speedy deletion request and added a 'hold on' note with a justifying comment and also received an acknoweldgement. I thought that your action was rude and I feel offended, particularly given some of the vacuous individuals granted page space.

Your note above lists that the main page does not exist, however, I could see that it did exist. Perhaps I have not understood a procedure? Either way, I think that your action was hasty. Taffspur (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the two pages you're looking for are Why was my page deleted? and Manners. Thanks for sharing.  You have a nice day, now!  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing AFD's
Ah, the joy! Basically any XfD is one of the few opportunities Admins get to play 'crat role - we have to determine consensus! I assume you're okay with the technical bits of the close (dead easy - just put at the very top and  at the bottom ). You're still going to find them potentially controversial, so I'd stay clear of anything to horrible looking to begin with!. My understanding (and personal view) is that if in doubt keep. If there's been very little input, relist. I'd also recommend a quick check on any contributors user names you're not familiar with in case of WP:SPAs. Although XfD is not a vote, I'd still be guided by (say) 75% one way or the other determines consensus, unless there's sockpuppetry or new accounts at work. Best of luck! Pedro : Chat  20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of step-by-step guides, I find Deletion process helpful. As Pedro says, start with the easy ones. Also, when stating a reason, best to quote from, or close to, policy and guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you -- for the technical bits and the guidelines. Much appreciated, and you've probably saved the life of a couple of newbies .  I intend to take it VERY slowly and be VERY sure of my ground for AfDs.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Left
No, I haven't left the website. And I do not wish to. At the time, I found some of the other administator's comments stupid..and I still do. I do apologise for yelling, and I would ask that you DO NOT "keep an eye" on me - that phrase sounds a little strange.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innes2k7 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So have you been keeping an eye on me recently? If you want my opinion, you should get out more. Maybe a girlfriend wouldn't go a miss? Regards. --Innes2k7 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been keeping an eye on you recently, especially after you left me a note and reconsidered; nothing special, it's just part of the job of vandalism patrol. Thanks for the thought -- I have plenty of girlfriends, my husband doesn't mind a bit.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I got a new account, and now I have been accused of sockpuppetry! Where does this stuff end?! --TheStephenator (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It ends when you stop re-recreating spam articles, when you stop harassing administrators who delete those articles or force you to play by the rules, and when you stop acting like Wikipedia's rules and policies don't apply to you, and that they are inconveniences to be gotten around by fair means or foul. Having a new account is a privilege that is reserved for people who want to get a fresh start and who intend to abide by the rules in future.  It's not something that people can use if they plan on recreating the same pattern of disrespectful vandalism that they were responsible for with their previous account.  If you want to hang around here and make a contribution, in accordance with our rules and policies, great -- I'll help you any way I can.  If you want to keep on going the way you have been going, just bugger off right now and save us all a whole lot of trouble in detecting and blocking your future accounts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Since I have created this account, I have not vandalized any Wikipedia articles, so what makes you say all this?! 'Tis the season to be jolly and all that jazz, y'know.. --TheStephenator (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You recreated the same rubbishy article about a car dealership five times within half an hour the other day, and I call that vandalism. I don't intend to play Wiki-lawyer with you chopping logic about what you have and haven't done; I think you're being disingenuous.  Either you're here to contribute or you're here to vandalize, and I've volunteered to watch for the difference regardless of what name you're working under, regardless of what season it is.  Why don't you go play on MySpace or Club Penguin and let the grown-ups work at serving the community? Accounting4Taste: talk 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your rudeness. You may think the article was "rubbishy", but you are some stupid Canadian who doesn't know anything about Scottish companies! Regardless of what name I've been working under, I HAVE contributed during my time here, to try and inform others of my knowledge. So, please can you keep your nose out of my business, and we'll all get on just great. --TheStephenator (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Burghfield Sailing Club
Hmmmm, the page for Burghfield Sailing Club was deleted apparently for not be notable(?) enough. Fair does I suppose, I am new to this. I did try and write in as encyclopedic style as I could without resorting to hyperbole. As for being notable Burghfield Sailing Club is acknowledged as being one of the premier Sailing Clubs in the UK, being the first in the country to be awarded official RYA Champion Club status. Perhaps I should have put a reference to the RYA site. Also to the Volvo Cars sponsorship site

How do I get my work back to make the necessary changes?

thanks Avantgardaclue (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK... "What will work best to demonstrate notability, I believe, is if you can assert and prove that the club's members have competed at the highest levels of international sport."

I have detailed members National and International successes and where possible created reference links (Now that I know how to do reference links!!)

thanks... Avantgardaclue (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick!!! "I might suggest taking out the bit about the club's facilities and adding that link to the exterior sites section; that's the level of detail that someone would find out from the website, not the encyclopedia, I suggest."

You are partly right, however we have made big strides in making the whole facility wheelchair friendly so I have edited out some of the boring bits and added in that fact. I feel our disabled policy is encyclopedically interesting!

thanks... Avantgardaclue (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Office Business Centre & Rockefeller Group Business Center
I had noticed in the deletion log that you had speedied RGBC as an A7 fork. The two articles listed abvove appear to be related I was wondering if you would take a look at them. I'm assuming they are the same thing judging by their content. Thanks! -- Cyrus      Andiron   17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, evidently someone else was watching them as well. They've been fixed or deleted. -- Cyrus      Andiron   17:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Baker
Hi there, I was in the process of rejecting this speedy and stubifying the article when you deleted it. It did have a reference (just not reflist, though not third party. Would you object to its recreation? It makes claims of notability, in my opinion it should go to AFD if neccessary. Woody (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there: I wouldn't object in the slightest; I'm happy that someone is taking an interest in an article and adding to the encyclopedia. If there is something I can do to help, just let me know.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article (note that it's Ryan E Baker, AFAIK). If there's something else I can do, I'm happy to help. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, thats great thanks. I noticed there were two Ryan Bakers when I was doing my ref check! Thanks for the hint ;) It has been stubified now, and it has the project tags. Thanks for your help. Woody (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Hart
why delete Bernard Hart creator of biggest UK sporting brand Lonsdale (clothing) when Phil Knight (created US Nike) and Adolf Dassler (created Adidas) have articles. Hart is very noteable also for being Jewish as here in Germany Lonsdale have big right wing, I don't understand logic here ? Hans Detler (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Hart
Noteable for three reasons Hans Detler (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) he started the biggest UK sportswear brand
 * 2) he was a professional boxer
 * 3) he was a Jewish refugee which is relevant because the brand is infamous in Germany / Netherlands for it's right wing following

Question
Why exactly do you db tag articles if you're an admin? :-) -- Menti  fisto  00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That answered my question... you got a very sensible approach. Thanks. -- Menti  fisto  00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

N-arachidonoyl-dopamine
Regarding your comment, I probably did re-ad the template after you removed it. Anyhow, I'm glad we could figure things out. But I'm wondering, why did you un-speedy-delete it? Was it because it was a chemical article and most chemicals are notable? Thanks, Rhetth (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, and I'll get that stub tag on there. Rhetth (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian O'Connell
Haha, OK. I'll admit I was a little confused why an administrator was removing the speedy delete tag on that article. If you say there is notability I believe you, however poorly the editor wrote the article.--Manderson198 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Darn that Brian O'Connell page...  Manderson198   (sprech)  17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian O'Connell: Juggling Extraordinare or hoax?
Hey, no worries about the Brian O'Connell page. I think I may have reverted one of your edits as vandalism--sorry about that, I know you didn't create the hoax :) Hopefully the delete goes through, either speedily or un-speedily!  Again, no worries.  Regards, Rahzel (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All taken care of. :) GlassCobra 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ravelry
Hi A4T, just wanted to drop a note, when I tagged that page as "test", the content was just a redirect to Ravelry.com (obviously, not something that would work, lol) and at some point after that, content was added. I actually didn't get to see what the content was, lol, but I'm guessing it wasn't notable, heheh. I did leave a note for the creator to explain that redirecting a Wiki article to an offsite website would not get them traffic, and directed them to WP:NOT. Cheers! Ariel ♥  Gold  05:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, yeah the screenshot uploaded I tagged for having no FUR, but the article has been re-created. I did leave a personal note on the editor's page (editor below) explaining both WP:WEB and WP:CORP, so hopefully they will add reliable sources as references and establish notability. And you didn't get in my way at all! I just wanted to let you know why I'd put what seemed to be a wrong CSD rationale, lol. No worries at all, thanks so much for the quick reply! Ariel  ♥  Gold  06:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for having created the article in this manner; as ArielGold pointed out, the article for Ravelry was deleted based on the fact that it *appeared* to try and redirect to an outside website. This was not my intention.  My intention was that searches for Ravelry.com and Ravelry beta be redirected to the article I created entitled Ravelry.  Upon noticing my mistake in coding, I deleted the redirect commands; this was the change that AG pointed out.  Djdhaysjr (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ETA As I pointed out in talk to ArielGold, Ravelry is a site used by 50,000+ people at this time, with more joining every day. It is a powerful resource within the community of knitters/crocheters/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdhaysjr (talk • contribs) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephania Bell
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stephania Bell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Stephania Bell. Mbisanz (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Hart
I only want to make a small addition but this is really a lot of work to do that. The information can be found on the boxrec wiki http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Human:119667 and perhaps that is enough and not really needed here as well. Thank you for helping me but I think now I will give up, Hans 84.60.23.29 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Smsfun
I have only added references to large credible media outlets however there are many that would not be considered notable by wikipedia standards. The community is quite large (by local standards) and is well known among high school kids. I added a media page link that may help for press releases that have been released in the past. Perhaps if this is not enough you could make a suggestion? Drdoot (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the references you've cited and think you've accurately assessed the situation; I can see only one that would be considered independent, in that the content was not generated by Smsfun itself, and it doesn't seem to manifest a lot of expertise. Press releases and other promotional material generated by the company itself do not lend notability.  If you're interested in finding out exactly what Wikipedia means by "notability" you can read up on the policy at WP:Notable; it's just not enough that it's "large" and "well known among high school kids", it has to be notable with respect to other companies in the same field, and that notability must have been conferred by independent third-party expert sources.  You may have to accept that it's not appropriate for your company to have an article about itself in Wikipedia.  If I can be of any further assistance, you can leave a note on my talk page.  It's likely that the article will be deleted very soon; I can offer a limited amount of help if you want to remake it and re-mount it, but it will need to have more independent sources cited to stay around, I think.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you care
You got an awesome attack page! Check it out. Accounting4taste.-Carados (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Psynews article speedy deletion
Hello. This "psynews" article was speedy-deleted as it did not indicate the importance or significance of that web location. Sorry for that, this article has been prepared, discussed and corrected on the psynews forums themselves, but this is obviously not flawless. I thought about putting a hangon tag on the page but it seems it was completely wiped out, so I'm writing you.

I can say this web location is one of the biggest online communities related to electronic musics and it helped many electronic artists to get known and released. If you check on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_trance, you'll see this website is listed. Now, does it deserve more than the others to appear on Wikipedia ? As far as it has to do with releasing music as well, yes. But this is up to you now. Regards, Fabmars (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephania Bell
People just need to be aware that the article exists. Ask a bunch of people to go to SportsNation tomorrow and flood messages with it. Try and get it noticed and maybe it'll get some hits. I don't care if it gets deleted, and frankly I'm kinda for it. Just wait 5 days. Thanx. --HPJoker (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Accounting4taste  There are several others who presented their work on a site called figurenude. www.figurenude.com includes a more extensive definitions and examples of each photographers work. Figurenude is term that many renown photographers were comfortable associating with like Jerry Avenaim, Patrick Demarcherier, Tim Anderson, Gabriele Rigon, Christian Coigny, Linda Elvira Piedra, Steve Hardy, Ray Bidegain, Antoine deVilliers and Ted Preuss. These agreed and presented their "art nude" photos at www.figurenude.com. Tim Anderson is the editor of Camera Arts magazine and I think he will use the word there soon. I will site it as soon as he does. I suffered SEVERE traumatic brain injury and had a stroke. Perhaps this is part of my disabilities. I can't imagine why figurenude wasn't already used? I will look into wiktionary. Thanks for the help. did I mention I am new to this?--CurtisNeeley (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I could tell by looking at the date on your user page that you were new to this. Helping is my pleasure; I hope you find Wikipedia a welcoming place, and I'm pretty sure that most users will be happy to help if you ask.  Accounting4Taste: talk 03:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

CurtisNeeley
I suppose I will just let it be removed just as full use of my legs, arm and brain were. I suppose it falls under the original research category too. I lie here in my hospital bed with no legs and brain damage. the deletion of my Wikipedia entry should be a minor loss. I often forget how lucky I am to be alive and be able to type and watch my children grow older. --CurtisNeeley (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of UBS Bloomberg CMCI and UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index
Dear Accounting4Taste,

It appears that you speedily deleted the new articles: "UBS Bloomberg CMCI" and "UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index" and you indicated that some of the items in the article were blatant advertising.

Although I considered the pages as presenting facts only, I am happy to reconsider the wording with you so we can meet the encyclopedic criterias that you are defending. I recognise that some of the wording could appear a bit unbalanced in which case a revision would be a good thing. Would you please be able to indicate under which conditions you would revise such judgement and what wording would meet your criteria for non-advertising?

Also, the creation of the Article "Commodity Index" was probably the result of my ignorance of some of the more technical aspects of the site and I see that you have re-directed the page on "commodity price index". Having said this, let me kindly suggest that this should be done the other way around! There is no such thing as a commodity "price" index and the title of the article is misleading as it potentially refers to the notion of price return index, one possible representation of commodity indices, but unfortunately also, the only non tradable form! Further, my technical background allows me to tell you that Wiki readers would benefit in having a slightly more detailed presentation of what IS a commodity index. The field is complex enough and one must try not to simplify it too much, so this was the reason behind more in depth editing of "commodity price index", and article that was subsequently oversimplified by Drouinje (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Irishguy.

Please be so kind to indicate how you may consider taking it forward from here.

Best regards Drouinje (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)drouinje

subst
Hi just a note that welcome templates need to be subsituted  Alex ' fusco ' 5  16:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like it didn't make the cut
Hi, the article was deleted for copyvio before I had a chance to look at it (darn, I actually took a day off from wiki, look what happens! (grin) However, this "breed" appears to be a crossbred Friesian horse and Andalusian horse that about five ranches, mostly in the pacific northwest USA, have been working on since sometime in the 1990s.  Questionable if it meets the notability criteria or if it's commercial promotion.  I own individual horses older than that!  My take is that if it reappears without copyvio or linkspam, it is probably as much a "breed" as the so-called  American Warmblood, which means that I personally think it's marginal to call it a breed, but I could be challenged on NPOV grounds for that view, so I'd probably at least not delete it unless other horse breed editors came down with a strong consensus that it was just a few farms with a new way to make money. Unlike dog breeds, there is no horse equivalent in the USA of the American Kennel Club that makes a decision of whether a "breed" is really a "breed." So it's a little subjective. Basically, all we really have is that line between what is someone promoting their own individual thing and what seems to have enough notability to get over the threshold. For example, I let Virginia highlander stay mostly because it was a program that has been around for 60 years, and I will let all 8 "breeds" of pony in Indonesia (see Java Pony for example) stay, even though they appear to be almost identical to one another and have similar roots (local mutt ponies descended from Chinese imports crossed on later-imported Thoroughbreds and Arabian horses). Because my own favorite breed happens to be the Arabian horse, which dates to antiquity, I am probably am more wimpy about kicking out stuff than a lot of people because I also want to be NPOV, so may over-counteract my own possible biases. Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, go ahead and toss the sandbox. It's about 100% a word for word copy from the one web site.  If I cared enough to clean up and rewrite the article, I would, but I don't (grin).  My POV is that it isn't a "breed," at least, not yet.  I went through half a dozen pages of Google hits, most are for sale ads of first generation crossbreds, no real educational pages.  In contrast, other relatively new "breeds" such as the German riding pony or the Azteca (horse), have 30 or 40 years of working at it, and at least a partially true-breeding population, even if they still have an open stud book that allows outside bloodlines.  There is also considerable distribution, hundreds of owners/breeders, etc.  If someone else cares enough to put Warlander back up without a copyvio, I'd slap a notability tag on it and see what defense it gets. if there are enough people to support a breed less than 20 years old, it might get over the hurdle, but to me it is one of those cases that is right on the line.  Maybe with another 10-20 years, I'd see it differently, once the "breed" is more than a single horse generation old.  For now, I'd say they are half-Andalusians or maybe Friesian Sporthorses.  In my POV, IMHO.)  Montanabw (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Idols 4 protection
Created with the protection template would indicate a cust and paste of an existing article that is protected. Protection moves show in the ordinary page history (i.e. non admins can see it). I can't see what article it came from, but no matter. It was best just to remove the protection template as you did - it's no problem as there is a bot (or used to be) that checks for pages with protection templates and removes them if they're not actually protected. I'll try and find out the bot name for you for reference. Cheers my friend! Pedro : Chat  23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Viper categories
Hi Accounting4Taste! Do you have any idea why it's taking so long for that bot to complete the rest of the viper category changes? It's been a week since the last changes were made and your original request has since been archived. I hope it hasn't been forgotten. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The list is as follows:


 * Category:True vipers by common name => Category:Viperinae by common name
 * Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyms => Category:Viperinae by taxonomic synonyms
 * Category:Rattlesnakes => Category:Crotalus
 * Category:Rattlesnake images => Category:Crotalus images
 * Category:Rattlesnakes by common name => Category:Crotalus by common name
 * Category:Rattlesnakes by taxonomic synonyms => Category:Crotalus by taxonomic synonyms
 * Category:American pit vipers by common name => Category:Crotalinae by common name
 * Category:American pit vipers by taxonomic synonyms => Category:Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms
 * Category:Asian pit vipers by common name => Category:Crotalinae by common name
 * Category:Asian pit vipers by taxonomic synonyms => Category:Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms


 * From this you can tell that the first two category moves have been completed, with the original categories having been deleted, but the rest remains. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No help yet from any bots, so today I performed three of the above category moves manually. They were relatively small, though; the rest are considerably larger, so I'm still hoping for a bot to help out. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Finished! I may have ended up doing most of the work myself, but if it wasn't for that bot you arranged, I still would have been faced with another 1,000 or so page moves. So, thanks for your help! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Option Knob
Hey, I'm a human too -- [beep]. :) NawlinWiki (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just ignore the little metallic glint around the edges. I'm sure it would take Rick Deckert multiple applications of the Voigt-Kamff examination to sort out us new page patrollers. ;-) Accounting4Taste: talk 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephania Bell 2
What happened to it? --HPJoker (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked up the history:

00:05, 21 December 2007 East718 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Stephania Bell" ‎ (Uncontested proposed deletion) It was deleted by User:East718 nearly a full day ago and my calculation from the original date of its having been PROD tagged indicates that he waited more than the minimum period before deleting it. Is there a problem? I gathered from your previous comments that you were not going to contest its deletion. Is there something you want to have happen now? I'm about to leave on vacation, but will be looking in sporadically over the next week. User:East718 may also be prepared to assist you. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marshall Law (producer)
I have nominated Marshall Law (producer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Marshall Law (producer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Lawrence Cohen 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Broberts1921
You have deleted a relevant page in Ethan Varnado! I will continue to create and edit this page no matter what! Do some research and you will find that the article I am making(in the process of creating) and not finished( complete, done) is fully true and relevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broberts1921 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Support
Hi Accounting4Taste! I was wondering if I could have your support for a merge proposal. It concerns this discussion. I've already tried reasoning with the party responsible for the status quo (and admin), but that conversation went nowhere. I would like to see the previous situation restored, but I don't want to make this into a big fight, so I'm hoping to keep this as civilized as possible. Therefore, assuming your agree with my merge proposal, a simple word of support from you will suffice. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Just a quick hello; I noticed you are now an administrator, not sure when that happened, but congrats :> Marasmusine (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for explaining the notability guidlines. I thought that college athletes would be notable enough, but I guess not.--Brownga (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Market America
I disagree that the article you deleted was a G4; it wasn't a recreation of deleted material. I've read some of the logs of the article that used to be there, and supposedly it was a biased report from the Market America website itself promoting their products, etc, basically SPAM. I am in no way affiliated with the company, and I started this article because I'm intrigued by the pyramid scheme notion of it, as are many other people. I used all non-biased sources, citing every fact I gave. I don't understand why this was deleted then, seeing as it was a methodical, fair look into the company. I wasn't promoting it or saying false things or spamming or anything... Thank you for your time. -Triberocker (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The article at Market America was tagged, and deleted, because it had previously been the subject of an articles for deletion discussion that it had failed, and those articles get deleted automatically.  In order to return this article to Wikipedia, it's not sufficient merely to post it; it would have to go through the process at deletion review.  I don't recommend continued reposting without going through the Deletion Review process because another administrator may decide to make it impossible to ever recreate this page by SALTing it.  If I can help further, you can leave a note at my talk page.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I didn't realize I was deleting your post; my apologies. Explanation duly noted. Happy Holidays! ~ Triberocker (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy Unction
My apolagies if I have deleted your article I was not aware of that. I dont know how that hapened but it probaly had something to do with me going back and foreward with pages on wikipedia .I do not exactly know what you wrote me but if I have Deleted something please you may write it back, I myself hate wikipedians who erase my works.I also went to an othodox wikipedia that had a discription of it, thinking it was a broken link I copied it later I found out it was not part of wikipedia and deleted it that posably could be another reason why. .please it would be an honor if we both could work on this article togeather if you wish to reach me please feel free to for this "mysteria of holy unction" is even confusing to me an eastern othodox --Zaharous (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Zaharous

Why?
Why didn't you remove the talk page? It clearly has NOTHING useful in the revision history. And as far as I know, pages should either have something useful, or not exist at all. But I might be wrong... 200.88.222.147 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Night Pumas
You are a terrible person! Don't you know that I was just trying to show my imagination? I make up things because I like to imagine and pretend. If you don't like night pumas, then you probably don't like Ellie & Arctica Frost! I bet you don't even like dragons! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumagirl7 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Night Pumas
You are a terrible person! I just like my idea of night pumas so I posted it on Wikipedia! This is no joke! You are terrible and there's nothing more to say!

--pumagirl7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumagirl7 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A little harsh?
Don't you think that your comment on her page was a little harsh? I'll try to help her out, anyway. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the account has been used for nothing except vandalism and insults, I thought I was being a little restrained. But I appreciate your point of view, which is why I thanked you for offering to help.  Apparently I am so old and grumpy that being called a "terrible person" a couple of times makes me feel insulted, and since I seem to be temperamentally unsuited for the role, I gladly relinquish the pleasure of assisting this individual to you.  Best of luck! Accounting4Taste: talk 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)