User talk:Cj aba

Welcome!

Hello, Cj aba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ABALogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ABALogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation, by Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited Business Accountant

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Accredited Business Accountant, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Accredited Business Accountant fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Possible copyvio; All information provided by the Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation (ACAT)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Accredited Business Accountant, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is like the present one, it may still be deletable as spam (advertising or public relations ) even with permission. Usually it is better to rewrite the material. In addition, it must have some sources from some outside third party reputable publication to show that it's important. DGG (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your question

In reply to your question, even if you had permission to post the material, it's very promotional in tone. We don't permit article material to be promotional, as we require all articles to be written in a neutral tone, and mainly from material published in reliable sources independent of the article's subject. If a significant amount of such source material does exist, it's entirely possible an article on the subject would be appropriate if neutrally written. If not, the subject is probably not an appropriate one for an article. If you need any further clarification or have any more questions, please ask away! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may jump in here, ACAT was deleted because of copyright infringement. ABA was deleted because of copyright violation. Even if you had permission from ACAT and ABA, the article still would be deleted because Wikipedia:Notability requires that the source material be independent of the subject. Material received from ACAT for the ACAT article is not independent of ACAT. References to already exisiting Wikipedia source articles in the ACAT do not count because either the material you cite to is not itself referenced or if it is referenced, you can just copy the footnote for that source article material and use it in the ACAT article. The ACAT and ABA articles should be built from newspaper articles, books and other reliable sources that are independent of ACAT and ABA. A difference between the CPA article and ACAT and ABA may be that the CPA can be improved with reliable sources that are independent of CPA. Wikipedia is an unfinished project and CPA is part of that unfinished project. Please feel free to improve the CPA article with reliable source material.

As for an independent source example to follow:

In 1992, the Institute of Certified Practitioners established the designation CPTx (Certified Practitioner of Taxation) to represent educational and practice standards for tax practitioner despite the existence of the Accreditation Council for Accountancy & Taxation (ACAT), which offers the designations, Accredited Tax Pre-parer and Accredited Tax Advisor.^[1]

^ Scott, Robert W. (December 7, 1992) Accounting Today. Upstart group scraps with IRS on 'CPTx.' (Institute of Certified Practitioners considering challenge to Internal Revenue Service ruling disallowing tax preparers' use of 'Certified Practitioner of Taxation' title). Volume 6; Issue 23; Page 2.

Note how the ACAT information was taken from Accounting Today. Accounting Today is independent from Accreditation Council for Accountancy & Taxation. Also note how I footnoted that one sentence so others can verify the material by going to the December 7, 1992 Accounting Today magazine issue and looking on page 2 of that issue. Some others that may be independent

Pate, Donald B. (July 1998) National Public Accountant. Accreditation--what is it? How can you use it to enhance your practice? Volume 43; Issue 5; Page 10.
National Public Accountant. (January 1999) The Uniform Accountancy Act and the Uniform Accountancy Act rules. Volume 44; Issue 1; Page 1.
Kolar, Otto M. (March 1999) National Public Accountant. Why should I pursue accreditation? Volume 44; Issue 2; Page 23.
The Competency Factor; Or, If We're So Smart, How Do We Prove It?
Statement of Robert L. Cross, Chairman, Right to Practice Committee, National Society of Accountants Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means, July 20, 2005

If you build the ACAT article from the above six sources, footnoting each sentence in the ACAT article and not using any information taken directly from the ACAT organization, the Wikipedia ACAT article might survive deletion. - Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jreferee. I will re-write the article using the example you have provided above. I have one more aspect that needs clarification. What is the best way to make the necessary comparison/contrast between the CPA and ABA without sounding promotional? The principal thing here is to ensure that readers also know the difference in designations denoting state licensure (e.g., CPA, PA, RPA, etc.) and designations granted by non-governmental organizations (e.g., CMA, ABA, etc.) so that the reader would not confuse a state-licensed accountant with a non state-licensed accountant. The differences are covered in a few areas of practice (tax and audit) but are very significant. Again, thank you so much for the excellent feedback!! --06:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)~cj_aba 17/July 07

I'm glad I could help. I started a draft article in your user space here.. After you worked on the draft article a bit, contact me here to take a look at it. The way to construct (not write) the ACAT article is to compile all your reliable source material into one Microsoft word document, construct sentences from each source, footnote that sentence, and then add that one footnoted sentence to your Wikipedia ACAT article. Keep doing that until you exhausted all of your reliable source material. Then, if needed, go looking for more reliable source material. That is how I wrote Serge Voronoff and it shows by the jumbed nature of the footnotes. You can check out some of my other articles at User:Jreferee/Contributions. A comparison/contrast between the CPA and ABA would be difficult without using reliable sources and probably can be done in one or two sentences. (Is there a reason you want to give publicity to the CPA in the ACAT article?) Also, you may want to check on the ACAT's trademarks. A search at US trademark search shows some of them are no longer registered but ACAT still uses that little circle "R" in its logo. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee's given you some great advice, I don't think I really have anything to add to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Scott, Robert W. (December 7, 1992) Accounting Today. Upstart group scraps with IRS on 'CPTx.' (Institute of Certified Practitioners considering challenge to Internal Revenue Service ruling disallowing tax preparers' use of 'Certified Practitioner of Taxation' title). Volume 6; Issue 23; Page 2.

[1]