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

im going 2 kill you

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

15:08, 26 May 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Focus group video streaming" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11))

Thanks Carol McNerney Carolmc68 (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've placed the deleted content in a "sandbox" page for you at User:Carolmc68/Sandbox; my opinion that it is advertising hasn't changed, so I wouldn't recommend reposting it without considerable alteration. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBM is known the world over, but how did they become known? By advertising, through exposure to the market, Now while you are at it delete Starbucks, Apple computer, Dell and the rest of the companies that are mentioned. Poor policy to remove companies, without giving a correction to assist them to modify their articles. Ass, ole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.121.15 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. Since I haven't the faintest idea what article you're talking about, I cannot be of any assistance. If you want to change a Wikipedia policy, feel free to voluntarily work with the Wikipedia community to do so; it's unlikely that calling administrators names will be of use to you in that process. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11/13/2009 Hi! We've revised the content for the Dr. Bob Deutsch page so it's more encyclopedic. Below is the copy we'd like to post there. Is it acceptable?

Dr. ROBERT (BOB) DEUTSCH Dr. ROBERT (BOB) DEUTSCH is a consultant, author, founder and president of Brain Sells (http://www.Brain-Sells.com), a strategic communications advisory practice that works with leading companies to reinvent how they assess the mind and mood of various publics and, in turn, design effective communications addressed to those audiences. (1991-present) Dr. Deutsch is a cognitive anthropologist, advising on how people “make meaning,” create beliefs and form attachments to ideas and products. Dr. Deutsch’s academic training and experience combines cultural anthropology, cognitive science and ethology. Dr. Deutsch received a doctorate in cognitive neuroscience from the Albert Einstein School of Medicine (1968-1973). During his graduate education, he taught courses on the evolution of communication at the City University of New York. Upon receiving his doctoral degree, Dr. Deutsch was awarded a Harry Frank Guggenheim Fellowship and a National Institute of Mental Health Post-Doctoral fellowship (1974). Concurrently, Rockefeller University supported his field research with non-human primates. Dr. Deutsch then took a position at the Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers University Medical School, where he was on staff of a joint degree program for medical residents in psychiatry and anthropology. (1975-1976) As a logical extension of his research on the natural forms of face-to-face behavior and their relationship to persuasion, conflict resolution, and impression management in larger groups, Dr. Deutsch was invited by Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz to conduct cross-cultural inquiries under the auspices of the Max Planck Society of the Federal Republic of Germany. During his years with the Society, Dr. Deutsch traveled to various preliterate societies, and to Third World and industrialized nations, to study how leading ideas emerge in a culture. (1976-1980) Dr. Deutsch then served in the U.S. State Department, advising on behavioral and psychological factors related to persuasion in face-to-face and mass communication. In that capacity, he traveled throughout the world advising on “what sells" in public diplomacy and international negotiations. (1980-1991)

Here is the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Bob_Deutsch&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positono8 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at length on your talk page, found at User talk:Positono8. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My page Alien Theorys Proven was just a joke to scare one are friends into thinking me and my family are aliens so id like it if you could keep it up for a week or untill monday or send it to my email Micromouse64@gmail.com that would be really nice of you please and thank you. 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Dudemister67 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Dudemister67[reply]

(a) No, we won't be keeping your joke page in place. (b) No, frankly, you've caused enough trouble already for enough adults; if you really want that nonsense, you can either retrieve it yourself or recreate it elsewhere. I don't have time to be your personal e-mail service. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for [1]. And for the response to Dr. Bob above. I always enjoy that one clear voice from the back of the room!--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing about the Multi-diagnostic Mental Health Screen for Primary Care Physicians page which was just deleted.

The issues with the page were flagged several days ago, but another Admin, and were addressed to his satisfaction. Could you please tell me what your concerns were? I would be happy to address them.

Thanks! --209.6.250.183 (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the entire history of the article in question and examined a number of its iterations. As near as I can tell, the issues with the page were considered by three or four editors and administrators, and when you say that the issues were "addressed to his satisfaction", that seems to mean that you removed a tag that suggested that the article was considered advertising by one of those editors, and deleted a sentence that didn't bear on the issue one way or the other. The concern I share with the individual who most recently tagged the article for speedy deletion because s/he felt that it was created in order to drive traffic to www.mymoodmonitor.com and, since it also seemed that way to me, I agreed with the suggestion made by his/her adding of the speedy deletion tag. Since this same issue seems to repeat again and again, may I suggest that you take a different approach to providing this information? I'm not entirely sure what the generic article would be that talks about all mental health screens at the same time, but you might be best advised to focus your efforts to adding information to that article rather than creating a separate one for your specific product. While there are certainly articles about specific products in Wikipedia, information about those products has to be bolstered by reliable sources that are almost always more than a single journal article. It seemed to me as I read the article that you were halfway to creating a useful article that discussed all mental health screening tests, although I haven't found another such article and there very well may be one. You are likely to have this problem of "advertising" as long as the article you create touches briefly upon the two tests that you say are the "gold standard" and moves directly towards your product; why wouldn't your product be a footnote or a short paragraph in an article about what seem to be the two tests that are most commonly used? I should say that you don't require my permission to reconstitute the article immediately, in any form you wish, but I do suggest that this same issue is likely to arise again and again with the article in its present form because it seems to me (and others) that the article is crafted to indicate that your test is the best product available without a lot of citations from arm's-length third-party experts who agree with your focus on your own product. Incidentally, one issue that you should certainly address in any future discussion of this concept is that although the citations and information apply only to the USA, you haven't said so; I would suggest that clinical experience in other countries is considerably different in many respects, and your article ignores that significant area. Best of luck with your future contributions; if I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me another note. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Accounting4Taste: I appreciate your response, and will take your points into consideration for future postings, Best. --209.6.250.183 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean. I struggled to find a catagory to place the article in so i plumped for organisation/company (i think it was). I still think it should be a speedy deletion because it is just complete rubbish and there should be a catagory for this to be placed in, but I suppose it will have to be an afd... Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Tresiden (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the things mentioned in the page are now easier to research. I'm not sure whether the question was credibility but should be resolved. Other factoids will be included once undeleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashadtyler (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I think you were asking me to undelete Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter). Although it wasn't clear to me earlier today, I discovered -- and you may already be aware -- that this article was submitted for an articles for deletion process some months ago. You can find a record of the discussion by clicking on this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter). Unfortunately, articles that have failed an articles for deletion process (such as this one did) are subject to immediate speedy deletion upon recreation. If you think that there is evidence available now that wasn't there six months ago that this individual meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO (and I recommend you look carefully at those requirements before going to further effort) just about your only alternative is to take the matter up at deletion review. You should be aware that discussions at deletion review are usually focused entirely upon Wikipedia policy. Best of luck with your future endeavours; if I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Annick Press. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annick Press. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was contested, so I brought the article to AfD here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I speedied a self-promotional bio with no reliable sources or assertion of notability for the individual concerned twice earlier this evening so possibly this was some form of self-promotion, although I'm prepared to assume good faith in that he was trying to contribute his protologism; it's just that, as I said in the AfD, this term has no really defined usage that I could find. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]