Jump to content

User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Eden Prairie Liquor

Today I created a page for the City of Eden Prairie's municipal liquor stores, which was marked for deletion. If possible, I would like the opportunity to rewrite it, in a manner that reads less like advertising copy, and more like the history of Minnesota liquor laws which allow Cities to operate liquor stores. We have a lot of confusion in Minnesota over these laws, and I feel that Wikipedia could help us explain this. I've noticed that the grocery store Cub Foods has a page, so I will try to format our page after theirs.

Please note, this is my first Wikipedia article, so I'm just now understanding the guidelines a little better. If you have any advice for modifications to the page, please feel free to send them my way!

Thanks,

Katie Beal Senior Communications Coordinator City of Eden Prairie, Minn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeal01 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have retrieved the deleted content and will place it into a "sandbox" page for you at User:Kbeal01/Sandbox as soon as I finish writing this note. I see from your talk page that you have already been informed about our conflict of interest policies, so I won't reiterate that. Since you have asked for my advice, it would be to read our guidelines VERY carefully about the notability of companies, found here; I can't really see any way that these liquor stores could be considered notable, but I've been wrong before, and certainly if you will have to continue to defend such an article's existence you will need to understand the relevant policy thoroughly. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wong Fu Productions

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wong Fu Productions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Arsonal (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your initial deletion review of Wong Fu Productions. The requested "sourced userspace draft" is now available for your review. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to voice them at the review page. Arsonal (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of THOTCON

Thanks for your comments and explanation. We will re-create an artical about the event, after it has taken place and has more references to note.


Thank you for your concern. CARE Pest has been rewritten in as neutral language as possible. The company is one of the first in Canada to use bed bug sniffing dogs to cut down on pesticide use. The company has now become branded and franchised for its green pest control initiatives/leadership. The Vancouver, B.C. media has been focusing on CARE Pest repeatedly. I am not sure how to write this article in any more of a "neutral" language without giving people the answers they need.

Thanks for your note. I'm intimately familiar with the media coverage, since I live in Vancouver, and I am precisely and clearly aware of how little a three-minute segment on Breakfast Television means in terms of the expert attention that is the subject of our corporate notability guideline. Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia "needs" answers about your company, since I don't believe your company has any notability; my opinion is that you're trying to advertise your company by using Wikipedia. I think that any notability there is in this situation accrues to bedbug sniffing dogs, and I don't even think there needs to be an entire article about them, as I've said on its affiliated talk page. Although I could have merely deleted the article about the company, there's a chance that my opinions are incorrect, and so I'm going to submit the article for an articles for deletion process when I get a free minute or two in order that the community of Wikipedia editors can decide for themselves what's going on here. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page - Cameron Marsh Houston

My page was given an A7 tag. The person this page was about has been reported upon in the local press and around his school (see here: http://www.scottishschools.info/valeoflevenacademy/News/Story.aspx?SectionId=e6773bb7-5e5e-40ab-941d-4a71e2510757&StoryId=47b39f68-96e2-4402-b053-1e24bb476942). I would also send you a link to the newspaper he was reported in, however, the page on the internet no longer exists. He was reported on in the Alexandria Lennox Herald. 81.155.34.10 (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I looked at the link you provided. I'm afraid that I still cannot see how this individual meets our notability guidelines. It may be of assistance to you in understanding our guidelines if I use an example from a different context. If Mr. Houston was an athlete, in order to qualify for a page in Wikipedia, he would have to be competing in the Olympics (or the highest level of amateur competition in general, such as the World Cup or equivalent) or in a fully professional league at the highest level, such as playing for Manchester United or the Los Angeles Rams. You may agree with me that Mr. Houston still has a way to go before his academic achievements (or his meeting the general notability guideline -- which would probably require him to have press coverage in multiple newspapers at the national level) will be written about in Wikipedia. If you still disagree with me, there is the option of deletion review, which is entirely open to you; I strongly believe you'll be wasting your time, but it is open to you should you wish to pursue it. Best of luck with your future endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Snoozer Pet Products

Me and many of my neighbors/collegues hav been using snoozer products for the past several years. Only after seeing it was not on ikipedia did I decide to create the page. It was my first foray into making a page, and I tried to use as ambiguous of language as I could. I did not intend for it to be interpreted as an advertisement of any sort. I would like to review the deletion of the page.

Thanks for your note. I have reviewed the deleted material and still don't see any indication that the company or its products have any notability. However, if you feel you can provide documentation that an expert thinks that the company is in any way unusual or special, I have retrieved the deleted material and placed it into a sandbox page for you, found at User:Mbetush/Sandbox. You can work on it there and re-mount it at any point (you don't need anyone's permission, but you may want to ensure that it doesn't get deleted for the same reasons twice in a row). I would recommend that you have a look at this article to refresh your memory on the basic principles of Wikipedia articles. If there's something further I can do to assist you, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Helen Goddard

We have our chance to test community opinion on this biography. It was created today, I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Goddard. Fences&Windows 23:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Joan Annabelle Bauer

Hello Accounting4Taste. I noted your comment at User talk:TIKITUKU. When I checked the article with Google Search result, it was a clear speedy candidate. I don't know that TV series and I wasn't able to find connections. Is there any possibility to save it? Thanks. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I agree completely that it was a clear speedy deletion candidate, and frankly I only suspected that the individual might have been trying to write about a fictional character -- there was no specific programme that I had in mind, it just sounded like it might have been a soap opera to me. I don't think there's any point in trying to figure out what's going on until the article's creator gives some indication that is more clear of what s/he is trying to write about, but I thought it was worth the comment in case the creator had not realized that s/he was writing in an "in-universe" style. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Joel William Gonzales Deletion Page

98.112.226.160 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Joel is of importance what can i provide to prove so.

Thanks for your note. I had a look at a couple of previous versions of this deleted article and didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that Mr. Gonzales is notable as Wikipedia defines that concept. However, if you believe you can provide reliable sources to demonstrate his importance, I would recommend examining the material at this link -- WP:ENTERTAINER -- and this one -- WP:MUSICBIO. These are the standards that are used by Wikipedia administrators to consider whether the subject of, respectively, an acting career and/or a rapping career are sufficiently notable to meet our standards. It may save you time if I ask you to consider an analogy that I've offered to others in the past. If Mr. Gonzales were an athlete, he would need to be competing at the Olympic level or in a fully professional sports team in order to be considered for a Wikipedia article. You can judge for yourself whether Mr. Gonzales' achievements meet this standard in relative terms. Best of luck with your contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Recreating lean healthcare

hi i am new to wikipedia and wolud be interested to write an article (together with colleagues from different universities and companies all working on the same topic) about lean healthcare (compare to classic lean production and lean administration). we are professors, physicians and managers from universities hospitals and industry. as lean healthcare has proven its tremendous impact on patinet outcome, throughput and cost effectivenes we all believe that patients should be aware that there are hospitals out there doing this. We do believe as well that not single hospital applications drive it but the method itsevelves. i saw that you deleted an article on this topic some time ago. and iam not even sure if it was not me that simply tried out wiki the first time and posted only the headline. having this said i would value your support in helping me getting this done the right way. please advice Leanhealth (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The previous article did indeed consist in its entirety of the two words "Lean healthcare". My advice in general about creating an article would be to read and understand the material at this link, WP:Your first article. I will add another piece of advice that is more specific. If you are talking about something within the United States health care system, I would recommend being very clear about the origins of the concept; it would be essential to make clear (if indeed this is the case) that this is an academic subject and not one that is related to a commercial product of any kind. To that end, you may want to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest and advertising policies. I would recommend that you provide a number of direct links to arm's-length, third-party expert sources that assert/corroborate the academic/non-commercial origins of this concept. If you have further questions, feel free to leave me a note, but the best way to proceed would be simply to create the article and get the reactions of the Wikipedia community by posting it. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you kindly helps me?

({{helpme}}) Hello,

I am seeking your help to initiate a NuvoCare Health Sciences page as the company behind a brand regularly featured on the Canadian Home Shopping Channel with a strong story behind it. You can reference the following press release for mre information.

I am seeking your help writing an article about this company that complies with your rules and regulations and that will not get tagged fro speedy deletion. Nothing feels worse.

here is a link to one of the press releases: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Nuvocare-Health-Sciences-Inc-805764.html

Can you kindly let me know who I can submit content that will not be deleted.

Your help is very much appreciated.

Sincerely, RF

It is a common misconception that the existence of a company is sufficient justification for information about it to be included in Wikipedia. In fact, for a company to be the subject of a Wikipedia article it must be notable. In other words, arm's-length, third-party expert sources writing in reputable publications (like newspapers and magazines) need to assert that the company is somehow special or unusual, in a verifiable way. These are crucial elements for any Wikipedia article about a company. The information in the article that I deleted met none of these requirements (and press releases don't qualify as being a reliable source). You can find out more about the basic elements of a Wikipedia article by reading this article, by following the links in this paragraph, or by reading WP:Why was my article deleted?. If you believe you can demonstrate notability, there is no bar to remounting the article with the appropriate citations. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chartjackers

I see you think my entry for Chartjackers is 'aggressively self promoting'. Could you give me an example of why you think this and any tips to avoid this? It was not my intent for this article to appear self promoting, but for it to be a reliable resource on an upcoming attempt to raise money for charity by releasing a charity single mainly for an audience made up of teenagers.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Footynutguy (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Since there is a discussion on this article taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chartjackers, my first piece of advice would be to have any discussions there; you will get advice from the entire Wikipedia community. The reason that I felt the article was "aggressively self-promoting" (and that phrase was linked to the Wikipedia policy article on advertising) was that it appears superficially to have the shape and style of a neutral Wikipedia article but actually consists principally of the carefully-crafted opinions of people who are not at arm's-length from the topic and/or who are not experts in their topic. For instance, the glowing quotes about "four likeable lads attempting to achieve the extraordinary through the power of the internet," etc., are from someone who is not at arm's-length from the topic. The article seems to violate our neutral point of view policy from beginning to end. You will pardon me if I suggest, from my jaundiced and experienced viewpoint, that it is entirely possible that this entire operation is designed principally to increase the visibility and audience of four "YouTube celebrities" (which in my experience is generally an oxymoron); I have seen many such marketing attempts during my time with Wikipedia. Whatever the motivation, it's very difficult to have an impartial article about something which is essentially a publicity stunt; the nature of publicity stunts is that they attempt to "hijack" communications channels to gain publicity where no real news interest in the topic exists (raising money for charity is hardly a unique experience and doing so with music on the pop charts dates back to George Harrison's concert for Bangladesh, which means that this idea is nowhere near as "extraordinary" as you suggest). This particular article has significant problems with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and, regardless of the worth of its underlying cause, the advertising policy. My advice, should the article survive, is that every piece of description should be a direct quotation from an arm's-length third-party expert source; the only thing that you contribute should be incontrovertible facts such as the names of the individuals participating. If that renders the article considerably shorter than it currently is, that may be a guide to how much of it is currently inappropriate. Please don't trouble yourself to explain in detail exactly why my jaundiced point of view has misinterpreted your charitable instincts; my opinion is unlikely to change as a result and, as I said, your efforts would be better spent making points in the Articles for deletion process that are directly related to Wikipedia policy statements. Best of luck with the articles for deletion process. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Sure, I'll give it a try, thanks for the offer. It doesn't look extremely different from doing the same thing by hand, but anything that cuts down on mouse milage is probably good for my tired old arm. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's done. I like to provide tools to people who seem to be using them well; if there's something further I can do to assist you, feel free to contact me. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hell, that was fast. Thanks and cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Aww, did you think I was finally gone? I was looking for clarifications on the RfA process which I just began to participate in. I understand Wikipedia is not a vote but rather a consensus, however, this RfA was recently closed with a 88/38/7 which would lead me to believe the consensus was support. How did this one not succeed? Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL No, I never thought you were gone, and I'm always happy to help however I can. I have to say that I am not expert in the whys and wherefores of how some RfAs succeed and others fail; frankly, I think if I had to repeat mine today I might actually fail for lack of having achieved a GA or FA status for anything. (In my field of expertise, detective fiction, it's very hard to get a GA or FA due to lack of reference materials and critical commentary from experts). However, I did have a look at the RfA you mentioned, and the RfA page, and found this: "as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion." If I had to guess, I would say it was a combination of a previous failed RfA and its underlying reasons, and the amount of non-support in the second RfA, that led to the failure. I think you are right to say that the consensus was support, but I don't think that the rule of thumb for a successful RfA is consensus. In other words, it wasn't the support that was important, it was the non-support; the 88 was fine, it was the 38 that scuttled it. I was sorry to see it, BTW, because (a) I have noted this editor's good contributions and would have supported him had I looked at his RfA, and (b) User:Pedro's opinions are solid gold as far as I'm concerned. He has the wisest Wikipedia head I know, and if he says someone is ready for the mop, they're ready. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha, oppose hold some sway even if they are the minority. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Flying Saucer Films

This was deleted as advertising when I was simply highlighting the various shows and movies it had produced. I planned on crawling wikipedia for links today to find the various shows, movies, and people involved with Flyer Saucer Films. I also had some external links to add today: IMDB link for Jeff Gordon 24x24 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1471322/

IMDB link for Beyonce http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1471294/

Network website-Hometown Gospel http://www.gospelmusicchannel.com/search/node/hometown+gospel

IMDB link Ty Pennington http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1368183/

I think it would be a good idea to allow wikipedia to show off who has been setting some of these stars listed in the lime light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hollywood_movie_studios has set the precedence for listing production companies and how they have helped actors. I hope to display a much more comprehensive article than what was originally posted. Thanks for your help.

hangon :)

Julesdylan (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Jules Dylan Stuer

Thanks for your note. First off, there is nothing stopping you from recreating the article, either immediately or at some future point when you can add more references to it -- my recommendation would certainly be the latter, since I expect that a simple remounting would be immediately deleted again. (You might want to work on the article in a "sandbox" page -- you might use User:Julesdylan/Sandbox, for instance, and if you want me to place the deleted content there, just let me know.) As for your other comments, "crawling Wikipedia" for links is not as much use as finding reliable external sources, and I have to add that those do not include either IMDb or Wikipedia itself. You should familiarize yourself with the reliable sources policy; essentially, arm's-length third-party expert sources of opinion writing in reputable sources like books, magazines and newspapers. IMDb is not an expert source of very much, since, like Wikipedia, anyone with a computer terminal can register an account and add material. Similarly, Hometown Gospel is not a reliable source about itself since it can be assumed that material you generate yourself about your activities is biased in your direction. I would also recommend that you familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines about companies, the general principles underlying all Wikipedia articles, and our conflict of interest policy. Best of luck with your future contributions; if you wish the deleted material in a sandbox page, leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help AccountingforTaste! Sincerely, Jules Dylan Stuer 76.186.217.8 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)julesdylan

Just a courtesy notice: Julesdylan missed your reply here and posted the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Flying_Saucer_Films. After a discussion and reading your reply, I've userfied the article at User:Julesdylan/Flying Saucer Films and offered some advice for proceeding.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pairatits Production

Dear Sir,

Kindly reconsider the removal of the Pairatits Production page I started. While I agree the name can be somewhat offensive, the history of this group is certainly not. They have been mentioned in articles in the Chicago Tribune, Milwaukeee Journal and Racine Journal Times. This was set-up to be a history of the hundreds of people that were involved with this group in the 1970's. The group even had a comic stint called the "Air Supremes" on a Milwaukee Summerfest stage. Milwaukee Summerfest is the largest music festival in the world, held every summer for 2 weeks or so. As we are all much older now the core members include attorneys, superintendents, a doctor and even a theatrical performer. Please reconsider the deletion of the page, I notified some of the other core group members and they were looking forward to adding their recollections to the page.

Thank You R. Barrows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.96.3 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You may be interested to learn that the article I deleted had no information about performances, it was, in its entirety, "Pairatits Productions was started by a group of friends residing in Racine Wisconsin. It was essentially a name for this group of friends but evolved into many other things, culminating into some very good softball teams and some of the best summer picnics Racine has ever seen." As I trust you will agree, this does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) or any other notability criterion that Wikipedia imposes. If you're suggesting that the organization in question is somehow qualified as -- sports? performance? music? You haven't been really clear -- you may want to look at WP:ATHLETE, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER for guidance as to what qualifies topics to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. There is no bar to your recreating the article, regardless of the vulgarity of its title, but you should be aware that in order for it to be retained, it absolutely must meet some kind of guideline for retention, the GNG if nothing else. (I think it's unlikely, if the three newspapers you mention represent the breadth of coverage, that they will enable the group to qualify under the GNG, whose definition of significant coverage is usually thought to mean over a large area of a country if not its entirety.) If you mean this merely to be a page of reminiscences, you may want to consider that Wikipedia is not a webhost and it may be much more appropriate for you to pay for the web space to host this festschrift yourselves. Best of luck with your contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

regarding quoting me

I have no problem with the quotation. Thanks for letting me know, and best of luck. --Alhutch (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
I, TParis00ap, hereby award you this guidance barnstar for always giving me not only good advice, but being complete and unbiased in your guidance. You have made my editting experience easier. Thanks! TParis00ap (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Children on Wikipedia

Hello. After running into a self-identified child with their contact information on their user page yesterday, I realized Wikipedia does not have any policy for protecting children. An attempt was made in 2006 to develop a policy, but it failed to reach consensus. I'm making another attempt and I'd appreciate your input. User_talk:TParis00ap/Protecting Children. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stockhouse.com

You deleted Stockhouse.com. I found some references which suggest notability, although I expected to find more, and I would encourage you to consider restoring the article.

Earlier, another editor deleted an article with a slightly different name, Stockhouse. If you restore Stockhouse.com, you might want to move it to Stockhouse and restore and combine the history of the other article. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am happy to work with you since you're interested in this topic. (I had a look at the CBC reference and it seems to me to denote non-notability rather than the converse, but it's certainly a citation that the organization exists.) I've created a page at User:Eastmain/Stockhouse for you with the deleted content. I had a look at the Stockhouse article, that was deleted in March 2007; there was very little of any consequence there, pretty much unreferenced spam by SPAs, and I would suggest that the history is not worth preserving, but if you want me to make that happen I will figure out how to do it or ask someone to help me. If you wish to simply re-mount the article at Stockhouse, that might be easiest, but I'll let you tell me how you want to move forward. Incidentally, I live in Vancouver and am slightly familiar with the company; it doesn't seem to me to be notable, since it never achieved any audience AFAIK, but obviously my personal opinion is of little use or value here. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed and how I can help you further. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Noveko International

I was working on Noveko International when you deleted it. The current version of the file has references from reliable sources, so I think it now passes notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll trust your judgment; I'm happy to know we're getting a useful article. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User EMPLOYERS

Hello,

You were involved in deleting some articles written by user EMPLOYERS about insurance agencies in Nevada. I am fairly new to writing Wikipedia articles, and would appreciate your advice. Please take a look at the talk page for the article I wrote Robert L. M. Underhill and let me know if I handled this user's addition to the article properly. Should this user be continuing to contribute to Wikipedia? Alternatively, what can be done to correct this user's behavior? I see this as a learning opportunity for me. Thank you. Jim Heaphy (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You're absolutely right that Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable source; it, like IMDb and Wikipedia itself, can be edited by anyone and thus doesn't qualify. My own tendency would be to believe that this is a "good-faith" edit, although I'd say it's close to the line since it is likely that the editor who added the definition to the Wikipedia article and the one who added the definition to Urban Dictionary are one and the same. "Should this user be continuing to contribute to Wikipedia?" I would say that I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe otherwise; even if it was not a good-faith edit, there doesn't appear to be a pattern of out-and-out vandalism and, most importantly, there has not been a "full set of warnings" (vandalism1 through vandalism4) -- in fact, I don't see any warnings at all. "What can be done to correct this user's behaviour?" I suggest that everything that can be done, or should be done, has been done quite ably by you already (you explained thoroughly, with reference to specific policies, and did so politely). I tend to believe that "correcting behaviour" is something that happens when a user believes that his/her efforts are not being allowed to remain in Wikipedia; they either learn how to make useful lasting contributions or they go elsewhere. It seems reasonable to assume that, however poorly, this individual was actually trying to make useful contributions -- as opposed to posting attack pages, spam, nonsense, etc. -- and thus any "correction" would be limited to this person learning how to make more useful contributions. In general, I've found it's pretty useless to actively "correct" people who haven't asked for it; s/he will either learn or they won't, and that user's talk page is full of ways in which they can learn. I hope this answers your questions; if I have mistaken your request, please feel free to let me know and ask a further question. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Good afternoon. It seems that account is for promotional purposes only. Would that not violate the username policy and require an indef block?--TParis00ap (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point, and one that I actually considered... the edits that Jim Heaphy is asking about aren't related to any company, though, and that made it not "only" for me. I agree that the previous edits were entirely promotional, but "Employers" is a little bit less obviously promotional than calling yourself "CocaCola", for example... Perhaps I'm Pollyanna-ish (it's been said!) but I always hope that people who start as partisan advocates (or even petty vandals) will eventually convert to useful NPOV contributors and so I like to leave them as much room as is reasonable. I would only block a user-name if it was absolutely 100% obviously promotional. There are definitely other admins who feel differently and I respect their opinions, especially since many of them have more experience than I with all-advertising usernames. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the input, which I appreciate. I admire your patience and will try to emulate it as I contribute to Wikipedia. As for user EMPLOYERS, please take a glance at www. employers.com, which is a small business insurance website based in Reno, NV for which this person seems to be a website developer. The business may not be as famous as Coca Cola, but is just as commercial and just as promotional in my view. Why this person decided to edit the Robert L. M. Underhill article in this fashion, I do not know, as their edit had no seeming promotional intent. However, so far, I can't see that this user has contributed anything useful to Wikipedia. I hope that you are right, and that this person can be motivated to be constructive. Therefore, I won't call you "Pollyanna". Seeing how diplomatically you deal with difficult situations is very instructive to me, and I would like to have the opportunity to ask you for guidance from time to time. Thank you. Jim Heaphy (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for advising me to review WP: Own, which I have read. I've written a number of articles for Wikipedia in recent months, but I don't see these articles as "mine" in any sense at all. I understand and support that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that anyone is free to expand and improve the articles I've started. I am an old mountaineer and book lover and am fascinated with the hisory of mountaineering in California and have a small library of relevant books. However, I don't know it all, and there are many relevant books that I don't own. I am well aware that the articles I've written could be improved by other with knowledge, experience and books I don't have. I am delighted that a (few) other people have taken an interest in my beginnings as a Wikipedia editor, and welcome their participation and contributions to these articles. I've received a list from SuggestBot of articles I might contribute to, and am reviewing them now to see how I might best contribute. I appreciate your guidance and suggestions. Thank you. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dimensions_of_Andes_mountains

Hello. This article contains the same information located in Andes. It seems reasonable that there would be a speedy template for such a scenario, but there is not. Does that article really have to sit in PROD for 7 days or is there another way to handle such articles?--TParis00ap (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again; no, you're right, there's no obvious speedy category. In the past I have occasionally deleted such an article as "Routine housekeeping" and I am careful to include in the edit summary something like "duplicates content found at Andes" -- but usually I only use this route for situations where there are two identical articles under different spellings. I think it's set up this way to make sure we don't lose content where someone creates an article under an unencyclopedic name that does not duplicate content elsewhere, so that the admin who closes the PROD will simply do a page move. In my experience, though, expired PRODs get handled thoroughly and within 24 hours of the closing of the 7 days, so you shouldn't worry that this particular article will hang around. Unfortunately if the PROD gets removed, the only real alternative is AfD. This is an area where things occasionally hang around longer than they should: "The mills of (Wikipedia) grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small." Accounting4Taste:talk 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for deleting my article before I could finish it. I was using another page as a template and then you decided to vandalize my page, you nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMCEEHOOD (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you may want to (a) use a "sandbox" page to create such articles before you post them; you can create a sandbox page by clicking on this link User:EMCEEHOOD/Sandbox, and (b) be very, very careful in future about calling Wikipedia contributors "nazis", because less tolerant administrators than I would have simply blocked you permanently from any future contribution to Wikipedia based on that. You may want to consider that I don't delete articles unless someone has tagged them for speedy deletion; I agreed with the tag I found, because it was obviously copied from another article, and this is a frequent form of vandalism on Wikipedia. I'll be keeping an eye on your future articles and behaviour. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A4T, I know it seems I stalk your talk page, but that's because I do. Could you take a look at User:EMCEEHOOD? He is making personal attacks against Wiki admins/users and Jews.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that. WP:ATTACK suggests: "However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." I think a little more rope is in order, so that the pattern of recurrence becomes absolutely clear. Don't worry about this being overlooked; as I said above, I'll be keeping an eye on his contributions and behaviour. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont think you are too "Pollyanna-ish", but I think this user's fuse had been lit rather easily and he took it too far. It was one thing to be uncivil with you, another to call you a vandal & nazi, and it was too far to call all Wikipedia admins and contributors facist Jews. I'm glad it was taken care of though.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

About Lady Lashes (band) page

I noticed Lady Lashes is up for deletion? Why? Lady Lashes are signed to two of Britain's best record labels. They have their first single out in January with Will.i.am. I do have trouble putting refences in, i carn't get the hang of putting them in. So it would be a great help, if you wouldn't delete Lady Lashes and help me improve it. Thanks, --Ddaniel2009 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I tagged the articles for deletion because I don't believe that this group meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO; they might become notable in the future, but they aren't yet. Wikipedia articles are about things and people that are already notable, not that might be in the future. If you believe they meet the general notability guideline, then you will have to find references that demonstrate that and add them; I couldn't find any from reliable sources that would qualify, so I'm afraid I can't help you. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I know a few website for refrences, they've also had a top 20 hit with a few other artists. Could you give me a week, for the page to stay open and i'll get refrences that are reliable?--Ddaniel2009 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Lashes or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LadyLashes/Archive? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I havn't. But give me a week and i'll prove this artical is nobel to stay open. --Ddaniel2009 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid a week is out of the question, or indeed any further time at all. I wasn't aware of this "Articles for deletion" (AfD) process, but since the topic has so recently failed to gain the acceptance of the Wikipedia community, your only real option at this point is deletion review. Articles that have recently failed an AfD are subject to immediate dismissal unless they demonstrate something really significant has changed about the topic, and I couldn't find any evidence of the "top 20 hit" that you suggest. Best of luck with the deletion review process. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, No bother. Thankyou, and sorry for wasting you're time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddaniel2009 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine Solutions Page Deleted

Hi Accounting4Taste, I created a page for "Fine Solutions" earlier today that was recently deleted. FS is a medium-sized ERP consulting firm that's been selected as one of the top 1000 fastest-growing businesses in any category by Inc. Magazine. This article was of course not completed, and these citations had not been added. It would be great of you could make this page available again, as I will need a certain amount of time to get the page "completed". Iwishihadaburger (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have placed the deleted material into a "sandbox" page for you at User:Iwishihadaburger/Sandbox (you can access it by clicking on the link that's in this sentence). I recommend that you examine the introductory material at WP:Your first article to ensure that, before you re-post the article, it contains the three basics of every Wikipedia article: notability, reliable sources and verifiability. If you have any questions that aren't answered by the links in this paragraph, feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Chasing Lights (song)

Hi Accounting4taste. Just before you speedied Chasing Lights (song) I removed an A9 tag from it, before realising that I'd been mistaken and the artist's article had been deleted. Could you let me know who added the tag in the first place so I can apologise for reverting them? Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It was tagged by User:TenPoundHammer first, the tag was removed, I retagged it and then was informed of WP:Articles for deletion/Lady Lashes and its accompanying sockpuppet investigations (see above). There's no need to apologize to me, because I was fooled too -- the article seems superficially reasonable and it's only upon a thorough investigation that you realize that none of the cites go anywhere. I'm not sure if TenPoundHammer would mind one way or the other... that's up to you, and his involvement was perhaps two days ago so he may not even remember. But I do appreciate the sentiment that brought you here and thank you for it. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes, it's probably a bit unnecessary but I suppose it's better to err on the side of civility than otherwise. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Francois Tomb

Hi. I was surprised to find this a red-link but on the New article page template I found the following: 21:20, 12 May 2008 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Francois Tomb" ‎ (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: Patent nonsense (CSD G1))

I'd like to start a sensible article on this important Etruscan tomb and its contents. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the message. The goose and its shooting are most intriguing and I'll be sure to add a thoroughly cited footnote on the incident. Haploidavey (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Vogel

Hey A4T. I stumbled on this new account here and noticed it seems to be the sock of a user that was banned from 2004-2008. I think his ban has expired and he is welcomed back, but he may be a concern for some and I was unsure what to do to notify those concerned that he may be back. [1]. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; I believe the user in question was permablocked at about the same time you wrote your note, but thanks for bringing this up; I wasn't familiar with this user, but upon examination he immediately became a concern for me. As a general rule of thumb, I leave a note on the administrators' noticeboard in situations where I am not sure what to do, but I know another admin will be willing/able to handle what I can't. As you may have noticed, my admin experience is somewhat limited, by my own choice (I usually don't have time to take on complex tasks and pretty much stick to new page patrol) and I frequently depend upon advice and assistance from other admins. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There's also the village pump where things like this get discussed; I have never been on the Wikipedian IRC channel, but I understand that works well too. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
More specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, often abbreviated as ANI. Note that you have to inform people if you're discussing their conduct at ANI, something which I may have overlooked on my extremely infrequent uses of such pages. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I considered ANI but I didn't want to appear to attack the user or target them. If they were blocked for 4 years and then it was decided they could return, I didn't want to attract undue or unwarrented attention to them. But it appeared by their history that someone should be aware. I am not so much concerned by the areas that you arn't strong in because you always seem to find an answer so thanks again ;)--TParis00ap (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, given the history and the pattern of current edits, I think you were quite right to sound an immediate alarm bell; it seems reasonable to assume the individual would have piled up a stack of nuisance edits to be reverted before he was blocked again. But you were possibly more sensitive than even I (Pollyanna!) would have been to the possibility of attracting attention to a user who had returned after a long block. I'll bear that in mind if that ever comes up for me again. So, I learned something today too. ;-) I'm glad to know I always come up with an answer -- I hope I always come up with a useful one!! Accounting4Taste:talk 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Skylar Campbell why did you delete the Skylar Campbell page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.225.96 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I deleted it (a) because another editor had asked me to assess it by placing a "speedy deletion" tag on it, and (b) because when I assessed it, my opinion was that the topic didn't meet our notability guidelines and had no reliable sources to back up any of the content and make it verifiable. I think it's certainly possible that Mr. Campbell will be notable some day, but I can't think that apprenticing with the NBoC qualifies -- he probably wouldn't qualify even if he was in the corps. He will probably be notable if and when he becomes a principal dancer. If you have any questions or problems that wouldn't be answered by this link, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Accounting4Taste ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Micoteneal Bernal Leuterio account

I write this acknowledgement not because I'm a fan of him its because of his contribution to his photography and being an author as well. It says on your page to write the request nicely :)

I'll gonna do my very best to have this request nicely and some of the research on google are looking for the autobiography of him.

Please restore his article so that someone can edit it and contribute about his life.

Thank so much wikipedia and more power, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.181.54 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry to say that, as far as I know, the founder of any specific Yahoo chat group is never going to meet our notability requirements for that fact alone and there's no way I can accede to your request, no matter how politely you asked (and I do appreciate that, thanks). Wikipedia articles are about people who are notable, and whose notability is demonstrated in reliable sources in a verifiable way. If you've got a few articles in magazines and newspapers written by experts (not blogs, forums or chat group postings written by the general public) that state specifically that Mr. Leuterio is somehow special and/or unusual for his management of that chat group, or for any other reason, feel free to leave me a further note and we'll see what we can do. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding these Strutt Family trust articles

That seem to be cropping up like mushrooms. Seems there's a sock with similiar tastes that was blocked a while ago. I put some details over on Talk:Stanley_Ethelbert_Strutt if you're interested. --Bfigura (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I note also The Strutt Family Trust which I believe I should be tagging as a remounting of AfD'd material; the citations are plentiful but primarily self-generated press releases or don't mention the topic at all. I see also that Stanley Ethelbert Strutt now redirects to the problematic page in question. Thanks for alerting me to this. I think if we both keep an eye on this, we'll see the topic through to an appropriate end. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My mistake; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Anne Petrie doesn't appear to have contained the same content as this article so it can't be speedied on that basis. I note, however, that The Strutt Family Trust has recently had a speedy tag declined so I think AfD is the only option; I'll see if I can find the time to arrange that this morning. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm making a note here of Aldeth Olive Strutt, which is also a redirect. I'm getting very suspicious of the number of SPAs who seem to be fixated on this topic at the moment and suspect that there are multiple sockpuppets working here. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't be surprising given the history. :Copying from the other talk page): I did a search to see if we had any more of these lurking around and...:
-- Bfigura (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Weird indeed. If you look at Strutt Family Trust and follow reference #9, you get a very strange document that, upon examination, is a press release that could have been uploaded by anyone and say anything at all -- and it is devoted to the insistence that Helen Anne Petrie is indeed a real person. It purports to link to legal cases underway in the UK but the language is (a) rather unskilled and "un-legal", and (b) strangely like the writing style of the material we're talking about. I'm starting to think there is something VERY hinky going on here. What do you think the best thing to do is? Will a sockpuppet investigation lead to an AfD, or is the other way around the best way to go? Accounting4Taste:talk 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the simplest solution is to AfD and ask for salt, given all the various permutations that keep getting created (and the history of socking). There doesn't seem to be anything especially notable about this trust, so AfD should take care of it quicker. Sound okay? --Bfigura (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me, and thanks for making an informed decision. Would you mind starting it? I'm having a very busy morning and don't have enough time to focus. I've just been checking the references further to #9 above. The UK Press Complaints Commission doesn't appear to have any record of the complaint discussed in #9, but there is such a lawyer in Zaire, as near as I can tell. The other 8 references are either press releases (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9), have no mention of the specific topic, merely affiliated ones (7, 8) or return as "not found" (2). Accounting4Taste:talk 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Might take a bit, but I'll get to it. I'm also trying to keep track of these socks and such on User:Bfigura/TrustSock. --Bfigura (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And it keeps getting weirder. Does the new comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strutt_Family_Trust make sense to you? --Bfigura (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL only in the sense that "I'm not a SPA" is the complete reverse of the truth, given the individual's entire edit history. I have little doubt "she" will now go out and make some useless edits to unrelated articles, just to "convince" us. Do you know how to start a sockpuppet investigation? I've never started one rolling, but I think if there is a time to do it, this is the time. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Haven't done it before, but it doesn't seem that hard. (Although it would be more complicated if we need to ask for a CU). Should we start now, or wait and see if any more jump out of the woodwork? I don't see any need to rush, since the AfD's already rolling. --Bfigura (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems as though the individual(s) in question are busily providing evidence of sockpuppetry; I'm actually torn between the idea that to allow them to continue might be wasting a sock-investigator's time and the desire to watch this person make a complete round-game of sockpuppets, all vouching for the integrity of the others. All things considered, though, I think "wait and see" is in order; there is no danger that either the article in question or the various SPAs will go unnoticed and more evidence is always better. And in the meantime, this is at least the most energetic nonsense I've seen lately. I wonder what it is about Helen Anne Petrie that has someone all hot and bothered? I guess we'll never know. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The people who handled the last sockpuppet investigation on this thing are still around and active, so I've asked them all for advice (and pointed them towards the AfD, since that's where the info seems to be centralized now). I tried to be as neutral as possible, keeping WP:CANVASS in mind after all. And I think I agree about the wait and see. --Bfigura (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Bringing in the people with experience is a GREAT idea; this will certainly be handled better than if I took a ham-handed stab at getting the ball rolling. Thanks so much for another good idea. I know my own impulse when asked to look at something like this is to try to come at it with a clean slate, and I appreciate and echo your desire not to canvass, but given the large stack of evidence that's in place for anyone to see, and the history of sockpuppetry that we've uncovered, I can't really think that anyone could draw any other conclusion than ours; I'm just happy to know that someone with experience is now drawn into this. I'm really thinking I'm learning something here about how these sorts of investigations work, so I'm going to keep a close eye on the process as best I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... apparently I've now claimed to have deleted 20,000 profiles. Interesting achievement for a non-admin with less than 20,000 edits. My evil duplicitous socks must have been working overtime. -- Bfigura (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(exdent) I'm sorry, much as I enjoy working with you, I cannot allow you to take credit for that effort. <grin> Actually it's probably more like 25,000 now, but it took my klutzy self so long to create the infobox that I may never touch it again. Oddly, I had rather thought that deleting 25,000 pages indicated that I was more practised at recognizing the subtleties involved; these days, it seems to me I retain far more than I used to. I guess I'll have to drop in and take credit where credit is due. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it meant you were more knowledgeable too. Which is now apparently the same thing as being a nazi[2]. Huh, Godwin's law didn't take much time, now did it? -- Bfigura (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In my field (the law) the saying is that "When you have the facts, pound on the facts. When you don't have the facts, pound on the characters. And if you don't have the high moral ground, pound on the table." Considerable table-pounding, but nothing in the way of actual relevance to any Wikipedia policy, I see. Ah, well. The rancour itself is charming and I intend to preserve it as a tribute to our thoroughness and diligence; needless to say, I now intend to pursue this to the very last little woolly shred of sockpuppet, and it will be a lovely day when I see it clearly demonstrated that all these accounts have the same IP number. In the meantime, I can stand being called names if the individual can stand being thought irredeemably vulgar for having called them. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Good turn of phrase. And it would seem that the cavalry has arrived, in the form of CactusWriter. Should be interesting to see how the investigation works. --Bfigura (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, calvary indeed. THAT is how the big boys play, I reckon; no fooling around with half-measures. I expect this to be thoroughly settled in short order, judging by the pattern of activity of CactusWriter already. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Gospel Gossip deleted page

I'd like to work some more on the Gospel Gossip page that was speed-deleted in the last 24 hours. I would have added some of the 20 or so press references to the band (including some "best new band" type ones which I would think bolster notability) had I been quicker on the draw... I'm just not on WP 24/7 these days. Thanks!--Natcase (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've retrieved the deleted material and placed it into a "sandbox" page for you at User:Natcase/Sandbox; you can work on the article here until you're ready to remount it. I trust this is what you wanted; let me know if there's anything further with which I can be of assistance. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!--Natcase (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman à clef

FYI: As per your request, I provided a link to a page in a reputable book defining the word "faction", and provided details about the book and a link to the author's faculty homepage. Over the next day or two, I'll look for other sources, and also try to locate the audio clip of Malachi Martin discussing the origin of the term. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I looked at the cite you provided for the book which defines the word; to my mind, there is a small but subtle difference between "faction" and "roman a clef" in that "faction" is like, say, In Cold Blood -- a deliberate mixing of fact and fiction, and with a mixing of real and fictitious characters, whereas a roman a clef, to my understanding, contains only fictitious characters who are meant to parallel real people. However, that's not especially important at the moment; I have no intention of contributing to the turmoil that currently surrounds this article and it seems unlikely that any such intervention would be either useful or effective, so I'll save my breath to cool my porridge. Best of luck with the activities you've instigated at AN/I and on Mr. Wales's talk page, and I'll look at this topic again at some future time. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think the paragraph from the book is rather saying that faction "reads" like fiction, but reflects "fact." It's not saying that it's fact and fiction coexisting or mixed. As is stated in the book, faction "reads like a short story except that it is true ...". And if you read the current definition of roman a clef on the wikipedia page, it reads, "roman a clef ... is a novel describing real life, behind a façade of fiction. And, in my opinion, the term "roman a clef" isn't at least traditionally defined to be a book with "only fictitious characters who are meant to parallel real people." Rather, it's a "novel in which real persons appear under fictitious names (Webster's New World Dictionary)", thus explaining the etymology and literal meaning of the term which translates from French to "novel with a key." The key is the list of disguised characters in the book listed alongside the real persons whom they actually are, not just paralleling them. Also, roman a clefs, in order to read like a fictional story, do most often have a lesser degree of fiction to them in order create a readable storyline. I'm also not saying that the two terms are synonymous to the extent that they are 100% equivalent, but rather that they tend to identify the same literary device and the two terms should co-exist on the same page. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Article with Title "Urbanfrugalchic" Deleted

Dear Sir, 


      It is very sad to note that an article with the title

                      "Urbanfrugalchic"  
      has been deleted recently.Actually I do note know why it was deleted.I am not a wikipedia editing expert and am totally new to it.The

above website is a blog site owned by Cynthia Childs and Khristal Marie. The Photographs included was their own personal creation and not a copy taken from any other source.I was asked to write an article on the above blog site as their assistant,and I strongly assure you that it was not for any advertisement purpose. 

          I therefore humbly request you to re consider your decision in

the most favorable manner. If you need any proof I can submit after contacting the blog owners.

Thanking You, 

                           Yours faithfully
                           Vijinfrugal 117.204.83.128 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I had another look at the article and I can tell you why it was deleted; it's because it doesn't meet our very basic requirement of notability, a definition of which was made available to you in the course of creating the article. It also didn't meet our requirements about reliable sources and, judging by what you've written above, also violates our conflict of interest policy. No proof is required, thanks; no one doubts that the material you contributed was the product of the people who created the blog in question. The problem is that the blog/websites are not notable -- special, unusual, different -- there is nothing to indicate that any arm's-length, third-party expert source of opinion has had anything to say at all about the material. Put it this way -- if we were talking about athletes, they would have to either be competing at the very highest level of amateur competition, such as the Olympics, or playing for a fully professional team such as the Boston Bruins. It doesn't seem to me as though the blogs in question are working at that level, and even if they are, you haven't provided any way for anyone to verify that; essentially what we have is your personal assertion about how good these blogs are. It is for those reasons that I'm going to decline to reconsider my decision any further. However, if you feel you can provide four or five expert sources writing in publications like books and magazines -- not blogs or forums -- feel free to take this up with me further, or proceed to the process called deletion review. You can find out more about the basic elements of Wikipedia articles by reading this article, looking at WP:Why was my article deleted?, or following any of the links in this paragraph. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

why hello there.

dear tedder/accounting4taste

i'm under the impression that one of you has deleted an article on the New South Wales band "Thy Art is Murder" which, if you could provide me a copy of, and possible a minnor list of things which need to be changed about it, i would gladly do so. the reason i am placing this on both of your talk pages is that i am rather "new" and cannot understand who has deleted the article i wrote, sorry for any hassle if you cannot help.

thank you. i hope to hear from either of you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonsmakemehappy (talk • contribs) 08:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Bob Deutsch Positono8 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

You deleted my bio page, and I think it was due to copyright infringement. In actuality, this bio info isn't copyrighted material on www.brain-sells.com, and it should be allowable on wikipedia. This entry was taken from my bio, and I had planned to add supporting articles at a later date.

Here is an article that talks about me, http://news.id.msn.com/business/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3671650, and another http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/community/columns/other-columns/e3i5fce38b22f140ce57bfffefd140bd178 

and there are more where that came from that I can share.

Let me know how I can get my page reinstated.

Thanks!

Thanks for your note. I believe I understand that you are asserting that you own the copyright to the material you posted. However, that's not the reason I deleted the page; I deleted the page because I felt it was clearly self-promotion and advertising. Describing yourself in glowing terms that you wrote yourself is in contravention of a number of Wikipedia policies, primarily including our advertising policy but also significantly infringing our conflict of interest policy, which I would urge you to review. Essentially, if you are sufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, someone else will usually step up to write it; writing it about yourself has so many neutral point of view problems that it is extremely rare for such an article to remain on Wikipedia for long. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more details.) If you believe you can negotiate our conflict of interest policy and provide a neutral assessment of your career that is based primarily on the statements of arm's-length, third-party expert sources about your notability, by all means recreate the article (the citations above would be a good place to start). If you insist on using the material from your personal website and it lasts long enough to be considered in terms of copyright violation, your simple assertion of ownership will not be enough: I would recommend that you look at the material at WP:IOWN (and this page and this one) to find out how to navigate those difficult procedures. Best of luck with your future contributions, and if you have any further questions, feel free to leave me another note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the two citations above; the first is not likely to be of any use, unless you are somehow asserting that the primary source of your notability is that you are an expert on cars, which was not evident from your autobiography. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Yeah i think that i will just make me a new account and make some new pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason2470 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

GoForth Institute delete

Hi there, I was just in the process of creating a page for GoForth Institute and it got deleted. I've just been reading online about how to make the page less like and advertisement and more encyclopedic, which is what I was in the process of trying to do. I'd like to add valuable news sources and articles to show credibility. If you could point me to any additional articles about how to avoid the advertising-look and earn a more encyclopedic-feel, I'd really appreciate it. I'm looking to adjust the page however necessary.

Please let me know if it would be at all possible to un-delete my page so that I can continue to learn what it wrong with it and how I can fix it. Please forward me to any credible sources that might teach me a little more about what is acceptable.

I'd really appreciate it!

Thanks so much, Sandra247 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Sandra247

(Is that what I needed to do with the signature? I'm new to wikipedia so I'm just trying to get a handle on how everything works.)

Hi Sandra: Thanks for your note. I'll reply on your user talk page, found at User talk:Sandra247. (And yes, that's what you needed to do with the signature: four tildes.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Accounting4Taste, Are you still able to see the page since it's been moved to Sandbox? Can you tell me if the changes I've made would make the page publishable? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra247 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Davis and Hill

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Davis_and_Hill

From what I remember I understand the need for its deletion, and I apologize for my naivety.

I understand that Davis and Hill being one of the oldest surviving traditional bronze bell foundries in England is not enough notability to warrant an article but I would be grateful if you could email or sandbox the content. If it has been archived in some way then dont go to too much effort to retrieve it - if I rememer It was not so substantial that it could not be recreated.

Many thanks in anticipation. --Danmux (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll create a page at User:Danmux/Sandbox with the deleted content for you. As you say, it was not substantial and I gather you agree with its deletion, but I'm glad to know that we'll be getting a useful article. If there's anything further with which I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Article "Urbanfrugalchic" deleted

Dear Administrator 


            Recently you have deleted an article with the title

                        Urbanfrugalchic.

Actually it gives pain to me because I have worked hard to get placed such an article on wikipedia. You have stated that no reliable source is there to support the statements in the article. Further you say that it was published with the advertising motive. 

            Sadly speaking,none of the statements are true. The www.urbanfrugalchic.com is a website containing many useful blogs.It is promoted by Cynthia Childs and Khristal Marie.Their websites given at the external links section of the article are the reliable source to ascertain that they are genuine.We find so many other similar websites listed on wikipedia (one like playboy)and it is injustice towards us if you plan not to consider our words. We therefore once again request to review your decision.
                        vijinfrugal117.204.85.82 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam: Thanks for your note. Your request to review my decision has been considered, I did review it and I decline to overturn it. Everyone concerned believes that the websites of which you speak are genuine; that's not the issue. The issue is that they are not notable according to Wikipedia's definition, found at the link in this sentence, and which is absolutely 100% required for us to have an article here. There's no evidence in the material that you have provided that says they're notable, to me or anyone else. I personally searched for any evidence that they were in the slightest bit notable and didn't find any. The topics of articles in Wikipedia have to be notable. If you try and try and try to include something that is not notable, as you've been doing, we think that you are trying to advertise that topic, particularly since you have made it quite clear that your efforts violate our conflict of interest policy. If you think you have a case to make that the topic is notable, you will not be able to convince me of that, so if I were you I wouldn't waste any further effort trying to convince me. The place you need to be doing that is WP:Deletion review, which you can access by clicking on the link in this sentence. Best of luck with your future endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive_20&oldid=1089184925"