Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ice Blues and other Don Strachey movies airing on Canadian TV

Which Canadian pay station did Ice Blues (and On the Other Hand, Death) air on? I have been trying to find out for some time. Up until now, I assumed it was OutTV, but if you meant that you order OutTV as a standalone when you meant it was a "pay" channel, that might jibe with what I've heard about it. Is that what you meant? If not, which other Canadian pay channel airs the Strachey films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoaffectional (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't subscribe to OutTV; I know what it is, I just find it a bit expensive. This was SuperChannel -- here in Vancouver, channels 161 through 164 -- which is a "movie channel" that I believe originates in eastern Canada. I have recorded copies of both films. Perhaps you might want to send me an e-mail about this topic. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to e-mail you, but I couldn't find your e-mail address on your user page. What is it? Homoaffectional (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I very much look forward to it. I'll be sure to e-mail you with feedback and such and we can discuss which one was our respective favorites, etc., etc., etc. Homoaffectional (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

About the article varalaxmi

I have put reliable sources on it, does it still have to be deleted? Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you for explaining. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

```` Sir, I am trying to write a very useful article related to teaching, because it is not on wiki. but i am not used to. so, i wanted to see how it looks like after writing a few line. i saved the page. then, started writing again, but in the meanwhile it was deleted. Please restore it. In 24 hours i will expand it and it would be as best as i can. ````

Thanks for your note. Since the entire article consisted of one sentence, I suggest that it will not be too much of a strain for you to recreate it at some future point, and I'd rather not recreate the sentence since (a) I have no guarantee that you will indeed be back to complete an article, and (b) someone else would delete it within an hour for the same reason. My advice would be that you recreate the article in a "sandbox" page -- that will allow you to work on adding the crucial references that must be present. If you'd like help in creating a sandbox page, let me know -- and if you sign your note with four tildes -- ~~~~, or the shifted key to the immediate left of the digit 1 on a standard Western keyboard -- it will make it easy for me to do that for you. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Madhukar (author)

Responding to the user's helpme request - does WP:CSD#G4 really apply here? The AFD mainly addressed lack of references, which were provided in the recreation. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a careful look at the deleted material and the five references that were provided. The first two were references to the author's own work, which I can't really accept as a reliable source, and as near as I can tell the final three don't actually refer to the author or his work, but rather discuss the same topic that the author seemingly discusses. (Which is rather like saying, "I wrote about relativity and so did Einstein, and since he is notable that makes me notable too.") However, I am entirely willing to believe that I have made a mistake here. My suggestion would be to take the issue to deletion review, but if I have jumped to an erroneous conclusion, I am happy to revisit it if you want to avoid that step. My understanding is that since the AfD was only about four days ago that deletion review would have been the logical first step -- I confess it seemed to me to be a bit saucy to merely repost the article so soon after it had been AfD'd, but that's not necessarily a valid reason for anything in particular. How would you like to proceed? I'm at your service, although I may be offline much of the next 24 hours -- if you or someone else cares to overrule me, I am totally okay with that. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What if we userfy it and let them work with it for a bit? (I would be willing to bet the reposting wasn't sauciness, but simply misunderstanding of custom) –xeno (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion; thank you, that's very suitable. Would you mind awfully handling the details? I must go offline somewhat urgently and cannot be around to handle the details, possibly for as much as a day, but I want to thank you for your efforts here and make my apologies if I've caused you a lot of extra work. (I protected the page, as you're probably aware; feel free to un-protect it and do anything else that you think is appropriate here.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall do. cheers, –xeno (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Madhukar (author) deleted

Hello, the article Madhukar (author) was deleted some days ago because of the references. So I wrote a new one with references and third party sources, but i was immidiately deleted again. For now i don´t understand why. Of course, the new article was based on the old one, but I added lots of new aspects and footnotes to make it more clear and transparent. Should i have discussed the new article at the disussion page first? Is this the reason for the speed deletion? Concerning the content and the notability of the article, i can´t see any reason. So I´m really thankful for your advice and your help and I m looking forwards to your response. Syb (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Syb, see the above discussion. We're going to put the article into your userspace to allow you to work with it, massage it, find some more reliable and appropriate sources and then we can see if it can be moved back into the mainspace. –xeno (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Madhukar, take 2

A4T, can you take a look at the improved and hopefully more reliably sourced article at User:Syb and tell me your thoughts as to its re-integration into the mainspace? –xeno (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I appreciate your courtesy in asking me to take a look at the article. I would certainly have no problem with its re-mounting, but I want to mention that, specifically, references 6 and 7 seem to me to be original research by synthesis. They seem to be what I call "oak tree" references -- "I shot a bear while I was standing by an oak tree and, if you don't believe me, I'll show you the oak tree." In other words, the citations are certainly valid with respect to their authors' works but the connection to the topic of the article just about has to be original research by synthesis -- UNLESS those references specifically mention Madhukar, and I can only say that the context and title don't seem to indicate that that is the case. I apologize if this seems fussy -- the rest of the article looks just fine, and I can see that a lot of work has gone into this. I certainly don't need any further comments regardless of how you choose to proceed. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, and those references were there when I userfied it. What about the new refs that were added? Are they sufficient to establishing notability? (I ask because I presume you speak German but I could be mistaken) –xeno (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I "speak" it -- I lived there for a few years and can fake my way through, but enough to understand citations, I think. That's why I was happy to see the references that, to my mind, establish notability; I am fairly sure I'm familiar with the television stations, etc., and they are all for real and useful. This article is good enough for me, with or without nos. 6 and 7. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and move it back into the mainspace and restore the deleted edits for proper GFDL attribution. No prejudice to a future AFD if someone still think he's not notable. cheers. Actually, i just remembered this was already AFD'd before. Does it need to go thru DRV or can it just be recreated with the new refs? –xeno (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, "need" ... I would probably submit it there just to be on the safe side, because I know from bitter experience that people tag articles as "recreated after an AfD" and they get deleted without any a lot of consideration. Not even explanatory notes on the talk page will get past eager taggers/deleters, I have found (and I have to confess, I've been both those things, although I hope I've learned from my previous mistakes). I certainly tell editors that that DRV is the way to go if they try to recreate AfD'd material, although mostly it's because they try to repost exactly the same stuff that was just AfD'd. What you might do is re-mount it and see if it hangs around (marking it as "examined" would help) and, if it doesn't make it past eager taggers, go to DRV -- and let me know if/when you do that, so I can comment, please. And in case no one else has thanked you for your efforts here, let me do that. It's always great when Wikipedia gets a useful article where there was likely to be nothing, and I think this is pretty much due to your efforts. Take a bow. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(blushing) thanks ... =) I think I'll just re-mount it. It's been 2 months, DRV would be kinda stale and the new article seemingly addresses the reasons for deletion. –xeno (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

REVOLUTION MOTHER

I HAVE MADE REVISON TO MY PAGE AND WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHECK IT OUT ON MY USER PAGE SKATE1234 I ALSO HAVE IT ON http://www.wikimusicguide.com/Revolution_Mother —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skate1234 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, as you asked. Before you read this, you might want to have a look at WP:MUSIC because I'll be referring to it (and you should have too). None of the five references at the bottom are any good in Wikipedia's terms because they cannot be demonstrated to be from expert sources. They're either blogs, which don't meet the reliable sources criterion, or they're places where bands mount self-promotional material, which are useless as a Wikipedia source. The only conceivable reason that the band might -- *MIGHT BARELY* -- qualify is because of the touring dates I read. This seems as though it could have been a "national tour", although I'm not certain; there's a lack of "filler", it seems to me. But, frankly, because of the lack of useable references it is very unlikely that the article would be allowed to remain for as long as a single day. I very much doubt that the article I read would pass deletion review and I would advise you not to submit it. I can understand that you find this process very frustrating, and frankly I'm not sure why you are so anxious to have the band included in Wikipedia -- it seems as though we don't document the kind of notability that the band asserts, and it seems unlikely that many of the band's potential fans would be hard-core Wikipedia users. I can't say that I should discourage you completely, but have you thought that your promotional efforts might be put to better use in other locations that have less stringent standards for acceptance, and that more of the band's fans are likely to see? I should also say that I've been wrong before about Wikipedia's standards, and if you think I am, well, roll the dice and submit the article to deletion review... I just can't believe it will pass, that's all. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I think it's better to be honest than have you frustrated again by the immediate deletion of your article for the nth time. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please re-review?

Hi there, I wrote an article about SomaTone Interactive Audio yesterday that got speedily deleted. I'm pretty sure this is notable content. Would you mind reviewing it again and reconsidering?

This is my first time writing for Wikipedia and I didn't realize I needed to put it all down at once. There's a lot of notable content on this company that I didn't add yet because I thought I could edit in additions over time. This company composes music for videogames, all that are listed on Wikipedia already. They also developed and invented an audio engine used for PCs, MACs, and IPhone.

I'm not sure what is considered verifiable resources but here's a few publications on SomaTone Interactive Audio. They have a lot.

http://www.casualconnect.org/newscontent/07-2008/somatone http://www.gamezebo.com/features/interviews/interview-somatone-interactive-audio http://www.music4games.net/News_Display.aspx?id=956 http://www.developmag.com/news/30225/Somatone-unveils-casual-game-focused-audio-engine http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/27646/Somatone-unveils-casual-game-focused-audio-engine http://us.music-jobs.com/profile.php?uid=713873&type=&start=&position=&search_uid=&uploads= http://www.casualreview.com/article/99/SomaTone__Hidden_Expedition_Amazon http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1173951/fullcredits http://www.starlight.org/atf/cf/%7B5BA4C9B4-81DD-431A-B59E-C291DBBFFC92%7D/PressRelease_Zeebys_06-05-08.pdf http://www.casualconnect.org/newscontent/06-2008/somatone http://casualgamerchick.com/2008/06/25/casual-games-meet-live-orchestras/ http://www.guttersnipesound.com/credits.shtml http://www.casualreview.com/article/40/SomaTone_Interview http://www.tascam.com/article;34,2036,372

Thank you.

Somatone (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a quick look at these references and they seem valid. I'm sorry that you've run up against our process for handling new pages, which can be very daunting for the new user, but I'll see if I can make your life a little easier from now on. The way that users frequently work on pages, in order to avoid situations like this, is by creating a "sandbox" page. I've created one for you at User:Somatone/Sandbox that contains the material that was deleted as well as the above list of references. (Just click on the link in the preceding sentence to get to the sandbox page.) Please have a look at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted?, which should give you some very useful insights into how to move forward. Also, I'm going to have a look at your talk page, leave you a note there and, if you don't have our standard "welcome" message, I'll leave that too -- it contains some really useful links to many basic Wikipedia policies and how-tos. If there's something else with which I can assist you, just leave me a note or follow the instructions in the welcome message about how to access people who will help you. I hope that you find us more welcoming than you have done, and I think if you ask for help from any Wikipedian, they will bend over backwards to help you through difficulties. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somatone (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

TechCrunch50

you had deleted the TechCrunch50 wiki page since it was blatant advertising. TechCrunch50 is an event just like E3; I am no way affiliated with TechCrunch. I did not have a chance to complete the article yet; was planning on doing so this weekend. I plan on recreating the page.

Harsh5235 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, actually the person who tagged the page -- twice -- tagged it as advertising, but to be precise I deleted it because it neither asserted or contained any notability. You may want to address both those concepts if and when you recreate the page, just in case someone else tags/deletes it. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your message

Check you mail; I hear your royalty check coming down the street. ;-) Seriously, I'll give it a listen. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not free in iTunes. :-( - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If Limewire is legal to use where you are, that's where I found my free copy. And as they say, "no relation" LOL. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dental lab

You just speedily deleted this article as I was in the process of removing the promotional parts of it and adding references. Please hold off a few minutes so I can undelete the article and complete the process. I discussed this on the talk page. Thanks. Edison (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, now please take a look. Edison (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider reinstating the page concerning Garth Barton. There are several references to the Oconee Outreach Opportunity. Unfortunately they are not on the web. They are in places like the local newspaper of Sandersville, GA called the Sandersville Progess. It was also featured on the local CBS television station (WMAZ) in Macon, GA.

Thegeorgiareverend (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

According to your note, you seem to be suggesting that the "Oconee Outreach Opportunity" has notability, but that doesn't say anything about "Garth Barton". The references you cite don't seem to suggest to me that the "Oconee Outreach Opportunity" is notable either, but I think you should be clear about what it is that you're trying to assert. If there's some sort of national-level attention from the media, that would be much more worthwhile in the process of asserting notability. May I suggest that you read our notability guidelines and perhaps WP:Why was my article deleted? Accounting4Taste:talk 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear Accounting4Taste...If you are still interested in participating in WikiProject Media franchises, please remove your name from the inactive participants list and add it to the active participants list. If you don't have time, but would still like to show some support, you can always add yourself to the sympathizers list. It would be wonderful to see you in the project. Have a nice day! - LA (T) 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy speedy

My Watchlist:

• "(Deletion log); 15:43 . . Accounting4Taste (Talk | contribs) deleted "Till I Collapse" (G4: Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion: Recreation of deleted material (CSD G4))"

Damn you are fast. Thanks for that. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I can't really take credit for being fast -- I actually pick names from the list of tagged articles at random, and I guess this one caught my eye immediately after it went up. I will take credit for being a fast reader when I checked to ensure that it was indeed G4. But thanks for noticing, even if I can't really be proud of myself! LOL Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What You Ought To Know

This page was recreated with no changes right after you speedied it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

J.R. Rodriguez

I'm afraid I've declined the speedy. But please see my edit summary - AfD may be a good way forward. --Dweller (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've done it. --Dweller (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to be afraid -- that's the reason why I tend not to tag 'em and then delete 'em, because my judgments have been known to be incorrect. Thank you for your courtesy in informing me, and for your extra trouble in taking the article to AfD. I'll see what I can add to that process. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete "Brenelz Web Solutions"

I was using Twinkle to put a CSD notice on Brenelz Web Solutions when you speedily deleted it (and rightly so). Wikipedia seems to have got a bit confused, so please re-delete ASAP. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that does it -- let me know if there's anything further on this, and thanks for your trouble in letting me know. I'll "watch this page". Accounting4Taste:talk 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Permission to create Mobilize.org Wiki Websiste

Hello, I saw that you deleted the Mobilize.org page due to directly copied content from the website. I would just like to say that the Mobilize team has been working on this issue and we have come up with a new Wikipedia entry that will draw from many more sources and will include self-created information. Fersaltiel (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I believe you're labouring under a slight misapprehension. I deleted the page in question because it had been tagged as non-notable web content (probably due to the fact that there were no reliable sources or assertion of notability), but some of the five previous deletions by other administrators were because of violations of Wikipedia's copyright policy. You should be aware that, after six deletions, you're dangerously close to having this topic barred from further recreation; please proceed very carefully in full accordance with the relevant policies. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understood correctly in order to create the Mobilize.org Wiki page I would have to find reliable sources citing the information, instead of using the Mobilize website? Does every piece of information need a link or can it just be complied information edited by the Mobilize staff? And the last question is when the Mobilize.org page will be available so that I can update it. Thanks a lot for your help! Fersaltiel (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely some parts of this I don't understand, but I'll try to help where I can. Yes, you have to find reliable sources citing the information, and citing the Mobilize website is not only useless but counterproductive. Having the article "edited by the Mobilize staff" is pretty much directly against our conflict of interest policy; if this topic is truly notable, someone not connected with the organization will be moved to write the article. However, if you are determined to create this, please be VERY sure you understand the conflict of interest policy and the neutral point of view guidelines. Every piece of information needs a link; that's part of the crucial policy of verifiability here. And finally comes the bit that doesn't make sense to me -- "when will the ... page be available so that I can update it"? The only person here who is interested in making this page "available" seems to be you. Are you asking to have the deleted material returned to you so that you can post it again, in violation of our copyright policy? Bad idea. If you want to make the page "available", write it according to our guidelines and post it. And, again, since this will be the seventh time that this article has been posted, please make sure that it follows all our policies as best you can (I think I'm wasting my breath advising you of the conflict of interest policy, but believe me, the rest are pretty much mandatory). An administrator who sees the dismal record of this article will definitely consider making it impossible for an article to ever exist under this title, without extraordinary circumstances occurring. Frankly, I think you'd be better off to wait until a neutral party was moved to create an article, but since you weren't paying attention to our policies the last six times, I suppose it's futile to suggest that now. However, I strongly recommend you read WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? before going any further. Best of luck. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete two for one?

I just noticed you just speedily deleted Offset Paperback Mfrs., Inc.. Might I point your attention to Pocono Academy Systems which was posted by the same editor, Fazul who lists ownership of the former company, and employment with the latter on their user page. In both cases, these articles appear to be clear cut G11 violations (I prompt, you decide). In the Pocono Academy Systems talk page the editor actually asked, How is this article any different from Offset Paperback Mfrs., Inc. which has not been flagged? to which I posted a thanks for giving me the heads up.

As an aside, the same editor blanked my user page which I assumed, in good faith, to be inadvertent. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Editor Fazul has apologized for inadvertent page blanking. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Let me know if there's something that you want me to look at with respect to these pages in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete for Bio-Circle

I am a first time contributor and I think you speedy deleted and protected my contribution on the Bio-Circle before I could finish it. First, is there a way to create a page over the course of a few days, or do I have to do it in one go? Secondly, could you unprotect the topic Bio-Circle? It is notable, I have the necessary resources (I didn't have a chance to finish writing the article), and it is interesting (I think it is interesting at least). I look forward to your help Says Simple Simon (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. No, I didn't delete your contribution or protect the page against recreation -- I only tagged it as being spam, which I thought it was and, upon re-reading, see no reason to change my opinion. As per the note from another editor on your talk page, the way to work on a page over several days is to do it in a sandbox page and (probably against my better judgment) I have created the sandbox page linked from your talk page and put the deleted material into it. Apparently you are the only person who thinks this topic is notable, there are more than a handful of experienced editors and administrators who think otherwise, and I frankly cannot see any possible way in which this topic can be dealt with that would make it anything but advertising, but I have restored the material for whatever use you can make of it. My only suggestion would be to try to create a generic article about parts washing that discusses this process as one of the multiple ways that parts can be washed. Finally, no, my policy is to not unprotect pages that another administrator has protected unless there is a good reason to do so, which there is not, and unless I have obtained that administrator's permission first, which I don't intend to ask for. It was protected by User:JzG and I concur with that decision. If you want to take this topic to WP:Deletion review after working on the article until you have added whatever you think will make it complete and notable, that would be the way to go -- you can refer people to the sandbox page just as easily. If you have any further questions, you can leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and your in depth response. I have followed your and JzG's advice to 1) contribute about other topics that can't be construed as advertising and gain experience writing wiki articles 2) begin creating entries in a sandbox before submitting them 3) ask for someone to review my work at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Says Simple Simon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Mapping delete status (

Hi I may have respoded incorrectely to the wrong person earlier so her is the conversation so far.

Crystal Mapping Deletion status

Hello Jonathan.

I can see why you thought crystal mapping unworthy of an entry. All I can say is that I'm doing this in good faith but I'm not sure how to proceed vis a vis the 'promotion' issue and some of the other problems. You're right I am the author of the only citation - will it help if I cite someone else's article about the subject. Also re crystallography and google counts - how do I get round that? The two things are entirely different?

The background to the term and the subject is that crystal mapping is similar to concept mapping and mind mapping and a number of other such tools and processes but is distinctly different in the way it handles the subject and thus is a new method in its own right. The key to crystal mapping is the fact that it is based on a circle thus representing unity. I have a number of academics who would verify the uniqueness of the idea and process.

This is not a spam / spurious idea of any sort and it is a genuine belief on my part and of others that crystal mapping is a new method and process and the intention is to get it increasingly recognised as such.

Also I note that a brand of mind mapping software Mind Manager has a listing. Could I copy the way this has been listed for Crystal Mapping (i.e. as a branded product in the general area of mind mapping / concept mapping)as a start?

Thsnka in anticipation of your comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a neologism being promoted here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Crystal Mapping Deletion status You are possibly right that it is a neologism - but thats a problem I'll have to deal with in a much more general sense than wiki entry. What if I use the term Crystal Map - would that cover off the neologism? I still can't figure how I can not promote the idea by entering it into wikipedia. Mind mapping promotes mind mapping and same for concept mapping? And surely mind manager is promting mind manager - thats advertising isnt it. I'm not trying here to sling any mud but i just dont know how else to make my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Mark wogan (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Most of what you need to hear from me/us is covered at WP:NEOLOGISM which states, among other things, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That's my rough guess at what's going on here. The crystallography term has many independent third-party citations and seems to be a recognized term within that scientific discipline. Yours was recently invented by you, and seems only to be used by you, and that's the difference. When the phrase gains widespread usage in mainstream media to refer to the process -- and not to the branded product or the book associated with it -- then someone other than yourself will doubtless be moved to create a Wikipedia article about it. Until that time, you might want to look into Wiktionary, which has less stringent qualifications for its neologistic entries. By the way, "X has an article so my article about Y should be allowed" is not accepted around here as a valid argument -- see the page at WP:WAX for a detailed explanation of why that is so. In the meantime, the most valuable thing you can do to make any points on Wikipedia policy that may be of use to you is not here, but at the deletion discussion that you can access by the link within the box at the top of the article; only arguments found in that area will be considered when the closing administrator decides the fate of the article. If you have any questions with which I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bachman's

How is the Bachman's article not notable and why did you have to do a speedy delete rather than allow for discussion? This article is about a company who has been in business for over 100 years, has a large presence in the Twin Cities, MN, and just recently lost a CEO to murder in China. This seems much more notable than articles about Menards or Cabela's or many other businesses which have articles. This is about the history of the company, not an advertisement. Please defend yourself or restore the article. --Gnosbush (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the note I left you yesterday, which I will reproduce here for your convenience: "I wanted to explain that I nominated this article because it didn't seem to contain or assert any notability for the company itself, per se, and because it seemed to be a coatrack for material about the death of the company's principal. This, although sad and regrettable, doesn't seem to confer sufficient personal notablity to the individual to bolster an article about him. I welcome your comments, if any. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)". I'm going to assume that the above represents your comments on this; my own opinions are still what I stated above. Have a great day! Accounting4Taste:talk 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I merely tagged the article as noted above, I didn't actually delete it. If you want to take it up with User:Chrislk02, who apparently agreed with me, feel free. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Media franchises unofficial coordinator

Dear Accounting4Taste...I am so happy that you are willing to help WikiProject Media franchises. I am still reaching out to other WikiProjects to see if we can get some more interest, so I would like to depend on you and the others to do things like get articles assessed and find other articles which might need our attention by placing {{WikiProject Media franchises}} on their talk pages. Another thing is to start using {{Infobox Media franchises}} on franchise articles. I trust you to use your best judgment and hope that you have some time to spare.

If you haven't already done so, you can add {{User WikiProject Media franchises}} to your user page or dedicated user box page. When enough people have that, or WikiProject Media franchises participants on the user pages, I will start that category.

I may not be the best coordinator around, but I am doing my best. I hope that you approve. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Bora Turan

Just to let you know, there is no supporting evidence from google to suggest that this guy was ever notable. This is unless there is a serious spelling error. Before nominating it for speedy I checked with google, and the full name (Bora Mehmet Turan) gets just two hits, one of which is Wikipedia, and "Bora Turan" with "president" gets 13 unique hits. -- role^player 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS president of Turkey between 1993 and 2000 was Süleyman Demirel. -- role^player 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

We were leaving each other simultaneous notes -- yours is more useful than mine, to be sure. I clicked on the tag within the body of the article and Wikipedia itself says you're right, which is good enough for me. I'm deleting it as a hoax, and thanks for your courtesy and your trouble. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Roderigo Possebon

I just created this article and then realised that it had been deleted as Rodrigo Possebon (with no e) at an AfD that you closed but he has now played a league game for Manchester United so now passes WP:N. Can you unlock the "no e" version and ove my article please. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MGHeasley / Fighting Fitness

I have received your e-mail but have had no success in identifying either you or the page to which you're referring. If there's something you want done, you're going to have to give me more information to track the material. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tracked you down to User:Fighting Fitness and left you a note on your talk page with plenty of references. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Emin Er

It has to have reliable sources, regardless of whether they're in Arabic or not. You might contact an Arabic contributor for help. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

About Deletion review

Hi there. Hope you remember me and my , and if you don't i'll post it here our last discusion :

"Need some help and a assistance- Hi there. Don't know if you remember but few months ago we talk for few times and i asked you to help me in resolving a problem with an article about a band that is notable but from some reasons there were some users who thought that the article should be deleted. I renew the article which is now on my user page User:Drokstef/Sandbox and i think that now it has all the reasons to stay up and it's a very notable article which deserve to be reback in his own place. That i should ask you to help me with the deletion review process, because i'm a novice in this kind of stuff and i don't how should i proceed in a deletion review process. I would really appreciate your help. Many thanks Drokstef (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and my apologies for the delay: I've been away from home and without Internet access. I have never nominated an article for deletion review before, but I'm prepared to do it as you request. I've read the instructions and it tells me that the first thing to do is to discuss the matter with the deleting administrator, so I'm going to do that -- I'll keep you informed as I proceed. I should also say that based on what I see, it might actually be NOT a good thing for you to comment to the extent that you did in the original AfD process. I believe the article now meets WP:MUSIC and by simply pointing that out, and following the instructions, I can give the article a fair shot at being allowed to be reposted. You are, of course, free to do what you like; that's just my impression of what the best course of action would be, and as I said above, I've never done this before. If you have any questions or comments, I'll be looking for them here; I will alert you on your talk page to this thread. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)'"

And now, after 2 months, i remembered that you said, and i'm almost sure that you can help me with deletion review of the article from my page User:Drokstef/Sandbox, an article wich i think it's very notable and reliable. Hope you didn't forget me and you'll help me with some assistance. Thanks a lot for your help.Drokstef (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I do remember. I'm not going to work on this immediately -- I'm multi-tasking at the moment -- but I expect to be able to approach this tomorrow evening, when I will have time to read and understand the complicated instructions. I looked back and found that I have never heard anything from the deleting administrator, so that step is over -- the next step is listing it. I looked at that, and the instructions are quite difficult -- I will need to read them and understand them before I go forward. However, I will go forward. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Blues

Well, I'll certainly take your word for it (I missed the comments on the talk page). It would be great if you could add a reference for it, though, and update the article accordingly. PC78 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Media Franchise Article Tagging

Hey Accounting4Taste, I was just going through various articles that needed assessments and noticed that you have been tagging a few articles for media franchises. I have kinda taken on the task of assessing articles lately for that project and would reeeeeeeeally appreciate it if when adding the tag that you would consider assessing the article at the same time. If not, no big deal, I'll eventually get around to adding assessments, but if you are willing to it would be a huge help to me personally if you would add the class and importance parameters for the {{WikiProject Media franchises}} tag. -Sykko-(talk to me) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Links4u

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises/Assessment > the link to the assessment page
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises/Assessment > a discussion that will help for the importance level

No worries if you assess it one way and others dissagree, the other person can always change it later. Thanks for your help! -Sykko-(talk to me) 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bailey Reed

Hello

Had the article I wrote deleted titled - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Reed&action=edit&redlink=1 - Yes, i did check why (A7 - Speedy deletion etc) but this still doesnt fully explain the reasons to me. It was written in similar format to others on here and to my knowledge, was factualy correct (if it wasnt im sure others would edit).

Anyways.......looking to have undeleted if possible, or at least given a few pointers for re-submission.

Thanks

(Choppergray (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your note. The article in question, which I've just re-read, had two large problems that are the reasons I'm going to decline the opportunity to undelete this article. First, I believe this individual's career, as stated, doesn't come close to meeting the guidelines for the notability of performers (my memory has failed me as to the exact policy reference, but you can find it by reading the notability policy and tracing the specific discussion of the notability of people, then specifically for performers). The second reason is that, although no one disbelieves what you said (at least, I don't), there was no proof to back up what you said, and that is absolutely required. Essentially what would be needed is verifiable references in books, magazines, etc. (not websites or forums, generally) written by independent third-party arm's-length experts that both verify this individual's appearances as stated AND assert that they were performed in a notable way. So, in general, reviews in newspapers and magazines written by experts in the field that state that Mr. Reed was an exceptional performer in some respect. I hope this is the information you were looking for. As well as the links in this paragraph, you might also find WP:Why was my article deleted? and WP:Your first article to be useful and, if you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference I was trying to remember is WP:ENTERTAINER. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)