User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 7

Zooillogix

Hola. Would you mind taking a look and telling me how the Zooillogix entry in the sandbox is shaping up in your opinion? --DeKreeft27 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What occurred to me as I was looking over the article is not something that is in any way a mistake or error. Simply, I think it's important to establish the notability as soon as possible in the article, so that it doesn't get tagged/deleted by a zealous editor/administrator like me <grin>. So I would recommend that you take the citations -- where you name the three magazines/sites in which the site has been featured, etc. -- and make them the second sentence of the article. If this doesn't seem logical to you, well, after the article has been around for a month or so, you can change everything back. You know, I kind of hate "gaming" the system this way... but as an administrator who does a lot of new page patrol, I can say that having the citations right up front would sway me and make it easier for me to leave it alone. And if the article lasts beyond a few hours, it is MUCH more likely to remain untagged, so anything you can do to further that end, I suppose, is legitimate.

I would definitely try and find as many citations as you possibly can. Three is good -- nine is better -- 24 is great. Any source with any pretension to being a reliable source that mentions the site would be useful. No blogs or forums -- those tend to weaken your case rather than strengthen it, unless the blogs themselves are really, really well known. The IgNobel connection is really good.

You might also keep a close eye on the article for an hour or two after you remount it, and use the (hangon) tag quickly if the article is tagged. You might also wait to remount it until you're sure I'm around and on-line -- I'll examine the article and tag it as having been examined, which may help. I can't defend the article for you against all other editors/admins, but I can help you bring the notability of this topic to the attention of other editors/admins with the use of the hangon tag to gain some time.

There is one more thing that you can do, although I think this would come under the heading of "if all else fails". You may want to enter this article for an articles for deletion (AfD) process (or have me do it). If the article passes AfD, I believe it would be fairly safe (it's very rare that something gets proposed for AfD twice). On the down side, if it fails AfD, it really will be gone, pretty much once and for all -- the only alternative remaining would be WP:Deletion review. So, I don't really think this is a good idea unless "all else fails".

I hope this helps. Let me know if I can help you further. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

you're the man. thanks a ton. i realize there are no gaurantees here but appreciate the strategy lesson. i will let you know when i make the updates. --DeKreeft27 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I made my updates, including an ABC News reference which I had totally forgotten about. I also deleted the origins section because I think it only undermined the creditibility of the piece. Let me know if you think any other changes would be helpful. The rest of the non-blog references I have are weak so I'm hoping 4 will cut-it. Let me know when if you are around and I'll put it up. Thanks again. --DeKreeft27 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your help. Still getting my Wiki legs here. After your initial help on the article "Michael Minns", the article was at first "toned down" by Famspear, which was minimal but fine and seemed fair, and then another editor cam along and tagged it for consideration for deletion, citing lack of a "neutral tone", and the mere fact that an article had been attempted before (?!). Sounds like once anyone doesn't like the idea of a certain subject for an article, it's not possible anymore. One is claiming the subject (Michael Minns) is not notable. I disagree. If one does a tiny bit of research online, or reads the article it becomes self-evident that he is a noteworthy figure. Richard Hatch wa s a culturally famous/infamous figure (the first Survivor winner) who lost his case. That should even the tone out without introducing a non-historic case just for that purpose...The notability issue may be the main issue, since are just not familiar with this field. I wonder if there is anything you can do to help me to get it more seriously considered. I am beginning to think that the law is just too boring a field to most editors for to really see the issue of "notatable" clearly. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughhauser (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for User:ComputerGuy890100/Userboxes/2007

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:ComputerGuy890100/Userboxes/2007. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — ComputerGuy890100 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Deletion review

Thank you Accounting4Taste. I forgive you because everyone makes mistakes and us, as Wikipedians, are supposed to fix changes in the wiki of Wikipedia. Thank you. — ComputerGuy890100 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Marilynn manson

I recently searched for marilynn manson in wikipedia and was unable to find the page without going through the search process. To make things easier for people who search for this term in the future, I created a redirect page from Marilynn manson to the correct Marilyn manson page. You deleted my redirect because it was an implausible misspelling. How is Marilynn (two n's at the end) an implausible misspelling for Marilyn (one n at the end)? I'm sure that I'm not the only person who has ever misspelled this name as such. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no real need to worry about the few bytes (not kilobytes; bytes) that this page takes up, so what is the deal here? Isn't the entire point of redirect pages to get people to what they are searching for quicker without having to go through a bundle screens to find what they want? Why was my redirect deleted? Please respond back on my talk page.

Thanks Jason Smith (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting really stuck here and a bit worried

OK, now how to deal with possible bad faith edits? The individual I was concerned about is now going around tagging a bunch of article where I have heavily contributed, and I really think admin intervention may be needed, but everything I do spreads fat on the fire. Check her contribs list, it will explain all. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. While you are at it, please watchlist hackamore. Related trouble could be brewing; an attempt to downgrade an extensive article to a disambiguation page. A tangentally related issue is a good faith terminology dispute between myself and another participant in this whole debate, which is managable by itself, but is feeding he issue a little. Montanabw^(talk) 07:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaplin Soc

Dear Accounting4Taste, I have added a reference (more to come) and explained why I believe that the article should not be deleted. I shall look forward to your reply. Thank you for your help and concern.

David Davidmillbury (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I believe that the most important thing you can do to assert the notability of the topic such that the article will be retained is to add independent, expert, third-party references that bolster the notability of the organization. The basic Wikipedia principle here is that "it's only true if you can prove it's true with references" (I'm paraphrasing). The more reliable sources, the better. I confess that I'm not entirely convinced of the notability of the topic, in that I think there are a number of such institutions at other universities in different countries that have not been found to be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, but you may be able to bolster this topic with references that will convince more people than me. So, good luck with that, and if I can be of further assistance with respect to policy, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Makeoutclub again

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Makeoutclub, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. Since you've had things to say on this article, I figured you ought to know; and there's not a template that really said this, so I'm winging it. Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the situation with this article. I wish I knew what would be the best thing to do. The article has changed a lot since last I looked at it, and I'm no longer sure if my previous comments even apply. What I'm wondering is, do you think it would be sensible to remove the prod tag and just take this directly to AfD? That would, I trust, solve the problem -- if not once and for all, at least until Deletion review. According to my cursory review of the page's history and the edit summaries, there's an individual who finds the idea that this article is here offensive, so I doubt that merely removing the prod tag would be of any long-term use. I haven't traced all the references, so I'd probably want to do that, but I'm thinking AfD might be the answer. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I do appreciate it; now I have to muster an open mind and the willingness to search the background <grin>. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Creamy Army

Hi Accounting4Taste. Would you like to join the Creamy Army WikiProject? If so send me a message and just add your name to the list of participants. The only requirements to be in this fantastic group is that you have to change your username to something with the word, "Creamy" in it. If you do join, you'll find yourself with a high ranking position within the group. All the best to you and yours. Creamy3 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your consideration. Best wishes. Creamy3 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi Accounting4Taste, forgive me if I'm not contacting you the correct way (it doesn't feel right editing your page). Can you tell me why you deleted my page? I'm credited as editor on a number of film projects that are part of Wikipedia and I wanted to include a page that credits me for a few other projects. You've deleted it for some reason. Could you let me know how I can be allowed a page that other people might find interesting. Thanks.

'Jerry Chater' "Be patient with genuine newcomers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkc (talk • contribs)

Hi there: I've left you a very complete note at User talk:Jjkc, just in case you're looking here for a response -- click on the link and you'll go there. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

This is Campbec001 just saying thanks for what you did to help me. It was very nice of you to helpme with my User:Campbec001 page. Your a lot nicer than some of the other admins who delete my page even if I add the Hangon and leave a good explanation. I guess you can tell i'm an amateur with creating pages but thanks. I hope you're the one who will edit my pages in the future. --Campbec001 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)--Campbec001 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Dear Accounting4Taste,
Recently I wrote an article about Sympac. A European Mobile Service Provider. Unhappily the page has been deleted by you because it was perceived as advertising.( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sympac )
I would like to make it really clear that it was not my intention at all to write this article in purpose of advertising! Since I'm a newbe here on Wikipedia, I tried to get to know as much as possible about the Wikipedia-policies and guidelines before start publishing. I also read comparable articles to get insight about what to write. Unhappily it seems that I have still made some mistakes.

Comparable articles which I used to get insight of how to write:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_%28mobile%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eplus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPN

To ensure an encyclopaedic level I gathered information trough a variable source of papers, like Telecompaper, Datanews, etc. I would like to use these sources as references, but I don’t know exactly how to do it when I don’t have all the sources in digital form, but hardcopy.

Now, I’ve rewritten this article. Therefore I’ve also translated a text about Sympac which has already been published on the Dutch Wikipedia-site: [1] :

“Op de Europese markt van mobiele data communicatie is de KPN dochter Sympac werkzaam. Zij richten zich op multinationals die in meerdere landen werkzaam zijn. Voor deze groep levert Sympac 1 contact, 1 contract en 1 rekening tezamen met management rapportages voor telecom managers. Hierdoor zullen multinationals controle krijgen over hun Total Cost of Ownership en worden de mobiele diensten op maat geleverd met schaalvoordelen.”

Therefore I would like to ask you whether you want to review my article can give me some advise about how to improve this article in the way it won't be deleted again.
Below here you can read the new draft.

New draft:

Sympac
Sympac is a European mobile telecommunications company, offering managed mobility services for multinational companies (MNC). As a full subsidiary of KPN, Sympac targets the multinationals who are active in various European countries. For this group, Sympac offers 1 contact, 1 contract and 1 bill together with management reports for telecom managers.
Because of this, multinationals get control over their total cost of ownership and get customized mobile services which enables to benefit of economies of scale. (translation from dutch wiki as stated above)

Sympac has been founded in 2005 because of the increasing MNC’s demand to regain control over their mobile voices, mobile internet and data communications. Sympac is a Dutch subsidiary of KPN and works closely together with the other KPN subsidiaries BASE (Belgium), E-Plus (Germany) and KPN The Netherlands. In other countries Sympac enters into subcontracts with local mobile operators.

Sympac is based in The Hague, The Netherlands (headquarter), Mechelen (Belgium), Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich (Germany), Paris (France) and London (UK).

External links:
• Sympac
• KPN
• GSM World

Categories: Companies of the Netherlands, Telecommunications in the Netherlands, Mobile phone companies, International, centralization, single sourcing

Link to deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympac

Thanks in advance, Blv81 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)blv81Blv81 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your extended feedback from last week. It's really helpful. I'll start with writing the first paragraph and will extend it with source by source.
Thanks again. Greetings,

Blv81 (talk) (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Would you like to review my article-draft which I wrote in my sandbox? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blv81/Sandbox

Do you think this is a good starting point? Regards, Blv81 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Blv81Blv81 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for making a sandbox page for me at User:Drokstef/Sandbox where the article Kord (band) it was very well re-edited by Rfwoolf. I would be delight if you'll help me to make this article ready and re-back to the original place. I don't know what could i do for recover completly the article Kord (band), how could i put this article to deletion review , but i really need some assistance for recovered as it was to beginning. Rfwoolf help me a lot, re-editing the article in my sandbox page, but now i don't know what's next, I mean, how could i take it back the article at to the original place? Thanks. —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not as sure as you are that the article is ready for deletion review. I just had a look at it and I think there are just a few more things that you'll want to take care of -- finding the name of the television station that is currently marked with a big bold "Editor's note", and getting references for the statements that are marked POV. I think you want to have the article as close to perfect as you possibly can before submitting it for deletion review -- with all the questions answered, or else the questionable statements eliminated. (By the way, I think the new lead sentence is great -- it gets notability out of the way right away.) I will look up the process for deletion review and have it ready for you when you are ready to go. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I see that you're helping the usser who first created an article about Kord (band), with process for deletion review. I've recreated few weeks ago another article about this band, which a like a lot ('cause i went at some of their concerts and they are really cool), but it was deleted. Today i found this sandbox User:Drokstef/Sandbox and i added some othere great references. Hope it's helpful for article becoming ready for deletion review. I'm glad to be a wikipedian and help some articles with good references.Lukassandi (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Why did you delete my Derek Brennan page i'm new and it was a good page and i believe in dereks' music so dont delete my beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedyer (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

page Deletion for not Indicating Significance

A page that I added was deleted for not indicating significance. I am able to provide several additional sources for the article on Spinwave Systems and indicate the significance of the entry. I'm requesting that the page be undeleted, or that I be able to re-enter the page. I can provide a draft of the expanded article if re-submitting it is a possibility. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinwave_Systems Sensor123 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding Signature Sensor 123] comment added by Sensor123 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi accounting for taste, I wrote an article on lauterbacher beer.I came to write it because I viewed the Lauterbach,Hesse page wanting to find out about the beer.All I got was its the oldest there and was made in 1527.Thats when I felt there should be an article on it.I found out information finished my article and was about to save the page when it said provide credentials or resources I believe.So I posted the link to the website I got most my info from and it is in german so I posted another link to where it can be translated.And I gave the breweries address.I was not at all trying to advertise a product just simply inform of the history about it in this significant little town.I am new to wikipedia and I am from lauterbach,hesse.I was just wondering where I went wrong? and How I can rewrite my article.And ye sthis was my first article.

heres a link to the deleted page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauterbacher_beer&action=edit&redlink=1

thank you. Sair8692 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Campbec001

Accounting4taste please look at Sorry on jpgordon talk page. It has the truth about what really happened and also the only times it was me was when I wrote that page on Ian Campbell and my userpage. I did not write that Tonywalton note. That was one of my moronic friends doing that. If you could think about unblocking me it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.77.148 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Makeoutclub Again Again

Hello,

Since you've been involved with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makeoutclub Makeoutclub.com wiki entry in the past, I am hoping you might be able to help now.

The page was created and removed from speedy deletion in September of 2007. It has since been edited and added upon by another wiki user (Drhamad) to include more information. Those additions lasted a little more than a month before being heavily edited and marked for deletion. From what I could see, drhamad's additions were all cited.

Any assistance is much appreciated. Exdeligate (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Mike Matas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mike Matas. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Henriok (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Angels Eyes page deletion

Hi there,

I recently wrote an article about a product called Angels Eyes, a tear staining formula for dogs and cats, which you deleted- stating that it was blantant advertising.

I live in the UK and this product has been banned by Defra and hence as such is not available for purchase, thus there would be no incentive for me to advertise such a product.

I wrote the article because there is nothing in wikipedia that mentions the relationship between tear stains and Angels Eyes active ingredient (tylosin- an antibiotic)). Indeed at the point of writing there is no entry for tylosin either.

My aim was to inform others about how the product works. This is something that the makers do not do. I also mentioned a product that is almost identical (Angels Glow)and in direct competition with Angels Eyes. Since Angels eyes was banned I have seen a growing body of misinformation and had hoped to address this.

As a newbie this was my first posting, I am happy to accept criticism about my style of writing but resent the implication that I was advertising.

I had assumed that Wikipedia worked by someone posting an article and that the said article was then available for editing by others. If I broke any protocols then I apologise, it was not intentional.

My concern is that many dogs are being denied the opportunity to use these products because of unfounded fears and that they might end up having unnessessary surgery.

Your help/advice is appreciated.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginarynumber (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantum-Touch article for deletion

Hi there,

Here is the page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum-Touch&oldid=118127366

It seems there have been several edits to this page that have seriously damaged it's core material. I would like to revert those edits back to the version of March 26, 2007 23:20 edit by Trane Francks.

However the page is now locked and I am unable to restore the page to what had successfully passed the previous article for deletion review. I can not bear the thought of having to input all that data and links again to save this article. Quantum-touch is gaining momentum as an effective technique in energy healing with certified practitioners and instructors all over the world. Seems there are some people determined to interfere with people looking for good information on Quantum-touch.

Can you please help?

Once the page is duly restored we really need to have it protected to prevent any further damage to it's content.

Please note:

81.255.42.139 has done a lot of damage to the page, ScienceApologist has also done considerable damage with a clear agenda to destroy the article. Itsmejudith another person who also clearly has an agenda to destroy the article 207.61.239.170 has also done a lot of damage which a smackbot fortunately has found.

I thank-you so very much for any assistance you can afford. Angelbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelbum (talk • contribs) 06:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting it back to the previous state!! How do we go about protecting it now from further badfaith edits?--Angelbum (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, so I put in the search Quantum-Touch and the sabotaged article still shows up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum-Touch . Did I not give you the right link before? If so I apologize. I'm just trying to save this article before it's too late. Angelbum (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you selected me for the above notes; I have never edited this article, let alone anything like "reverting it back to the previous state", according to my reading of the edit history. Judging by the content, this is not an article I would agree with retaining in Wikipedia; in a general sense, I agree with User:ScienceApologist. I would not be in favour of bringing this article back in any form. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Emerging conflict

Hi Accounting4Taste, Good to see you're still around. I'm currently faced with an emerging conflict and could use a little help to keep things from getting worse. The situation started on the 20th of March when User:Cygnis insignis decided to edits two articles: Antaresia childreni‎ and Antaresia. He's hadn't worked on the Pythonidae articles before and it looks like he doesn't understand and/or appreciate a number of things about how the status quo. I couldn't agree with many of those edits, which contained some obvious mistakes, so I reverted most of them, moved some data around and left him an explanation. Unfortunately, he didn't agree with me at all and demanded that his edits be restored. I tried explaining again, but it seems he simply disagrees. He's now become quite impolite. That's a shame, because I didn't know that he had, in fact, created a new article that isn't that bad: Morelia spilota imbricata. Therefore, I'd rather not chase him off, but at the same time I sure do wish he'd be a little more polite and cooperative. He's also insists on making some pretty obvious mistakes involving taxonomy and references. Got any ideas? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- I've been taking an extended wikibreak. I'm not sure how to help in this situation, except to say that if the individual needs to be pointed to various policies, I could do that for you. My experience tells me that, in most cases, users like this get their edges rubbed off and start to work more cooperatively. And, of course, it's always good to have citations that back you up when you're correcting mistakes. Let me know if there's something specific you want me to look at. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Policies? Well, of course! :-) Um, which ones would those be? (I'm terrible at this stuff). As for the corrections, mostly it's just obvious things like repeating information already found elsewhere, or adding information that should be added to other articles. But, he also ignores the formatting on multiple levels and even questions the taxonomy used (for which I always include references). I think most of his problems stem from inexperience and the fact that he seems to be taking his only book on the subject a little too seriously. --Jwinius (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that I would be happy to talk with the individual about any policies s/he was infringing upon, if I could know what they are. For instance, if you have references to the pages where the formatting is discussed, and you wanted me to bring those pages to the individual's attention. I'm sorry not to be more helpful. The trouble is, this doesn't sound like the situation of someone who is an out-and-out vandal, which has clear-cut solutions. Inexperienced editors who insist on their own point of view... um, well, we'd be hard-pressed to find any page without one of those. Maybe just keep cleaning up after him/her -- I do recommend trying to catch more flies with honey than vinegar -- after all, if you work to bring an interesting citation into line with the article, that's showing respect for his contribution. Et cetera. If you can think of something specific you want done, I'll definitely look at it. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

After considering your take on the situation, I think I was overreacting. It's probably better if I just ignore him and then fix things up after he loses interest. Thanks for your support! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That approach has certainly worked for me in the past, and I do recommend it. An experienced editor like yourself sometimes has to merely hold tight as the rush of enthusiasm experienced by a newbie rises and falls, and s/he realizes that in order to be a useful and valued contributor they have to work with others. I found it a rather galling experience the first time I did it, but it actually paid off in better articles and an editor who was working for the long view rather than the short term, after a couple of weeks of back-and-forth while the edges rubbed off. I hope you do think I am supportive -- if there's something I can do to help you with this, please do feel free to use me as a resource, because I will actually DO things if it seems warranted, as you know <grin>. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very happy with your support. I think it's a question of keeping things in perspective, which I often forget. I used to play a lot of Go, a board game in which you must not focus too much on local skirmishes, because it is the overall battle and strategy that is more important. This situation is similar: in the past two years very many snake articles have come a very long way, so I should not get upset about a few that are only temporarily not doing as well. They're rather obscure anyway. In another year or so, the editor in question will either have left or have mellowed, after which maybe things can be fixed. If things really start to get out of hand, I'll be sure to let you know, but otherwise for now I'm just going to ignore whatever he works on. Thanks!

Unfortunately, it looks like ignoring him may not work. --Jwinius (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by what I see, I tend to agree. I have to say that I don't think I could possibly be neutral in this situation -- you and I have worked so closely in the past that I couldn't be seen as being impartial (that and the fact that I feel my scientific knowledge is not up to the standard required to make intelligent comment, plus I think I've already judged you to be right <grin>). I think I have to suggest a process that I have found useful in the past: Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your situation seems to be qualify since it's between two individual editors, you've made an attempt to resolve the situation on talk pages, and it's not working. I don't think either of you is going to "win" here, but the situation may be sufficiently sorted by the 3O process to let you both continue working peaceably. In my experience, the 3O folks are very fair in their assessments. Let me know what you think of this recommendation or if there is something further you'd like to consider, or like me to consider, or like my help with. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but first I'm going to get some sleep. Thanks for your support and I'll be sure to let you know how things go! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading about the Third opinion, I decided Wikiquette alerts would be a better choice, since this dispute does not involve a single article. My entry is posted here. I hope I've made the right decision, but otherwise I guess there's no harm done. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ready to go (think so)

Hey, i just checked my sandbox User:Drokstef/Sandbox and i've noticed that someone add some new references about my article. I've notice the new reference to a youtube video and i saw that reference it is in the wrong format. So, can you help me to improve my sanbox and put this new reference in a good format, please? And another question for you if you can help me with this too, when can i put the article in the original place? I mean, now can we put the page to deletion review because i see there are some new good improvements, six good references and some other stuff? You know better than me what's next for this article, so if i'm not asking to much, i'd really need your help, your advice/assistence. Thanks again Drokstef (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page of the sandbox page itself. Let me know if you have more questions. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to avoid legal trouble...pls delete the discussion page info.

Can you help me?...I wrote an entry on m1cha*el m*nns. It was deleted, which is fine. I already renamed my account, but the discussion page created from the deletion "proceedings" drew the attention of someone representing the subject, who is after all an attorney, and I would now like to get the discussion page deleted before I get sued over this ridiculous thing...thank you. Roughhauser (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Minns, I can't help you -- no one can help you except a bureaucrat, and frankly I wouldn't even know how to find one for you. You should probably be aware that everything you write on Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia. Even if you delete something -- like, for instance, the contents of a discussion page in my archives -- it's still there for anyone to see in the edit history, if they care to look it up. It's only hidden, it's not gone. The contents of a discussion at "Articles for deletion" are SUPPOSED to remain in place to make it unnecessary to have the same discussion twice. Making it disappear and not be available for people to see if they choose to look it up is something only a bureaucrat can do. If I have misunderstood what you wanted to have happen, let me know -- a link to exactly what it is that you want to be deleted would be very helpful, because I'm just guessing at what you want. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

'Kipedia

It's not a typo - It's a slang name for Wikipedia. In any case I am recreating the redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your having recreated this redirect, your assertion is good enough for me -- I'm just curious about what possible citation you have for its meaning. I did a brief Google search and my reading would be that it's an erroneous back-formation for people who mean the suffix to stand for the prefix "wiki", or a joke. Have I not searched thoroughly enough? Accounting4Taste:talk 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernadette Colognne

Thank you for the kind words in my talk page. I wrote to the creator of the "Bernadette Colognne" article extending my hand in help, however said person did not respond. Since he/she did not respond I will not object to its deletion (and I know that you didn't have anything to do with it). I always tell everybody that whenever the claim a subject to be notable enough to have an article in Wiki, they "must" provide a reliable verifiable source as required by policy or otherwise face the consequences of a removal or deletion. I'm glad that there are people like you in Wiki, looking out for the integrity of our project. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WVIK TV: why delete?

Why did you deleate my WVIK TV page? Im really confused by all of this. nothing there is illegal, or plagerized, and I am having a hard time reading the HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of pages on what is acceptbale for my page. could you clarify? that would be great thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headtechie2006 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that information about this has actually been offered to you on your talk page (found at User talk:Headtechie2006) but I will try to put it to you in simpler terms. No one thinks that anything you wrote was illegal or plagiarized. Essentially, your page was deleted because a ten-minute high-school TV programme is not considered sufficiently notable to be the topic of an article in Wikipedia. If you only want to read one page that will help you understand what that means, try Wikipedia:Why was my article deleted?. Unless you have some amazing source of expert opinion that asserts the notability of your programme that you have somehow neglected to offer thus far, the article will almost certainly be deleted on sight. When Time magazine does an article about your TV station, or it gets the equivalent amount of attention in national-level media, try reposting the article again. If you want to publicize the existence of your television programme, I recommend MySpace or some other form of social networking site. If you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, you can leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WVIK TV: I think Ive got it

Ok, so, WVIK TV is not just a 10 minute program at my high school. We also compete in a national convention, in which we won 1st place in one compition. does that maybe make WVIK notible?--Headtechie2006 (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I very, very strongly doubt it. The best advice I can offer you is that you should try to put your efforts into publicizing your group's efforts in another way, possibly by using MySpace or its equivalent. There is the strong possibility that your work here will be deleted. (I'm sorry if this seems impolite but you did ask me to be clear.) Accounting4Taste:talk 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now ok, we have a facebook page. But, one of our "affiliate" high school stations, CHSTV, has a page. please be as stright forward as you need to be.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The CHSTV article mentions that that programme has won four national awards. In general, each article here is considered on its own merits -- you can read the policy at WP:WAX for details, but "they have a page so why can't we have a page" is not considered a valid argument here. Speaking entirely personally, I can't see the utility of the page at CHSTV either. The only things that I think you could add to an article about your programme that would make it eligible for retention would be (a) some sort of national-level award given out by an arm's-length third-party organization with expertise in that area, or (b) evidence that a national-level publication (or television programme, etc.) has stated that your programme has excellence. If you think the award you've won is sufficiently noteworthy, and you feel like rolling the dice, go ahead -- I won't be keeping an eye on your page and won't be involved in deleting it. But I must warn you that the number of deletions you have accumulated in the last while makes it very possible that someone will "salt" the page next time -- in other words, the deleting administrator may make it impossible for anyone to ever have a page called WVIK TV -- or that someone will take the page through an articles for deletion process that will have the same effect. That's the chance you take if you want to try recreating your page. Personally, I think the information would legitimately form part of an article about your high school, and I would support your adding the information to such an article -- but as I think I've made clear, I don't agree with you that your programme is sufficiently notable to be the subject of its own article. If you have any further questions about policy, feel free to leave me another note. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. well I understand that CHSTV has won lots of awards. But, as I stated, we have won, and I quote, "some sort of national-level award given out by an arm's-length third-party organization with expertise in that area". The Student Television Network is one of the only high school television networks in the world, with affiliates from different countries and from most of the 50 states. So what you are saying is that I can publish all my infoon WVIK TV on my high school's page, and than when I/we get enough "notabilaty" WVIK TV can move to its own page? Right at this point, I am rather dissapointed with the entire Wikipedia prosses and site. But that is not a problem to take up with you.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'd care to work towards changing any policy by which you feel aggrieved, you would be very welcome and I'd be happy to guide you to the appropriate place to do that work. I still think there is a place for this information within an article about your high school and, if you're determined to have this information within Wikipedia, that's where I recommend it be added. If I can be of any further assistance, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

in responce to you saying "Speaking entirely personally, I can't see the utility of the page at CHSTV either." what does it really matter if it has utility. I could understand if Wikipedia was going to make print encylopedia, than i could see if you said, well we only have 1000 pages so we have to put only important things into it. But the glory of the internet, and new age technology is that the possibilities are endless. So, to be honast, i must 300% disagre with what you just said, and that is an insult to every single little page, that is not something that would be printed in Britanica. If you want to judge what articles are to be deleated based on how pertenant the article is to the the general populus, than I think you may want to tell all of the billions of wikipedia viewers that you will cut 3/4s of the now 10 million articles. aalong with that, dont offer differnt languages. becasue ive got news for you, that isnt pertenant to the general population. I am willing to bet that that is not something that wikipedia would be willing to do, becasue that isnt what wikipedia is about.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mink Mucker

I removed your prod from this article, it had already been prodded by me, but the prod was removed by the author. It's now at AfD. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy on external links in article

Hi Accounting4Taste. I haven't been able to locate the policy on links, would you please check the embedded links on this page: Anne_S._K._Brown_Military_Collection. The author is reverting the wikification I started but it doesn't seem right to me. Thanks. Jb0007 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Toni Garrin

I would have appreciated you at least discussing this deletion with me prior to dismissing it from Wikipedia. I believe that Garrin is noteworthy because she is one of only a few German models who is noteable in the fashion industry. She is young, yes, but she is currently the subject of a headline feature at http:www.vogue.de, not to mention her important campaign for Calvin Klein which is ongoing. I was also going to add from other sources to what I have already written about her. Your hastiness in deleting potentially noteworthy biographies is not in the best interest of Wikipedia and its editors like myself. Robert--Robert (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing -- our opinions differ, especially with respect to the meaning of the word "important". If there's something you'd like me to do, feel free to leave me a note. I'd also ask that you look up the policy about assuming good faith. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

I have been working with a couple of admins on my article for Zachary Jaydon. They have helped me to edit the article, as well as giving me the thumbs up on satisfying the issues in the last AfD. I have several magazine sources that I was intending to add today on the subject. I also satisfied all of the previous admins concerns in the AfD by citing reliable, independent sources including ASCAP for verification that he is indeed a notable individual. I am asking that you undelete the article and allow me to have a new AfD discussion in the meantime so that I may explain my side and have a few days to finish citing sources. I took out a lot of information that didn't have sufficient sourcing by Wiki standards. Thank you for your time. It's much appreciated. Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just restored it and will look forward to seeing this listed at AfD in the very near future, unless you feel it would be more appropriately listed at Deletion review. If there's something further with which I can be of assistance, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure exactly how to go about doing either, or if it needs to be reviewed at all. I spent a lot of time sourcing, and doing what was asked, so again, I'm not sure. As I said before, I'm going to be adding magazine sources in the next day or two, so that will help solidify the article (at least from a sourcing standpoint) even more. I am absolutely giving you good faith credit, and asking for any advice or opinions you may have. I will check back here to read them. Thank you for your help. Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be reviewed either by AfD or Deletion review, I believe, or else it will continue to be deleted as a recreation of an article that was deleted as the result of an AfD (Articles for Deletion) process, which is a speedy deletion category -- and that was the reason I deleted it. You might want to add the (underconstruction) tag to it and give an explanation on the talk page of what you've said above. If you want me to take it to AfD on your behalf, neutrally and without expressing an opinion, I'll be happy to do that. If you want me to take it to Deletion review on your behalf -- well, I've never done that, but I'm willing to find out how and try. Let me know your wishes. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could take it to AfD review for me, that would be fantastic. Honestly, what do you think of the article? The other admins I have been working with are happy with my sourcing etc. I just wanted another opinion. Also, could you put the under construction tag on it, and I will add my explanation tonight. I'm not sure how to do it. If you do think that it's well written and well sourced, it would be nice if you would defend my article, but I don't know if that's a fair request or not. As I said before, I will be adding more sourcing from magazines in the next day or two, so it will be even more solid then. Thank you so much for your help. Skyler Morgan (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it tagged for speedy, so I declined it and sent to AfD, per this discussion. I saw you had deleted it and restored it earlier today. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zachary Jaydon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zachary Jaydon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (2nd nomination). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Protrom Medical

This page is not by any means a way of advertising. I am just trying to post Protrom Medical's Information because I saw them present and I believe that they are a very important company for the future of this country in the medical industry. Would you please stop deleting the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithmoney (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough, Michael Smith is a founder of the company and Smithmoney (talk • contribs) has created that article 7 times now. Gee, wonder if that's a coincidence. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL No, no, I'm suuuuuuuure it's a coincidence. Not that I had any plans to stop deleting the page; the only reason it's still in my mind is because I'm wondering why I can't get page protection to work properly. Had I been able to make it work, it wouldn't have been recreated 7 times. Thanks for your assistance with this, and if it comes to your attention again, and you need anything from me, you have but to ask. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Arura

Thank you for heeding my article entitled "Arura" and for giving an explanation why it is not (yet) relevant to Wikipedia. If such a thing is possible, I wish the name would be kept for future reference, as it is a planned project in progress. Keep on maintaining peace and order on Wikipedia so it can be the informative site we all love! Edghyatt 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Pet_.28Patrick.29_van_de_Luijtgaarden

A left a new comment at a translation request you issued, and tagged the article for removal par G11/A7. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete

Casey Owens (marine), which, while a contribution by a blocked user, was a alid article. Please relpy at my talk page. Editorofthewiki 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, paste it into my sandbox. PS I will also be away this weekend. (Not that you need to know that.) Editorofthewiki 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for recreating. I personally hate that criterion for speedy deletion as it could be deleted under another reason. In this case, the subject was clearly notable and the user was acting in good faith although he was a sockpuppet. Editorofthewiki 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have another example for you: take Robert Young aka User:Ryoung122. He contributed for years on Supercentenarian-related articles and was banned after causing loads of disruption a few months ago. I'd say we still have 80+% of his articles created, the rest deleted via AFD. We also have User:Kitia, who also contributed for years on supercentenarians and other things and was blocked indefinably for sockpuppetteering. Clearly this is not a one in a thousand case and I'm sure there's more. I can't see why this would be a punishment for a block as, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.

Therefore, I think that revoking that criterion is best for Wikipedia. If banned users had created a vanity page or advertising etc. then they could be deleted as such but pages should not be deleted simply because the author of the article is banned. Editorofthewiki 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cicorp

Thanks for the comment, I always try and assume good faith, especially when a new user is trying to jump right in. I remember those newbie days, myself.

I guess all we can do is try and get them to slow down long enough to listen, but it doesn't seem to be working here. Redrocket (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello!! Sorry if i did something wrong but ia a very new user.Yes the article is a hoax, someone is trying to saw off i guess by saying that he is a great player.I know that it is not something very big but as a wikipedia fan for years i don't like such things.That user badly edited some other pages as well(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Kuyt) for example.This is a page of a famoul football player and is a big deal i think. Djibril783 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there: Thanks for your note, and I hope I wasn't too hard on you -- I certainly hope to have made up for it by making the deletion happen the way you wanted it. I've left much more information on your talk page at User talk:Djibril783 but one thing -- if you see that this user has made any other bad edits, could you please fix them? I don't know anything about football so I can't tell if the user is being helpful or not. If you need any help with anything at all, just let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of HP SPaM

To whom it may concern,

The HP SPaM article that I created has been tagged for speedily deleted from Wikipedia because it is considered as Patent Nonsense, providing no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

The article itself talks about an internal consulting group that is well-known within Operations Research / Management Science community. Wikipedia is the right forum to allow practitioners in other fields to learn of its existence and roles in corporation, in addition to HP Labs where we have been collaborating with them regularly. Similar groups in other companies have also been recognized and featured in magazine/article.

The article is not yet complete with remaining content to be contributed by others in the spirits of Wikipedia. So I do not see how the article is classified as having no meaningful content, especially when it is at its early stage. I'd therefore like to request that the article be carefully reviewed for undeletion.

Best Regards, Apiruk.d (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you know what to do -- submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and put your money where your mouth is. I have another expression for you -- action talks, bullshit walks. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting the article. We will be providing citations as well as sample publications that confirm our existence/relevance within HP and Operations Research community shortly. Apiruk.d (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue

I am not a vandal. Is it possible that some of the other editors out there not only have the ability to read, but that they actually exercise this skill before throwing around accusations of vandalism? Please read this sequence of posts:

HP SPaM

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at what you're reverting. This article is a nonsense article created by a vandal, and I was just calling a spade a spade. Who's the vandal, the guy who does the graffiti or the guy who washes it off the wall? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum. It is a very well done spoof, but on reading more than the first part it becomes obvious that it is a put-on.

Blanking the article is really not the right solution here, since that tends to look like vandalism at first glance (and why I bit you by mistake here). The thing to do is either request speedy deletion by putting a {{db-nonsense}} tag on the front of the article, or by proposing deletion of the article with a {{prod}} tag and a description. This article is perhaps a little large for easy consumption as nonsense, so I'll try for prod and nonsense both. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the content of the discussions that preceded my edits. One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page. How petty can you get? Talk about avoiding the real issues. Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense". I will give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal. But everyone is calling me a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti. Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal? I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record

The comment below is the one that supposedly constituted a personal attack.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. I am no vandal. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody explain this to me? I may come across as harsh, but why should I not be when I have been falsely accused of vandalism? All I do is make a terse suggestion that the editor do some more investigation before accusing another of vandalism. This is a "personal attack"? What is going on here? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

HP SPaM -independent notability?

I have to go offline for a bit now but I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at Talk:HP_SPaM#This_should_be_merged_to_Hewlett_Packard_at_most and would appreciate any comments you might have. What is at issue isn't that it exists, but its notability independent of Hewlett Packard. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. No there's nothing I wanted you to do, I was just after your opinion.:) I agree it's not badly written (in parts) and a mention of it should probably be merged. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Le Grand Bleu (yacht)

Why did you delete Talk:Le Grand Bleu (yacht)? -- Zsero (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This is all because of a bit of vandalism by a new account, Klejas, who moved the article to some Polish name for no apparent reason. I moved it back, and tagged the Polish page for CSD. I think you must have been responding to that CSD and accidentally deleted the right page but the wrong talk page. Anyway, all's well that ends well. -- Zsero (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Bodies Don't Drown clothing

I guess DBDD is still not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacstewie (talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you guess correctly. Naming the bands that the company sponsors is completely irrelevant. What would matter is establishing (by reference to third-party arm's-length expert sources) that the company's operations -- its product or the way in which it does business -- are superior/unusual/highly respected, and there was nothing in that article to indicate that anyone held that opinion other than people connected with the company. If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Chaldean and his anti syriacs campaign

Hi, user:Chaldean keeps vandalize articles, that not suits him. For example: [[2]]. He first blanked the page then he blanked it again after revert from admin HalfShadow . He runs an assyrian propaganda and thinks that all people are assyrians. the syriacs are an ethnic group with different history, langague, culture etc. The history of the syriac people is way different with the history of the assyrian people. he removes population numbers like this one [[3]] beacuse he thinks that the source is not realiable. instead of that, he could just place a tag. he also removed in article Aramaic language links and informatoin who speaks the aramean language > [[4]]. In the article the sentence were Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by numerous, scattered communities, most significantly by Assyrians, Syriacs, and Chaldeans. That sentence was written for a long time until Chaldean came with his assyrian propaganda and removed Syriacs, and Chaldeans from that sentence because it does not fit him. There are more syriacs than assyrians that talks the language neo aramaic, but user Chaldean does not care about that. He also made a threat against me, to bring in a person that could "blow up" the article Syriac people > [[5]]. He thinks that all people are assyrians and chainging what the sources says. Look at this edit [[6]]. The source said 18.500 assyrians. but user Chaldean thinks that also iraqi christians are assyrians. The iraqi christians is iraqis and christians, not assyrians. He also removed the "3RR" template in his discussion, maybe he wants to hide the proof that he are breaking the three-revert rule [[7]]. How can we stop this assyrian propaganda? VegardNorman (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have brought this issue to a page where it will be examined by a number of administrators, I think it's inappropriate to try to enlist my support on your "side" after doing that. I have replied there, have no interest in this issue, have never encountered any of the participants, and shall have no further comment. Good luck with resolving this issue. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, the policy you may wish to re-read is found at Wikipedia:Canvassing. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)