== Hello ==

Are you trying to talk to me? You mean you just deleted my page of wiki earlier?

--Cobralv3 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Sondra McCoy

I dont understand about all of this? Can you explain to me about this? --Cobralv3 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Sondra McCoy

Let's focus our conversation in one place, on your talk page; it's found at User talk:Cobralv3. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to you, Accounting4Taste;

The above user placed a question here with a helpme template, so I moved the help request over to their own talk page, and responded to it there; User talk:Cobralv3#Help me how to use this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm obliged to you for helping this new user out; she may contact you again but I'll also try to answer her questions if I can, on her talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They briefly popped into the IRC help channel; it seems likely that English is not their first language; they didn't stay long enough to do much. That's why I added the 'help' in several langs, with a link to the embassy. I see that they just removed the speedy tag again, which doesn't bode well :-(  Chzz  ►  02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I'm correct to assume that the author and the subject of the article are the same, she's hearing-impaired, but the book and website seem to be written in English. Well, all we can do is all we can do; thanks again for your help. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out or can you fix it up for me? I have newspaper say "Feature new book hard road, easy riding: Deaf biker Lady" and magainze thunder roads in Virginia. I am new this website. If you dont mind to help to fix it up for me if not, just deleted if there not enough information mouth out.--Cobralv3 (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Sondra McCoy

Thanks for your reply, but from my reading of the article, this movie did not have a theatrical release. Sounds like a notability speedy candidate to me. What am I missing? ... richi (hello) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks again; PRODded ... richi (hello) 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article; it was a clear copyvio. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was time consuming... but not exactly difficult. I have not even yet gone through the various refs that were originally there, just based my sourcing upon some quite easy searches. Oh... I have more to do... but thank you very much for removing an incorrect prod. Nicely done. Having this article tossed would have been a grave disservice to the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I was trying to nominate this article for deletion and I was confused on which policy to do it under. I was leaning towards Speedy deletion

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

For future reference, would this have been correct? I saw you've already deleted it. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger, thanks for clarifying. I would have never thought to look at WP:Music.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC is what I consider when I'm assessing an article that's been tagged as db-band, or db-music, or similar; I look to see that none of the sources of notability are present. I find that, as a general rule of thumb, if the band hasn't released two albums with a fairly reputable company or doesn't mention that they've done a national tour of some country, that's usually enough for me. If the band is releasing its own music (aka a "MySpace band") or has only local notability for a city or small area, that's usually not enough. The one thing that can tip the balance in the opposite direction is if they have lots of press coverage in reliable sources -- even if they wouldn't be notable under WP:MUSIC, the press coverage can be sufficient for notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well when I saw that it was a band and their greatest feat was playing at their High School, I laughed. Anyway, thanks for the help.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure -- feel free to call upon me if you need anything. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your too quick, I was about to mark that bug gutts one.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gnomes United International

Could you please undo the deletion of my page...I have done nothing wrong... Also this isn't just a local group, its international (Ive actually never met anyone in my group face to face...) Yes, my group is small, but I am very selective on who I let join my group because we only want "good" people, so it takes awhile to create a decent sized group...

Sincerely:Project Gnome (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I've replied on your own talk page, found at User talk:Project Gnome. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But is there anywhere on wiki can I create a page about my group?

Sincerely,Project Gnome (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia itself? I very much doubt it, until you can provide some sources of expert opinion to testify to its notability. There are other places on the web that would be happy to host your information, though. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again thanks for the reply...I guess I have to make a Faceboook page then...

Sinceerly,Project Gnome (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Budy0990 (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 

I created the page "talent bridge" which was deleted . Plz go through following points:

1. Its an institution working for students who are studying in poor colleges, it helps them to make there 'resumes' by providing them opportunites.

2. It becomes necessary for the article to be in wikipedia as it helps people to know about the company in a fair manner.

3. All the content in the page was either from www.talentbridge.co.in or brochure published by talentbridge and was carefully exercised by me while publishing it on wiki to be fair.

4. The institute is as prestigious as the already existing pages of the institutes 'niit','aptech' etc.

5. if you restore the page i'll try to give some more reference to it.

Please look through it.

Thanks for your note. I hope to address your points thoroughly. I examined the deleted page carefully and found that it was pretty clearly an advertisement for a commercial establishment, but I'll answer your specific points. 1. The relative worthiness of a commercial establishment doesn't play any role in the assessment of articles. 2. No, it's not "necessary" -- you can advertise your commercial establishment in any number of other ways. We don't allow advertising. 3. That's a major problem. Articles in Wikipedia have to be backed up by reliable sources; third-party experts testifying to the notability of a subject in a verifiable way. If all the content is from advertising material created by you, that's an excellent reason for it to be deleted. 4. Pages on Wikipedia are not compared to other pages, they're compared to policies. (See the policy page at WP:WAX for further details.) Your article didn't meet our policies. If you feel there are other pages on Wikipedia that don't meet our policies, and you can prove it by reference to policy pages (like, for example, the policies linked in this paragraph), feel free to tag them for speedy deletion or to put them through some sort of deletion process like WP:PROD or WP:AfD. 5. I'm not prepared to restore the page, but I am prepared to put the deleted content into what we call a "sandbox" page where you can work on it and add references, if you can produce them. I also recommend you follow the links in this paragraph and look at this information before proceeding further. Let me know what your wishes are. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Budy0990 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) thnx buddy, i now completely understand the reasons as to why my page was deleted.Can u just help me about the 'sandbox' page you are talking about, i guess its just a testing page ,how can i get my content back?

Thanks for your note, and I'm happy to know I've helped. I will create a "sandbox" page for you -- as you say, it's just a testing page -- at User:Budy0990/Sandbox and place the deleted content there for you to work on. If you have any further questions or problems, don't hesitate to ask. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I placed an article on wikipedia yesterday on a company called EnvirUP, I wish to fully comply with your rules and regulations. Is there some type of business style template wiki page that I could edit to comply with your guidelines.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Envirup (talk • contribs) 07:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) --Envirup (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not aware of any template that you could copy; many people use the format of existing articles. However, if you're going to comply with our guidelines, I strongly recommend that you know what they are. I believe that WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? will be most useful to you but, after I had a look at the deleted content, I'm also going to suggest that you have a look at the notability standards for companies, our policy on references, and the material about verifiability. And, since your username is the same as the company which you're trying to promote, I recommend you quickly act to take a look at our conflict of interest policy; it's likely that your username will be blocked soon for violating that policy. If your username is blocked, and/or if you wish me to place the deleted content into a 'sandbox" page for you to work on, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I need some more clarification. The article I linked is a direct copy of this website. While the article is a copy, it seems that this person is notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia. Not sure how this would be handled. Could you give me some insight? v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I'll help if I can. I'm not sure why exactly you would think this individual's notability is sufficient; the only thing I see that might convince me is her status as a "cultural envoy", and I don't really know what that is -- or whether it's notable. The rest doesn't seem especially distinguished to me; making up a phrase like "action theatre" and then claiming to be its primary exponent is a piece of circular reasoning that doesn't lend any notability (and I'm not sure that's what's happened here, to be fair). However, if you disagree and think this article should be in Wikipedia, I think the process would be that you tag the article as a db-copyvio and explain to the user who created the article what that means -- that they have to re-write the article in their own words. And, they have to include reliable sources to back up the assertions in the article in a verifiable way. (Actually, the first step would be to move the page to Ruth Zaporah to meet our spelling conventions.) I hope this helps; if there's further detail you need, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone nominated it for speedy deletion and I challenged it on the article's talk page. I hope I established some notability on there. I am assuming a cultural envoy for the state department is similar to what Angelina Jolie does for them? I'd have to read more, but I found a lot of information about her on a quick google search.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the determining factor for notability would be the exclusivity of the position. How many cultural envoys are there, and are they selected by experts in the respective fields? If there are 25,000, probably not notable. If there are 3, almost certainly notable. And if the envoys are named by, say, bureaucrats, that would be a problem; being named by experts in the particular field the person is in would be ideal. I'd also be looking at whether the post is ceremonial or functional; does she have to practice her art as part of the position, or does she just open supermarkets? BTW, I think Angelina Jolie is an envoy on behalf of the United Nations (UNICEF?), and that truly is a notable position considering its history. At any rate, if you think this individual is notable, by all means go for it; I'm not necessarily the best judge of notability and if you're ready to do the work, I say great, Wikipedia will get another useful article. Add as many references as possible to back up everything that's said in the article, and re-write the copyvio material in your own words (or get the original author to do it for you). If the article gets deleted and you still want it back, let me know and I'll retrieve the deleted content and put it into a "sandbox" page where you can work on it. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm really not the best judge on notability either. It's only that I am try to learn Wikipedia process and this article seems to me like it should stay. I'm not the author either, but I think it could make a decent article. I am considering rewriting it as a stub with a few references because I really do not know much about the subject or title. I'll see what more I can dig up. It may still qualify for deletion, I just don't think it qualifies for a speedy deletion. The author should be given a chance to fix it.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a great attitude; this is, as you suggest, a great way to learn Wikipedia process and I know people get a great feeling from rescuing articles. (I rescued The Dazzle Dancers this morning.) If there is anything at all I can do to help you, I'm at your service. BTW, my experience is that while people are willing to contriibute new articles quite readily about their personal likes and dislikes, it's very difficult to get them to hang around to improve them to WP's standards. So it's likely that you'll be left with the responsibility. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

i see these refernences, however, just don't see the notability there to warrant wiki article.

there are 1000s of similar groups. they are not a major group. the refernces show passing references in small tiny articles.

i still think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you truly feel that way, then I suggest you take the article through an articles for deletion process; you will thereby learn the opinions of Wikipedia community members and how they compare to yours. I haven't forgotten being termed a "jackass" in connection with this article; I think your opinions betray a profound lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is, how it works, and the meaning of its policies. And my personal opinion is that you're homophobic. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an entry on Walter Leja. You deleted it. Why? That's very mean. It was perfectly good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaforcemedia (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I deleted it because I agreed with the individual who tagged it for speedy deletion that it was not "perfectly good". In fact, it had -- and has -- no references or reliable sources to back up its assertions. I'm not going to delete it again, because in the course of thirty seconds' research I found that the individual had won the George Medal, a fact which is not mentioned in the article, but I'm leaving the task of improving it to you. By the way, I recommend that, after mentioning the street intersection at which the activity took place, you might for the sake of informing the reader provide the name of the city and country ... just a thought. Best of luck with your future endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Accounting4Taste, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to FOB (movie) has been removed. It was removed by 69.237.158.42 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 69.237.158.42 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Hi, I would like to salvage the entry you deleted and add more content to make it "Wikipedia-acceptable." I even used several company entries that are currently accepted by Wikipedia as a template including Frog Design - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog_design. I don't see a much of a difference between the Frog entry and the one I upload for Enviance. Can you please help me understand what I need to do? Thank you. Bluehorizons22 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I'll help you if I can. You are right to note that there's not much difference between Frog Design and Enviance, but there are two crucial differences. The principal one is that Frog Design has a single reference -- an arm's-length, third-party expert source of opinion that confirms many of the statements made about the company's notability in a verifiable way. Most articles have multiple references, and definitely the more the better; I'm a little surprised to see this article has only one. Second, there are some claims of notability for Enviance within the deleted material, but it's not really possible to assess them. For instance, I'm sure you're quite aware of what JMP Securities is, but the average reader would have no way of knowing whether its pronouncements of "hotness" are reliable or not. (For all we know, JMP Securities could be responsible for selling the company's stock.) I think the best piece of advice I can give you is that, wherever possible, the article should be made up of quotes from experts for everything that isn't an actual physical fact, like the company's address or date of incorporation -- and those quotes should be referenced in such a way that the reader can look at them and assess for him/herself the degree of expertise of the expert who's quoted. (So, for instance, linking "JMP Securities" to its own web page, or preferably a source that demonstrates that it's reasonable to believe them when they say that a company is "hot".)

I have to say that most of the deletion decisions in which I'm involved are clear-cut, but this one is quite close to the line. I would actually be prepared to reverse the deletion, which I very rarely do, although I wouldn't necessarily recommend that you ask me to do that -- I think it needs a little bit of work with respect to adding references. (If I reverse the deletion and it gets deleted by a different administrator, you'll be right back where you started.) What I would like to do, with your concurrence, is to place the deleted material into what we call a "sandbox" page where you can work on it -- when you think you're ready to go, drop me a note and I'll have a look at it and see if I can say that it would survive the diligent attentions of new page patrollers. I have to add that you do not require my permission or assistance to do this; if you want to put the article back exactly the way it was, you can do that, but I suspect someone would tag it again. Nevertheless, I think we owe you a little cooperation and a helping hand; Wikipedia can be very daunting for new users. If what I've outlined isn't what you think is appropriate, tell me what you'd like and I'll see what I can do. I have anticipated you by creating a page at User:Bluehorizons22/Sandbox where I've placed a copy of the deleted material, but if this is not what you want, please let me know so that I can tidy it up. Thanks for your enquiry and I'll look forward to hearing from you. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste- Your comments are VERY helpful and I appreciate you moving the article to the sandbox for me to enhance and validate. And thank you for offering to review it once I'm made changes. I'll be in touch soon. Bluehorizons22 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with my constant noob questions, but you were unlucky enough to catch my attention in a few articles. The question: Why is it that no one uses the following code to float the table of contents on the left so a huge gap isn't left in articles? Is there a community dislike of the idea?

{| align="left"
|__TOC__
|}

I've used this code on other Mediawikis and I feel it looks great. Not sure how others feel. Any ideas? v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all -- nothing noob about it. I'm here to help anybody who needs it, so have no worries about asking questions. Second -- um, you have asked the wrong person. I'm pretty much a content type of person. I actually haven't got the faintest idea of how to code and I don't really understand what you've shown me, I'm sorry to say. Would you like me to try to find someone who understands what you're talking about, or is this something you know how to pursue? Accounting4Taste:talk 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask one of the administrators I've been asking about templates. Sorry to put you on the spot like that.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

i am not sure why you would delete my page after i extensively edited it then put what is called protection on it after I edited it to exclude any comment that may have appeared an attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkyglo (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry re above not very clear as i was saying not sure why you would delete the Bridgecorp article as I extensively edited it the second time, then you protected it with the rationale that I was trying to repost it however that was only after I edited it to exclude all references that could appear a personal attack (though that was not the intention) (Sparkyglo (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)) If you could reply as speedily as you deleted that would be appreciated thankyou.

The version I just examined appears to have removed the considerable number of personal attacks and there is a citation that backs up the assertions of criminal charges, so I'm going to restore the article under its correct name and remove the week's worth of protection that I applied to forestall further attacks. As you will doubtless realize, Wikipedia has to be extremely careful about publishing anything that amounts to criminal libel, and the first two versions of the article I examined were undoubtedly libellous. Thanks for attempting to work within our boundaries. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It would also be appreciated if you were to provide links to the two citations you mentioned in the body of the present version of the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is making me the sockpuppet ofAsadaleem12@hotmail.com. If, he has the proof then he should to me talk page and give me the proof. Please ask that user the proof of this talk--119.152.6.18 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm that someone and I'm proud to be that someone, who made TZX Master, a sockpuppet. Yes, I've a proof that this user is a sockpuppet of the famous sockpuppet of Wikipedia, Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. I placed the tag because the sockpuppeteer himself claims that he is currently editing in Wikipedia by the name of TZX Master and he even did editing in the sockpuppetter's page. He removed his name from the list of the sockpuppets, because he knew that if he got caught, he would be blocked and he could not do vandalism in Wikipedia. Recently, many of his articles were deleted because he did vandalism in his articles. Check out the history of TZX Master's userpage, where he is time by time removing the tag placed on his userpage.--Hell With Arun (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The person behind Homewood Health Centre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contacted unblock-en-l regarding their editing and block. They have been counseled regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and have agreed to edit appropriately. I think it will be best to let them start over using a new name rather than do a change of name, however, I will email you with their new user name so you can monitor their behavior, which I will also do. Fred Talk 21:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Assburger's syndrome
• Assburger syndrome
• Assburger

Thanks, - Whatever404 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Although I agreed that a number of other redirects in this area were unlikely, these three were protected after deletion discussions, and I'm not prepared to delete them without taking them through another. If you wish to delete these, the first thing to do would be to discuss it with the administrator who protected them. You can find that name by looking at the edit history, I think; if you require assistance with that, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the complete discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23, along with links to other such discussions. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I have read through the reasons for speedy deletion and I still don't understand why it was deleted, so I am hoping you can help!

I really don't understand what ‘notability’ means in Wikipedia’s terminology!

I was attempting (probably badly, first attempt AND I was tired and not writing well) to create a page about a fairly new club which has progressed very quickly. I probably included too much emotive language but would have removed that this morning anyway (as I said in the :talk page).

In terms of what I would deem notability, I would assume the club’s achievements? If so then I was going to make an entire section on this as well as other factual statements. Once they were in place most of the original few paragraphs would have been deleted.

Can you please restore the article – to the sandbox if necessary so that I can continue work on it, AND please quantify notability – the examples of a cook who is notable because he features on a TV show is weak. My group as featured in the local press frequently, but in the same example paragraph that would not be considered enough – as far as I can see it is therefore a matter of scale, which can not be right surely?

I am happy to do whatever to make sure it meets requirements, but at the moment I just don’t see what those requirements are!

Thanks,

Jamie Wilton (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are right to assume that you haven't grasped what notability means in Wikipedia terms, as near as I can tell. There are a couple of links to that idea on your own talk page, found at User talk:Jamie Wilton (click on any link in this paragraph to follow it) but an introduction can be found here. The way I would define notability in Wikipedia terms is "how and where experts have noticed the topic". Notability has nothing to do with what you say about yourself, and everything to do with what experts say about you. You can get a good grasp of the basics of a Wikipedia article by following this link; you may also want to read up on our conflict of interest policy, which has a direct application to your specific circumstances. I will take the most recently deleted version of your work and place it into a sandbox page at User:Jamie Wilton/Sandbox for you; if you have any further questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's common for organizations such as yours to warrant simply a mention in the article about their parent organization, in this case University of Worcester. I had a look at that page and note that there are six national-level organizations linked from that page and based within that university that do not seem to have Wikipedia articles; you may wish to consider that the university's rowing club is not sufficiently notable to have its own article if they don't. I'm not trying to be insulting to your organization, simply pointing out the relative scale of notability that an outsider might see. You might have a look at WP:ATHLETE, which outlines the level of notability necessary for an individual athlete to be considered as the subject of an article; analogously, does your organization have national-level attention and is it competing at the highest levels of amateur competition, in this case the Olympics? Accounting4Taste:talk 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that does give me some idea of where I need to be heading with this. The one part I would need to be crystal clear on is whether it is acceptable for me to add sections to the UW page? In the real world we have been named as one of their top sports so there is no problem with us being linked to, but presumably someone else should do it to add credibility...or not..?

There are also other places that can link to us to show we are a real and recognised group - I will get on to them too.

In terms of Olympics etc, well no, we aren't but nor are the majority of other rowing clubs on Wikipedia! We are however competing at the top UK competitions for women and this year looking to start being seen at the top competitions for men as well. For rowing I'm not sure that the individual athletes criteria can be applied.

I'll work on it on the sand box page (thanks for doing that) and will see what links I can get put back to us and from where.

Jamie Wilton (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's "acceptable" for you to add sections to the UW page -- no one "owns" any page on Wikipedia -- but you may have to discuss your additions with other editors on the associated talk page, and it is definitely required to back up your additions with reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the group in a verifiable way. (You should definitely use edit summaries to describe your additions, and you would be wise to talk about what you're doing on the talk page so that other editors know what you're doing and why.) As you've learned from reading our conflict of interest policy, and thanks for reading it, it's much preferred for arm's-length others to add material about you, but it can be done if you are careful to maintain your objectivity and neutral point of view. Try to make it so that anything you add is a quote from someone outside your group and don't use unspecific language; so, don't say "excellent", say "came in X position in such-and-such competition, as noted in this newspaper reference". I hope this helps. Don't hesitate to leave me a note if you have any more questions or problems. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that the page I created for the UK band 4 or 5 Magicians has been deleted and I'm not sure if this is because of a copyright violation (which it wasn't, the copied text is from a webpage I maintain/own) or because "notability". On the notability front, the band have been regualry featured on BBC Radio 1 by two well respected DJs of the genre (indie/alt-rock) and have been featured extensively in the NME.

Can you let me know how to get this page listed?

Many thanks! Morrisguy (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a very careful look at the deleted text of the article; the reasons for deletion don't appear to me to have anything to do with copyright (although that's possible; look at WP:COPYRIGHT for the process of what to do if you want to provide material from a website you "maintain/own"). I believe the problem has to do with notability. The specific requirements for the notability of musical groups are listed at this link: WP:MUSIC, and I recommend them to your careful attention. As near as I can tell from the material I read, your group doesn't meet any of these dozen requirements. The only possible exception to that would be what you've mentioned above about "featured extensively in the NME". If by that you mean that there have been multiple significant mentions of the group in New Musical Express magazine then, yes, that might be sufficient under criterion #1. However, the citations for those references have to be (a) present in the body of the article, which I didn't see, and (b) verifiable, in the sense that the average reader has to be able to verify that they exist and that they say what you have asserted they say. I'm not up on the very fine details of what constitutes "significant coverage" and it might not be that coverage emanating from a single source is sufficient; as well, I don't know that your idea of "extensively" would match with the definition of "significant coverage"; I believe what's meant is a discussion of the group's qualities, not merely a mention of its name or the name of a song it plays. I'm certainly prepared to restore the deleted material to what's called a "sandbox" page, where you can work on it to add these references from the NME; if that's something you want, leave me another note. I urge you to consider the requirements at WP:MUSIC carefully and dispassionately in order to determine whether to go further with this. At present, there is nothing stopping you from recreating the article at some future point, if/when the group becomes more notable and meets one or more of the WP:MUSIC requirements. However, I note that this article has been recreated and deleted a number of times and it may be that the next administrator to consider yet another non-complying version of the article may "salt" the topic, meaning that you won't be able to recreate it at any future point without going through a long and involved process. If you need help, there are a number of ways you can get it; I'll help you find them if asked. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for deleting the Itanimulli page says (G3: Vandalism: Blatant hoax (CSD G3)), which is not true. Itanimulli is an actual group with meetings and structure. While the group is outwardly based on hoax's, it does in fact have a serious agenda and has been working towards it. The meaning is to bring attention to corruption, lies and to help makes sense of organizations with agenda's that may not be in everyone's best interest. This group can be looked at as similar in that serious issues are brought to light with jest, to The Daily Show (which has a page), yet does it as a group such as Freemasonry (which has a page). Because the Itanimulli has not as of yet gained sizable recongnition yet should not automaticly spur it's deletion. The group can be meant to bring humor to important issues and the wiki page had just been started to attempt to explain the group as it is available to all to join. The member count is up to nearly 10, all of whome pay monthly dues. What can in your opinion to ensure the existance of this page? Pantadon (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To ensure the existence of this page and its extraordinary claims, I would expect to find reliable sources and documentation to a similarly extraordinary level. No sources, no verifiability equals no article. "Sources" means references to newspapers, magazines and the like in which the existence of this society is not only documented but in which its notability is asserted. Alternatively, you can go to WP:Deletion review, but since I personally disbelieve in the premise, I'll ask that you do it without my assistance. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my article "Vincent J. Gallo was deleted a couple of days ago, and I was wondering if there would any way possible of having the chance to really edit my article on "Vincent J. Gallo" to the point that it would be accepted to Wikipedia and you. So may I ask if I can please write my article "Vincent J. Gallo"? Thank you, have a wonderful day! --NewYorkStand (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NewYorkStand

Thanks for your note. I went and had a careful look at the deleted material before writing this. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me, so I will try to answer both the questions that I suspect you might be asking. (1) Is there any chance that the material in the deleted article about "Vincent J. Gallo" would be considered sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia? The answer is no -- not without what's called "significant coverage in reliable sources". Essentially that means until you can come up with three or four references to Mr. Gallo in things like books, newspapers and magazines (not forums, blogs, MySpace or YouTube), written by experts in the field, and include them in the body of the article in such a way that people could check them, then the article's topic will not be considered notable enough. (2) Can I have the contents of the deleted article back so I can add references, like I'm talking about just above? Frankly, I usually do provide that, but in this case I am 100% certain that it would be a waste of your time and the time of the people who have to re-assess the article, re-tag it and re-delete it. However, if you can provide me with the three or four references I spoke of above -- by leaving me a note that contains them -- I'll not only give you the contents, I'll personally add them to the article in the correct format, copy-edit it for you and recreate it in such a way that it's likely to be allowed to stay. I am aware that you may find this response disappointing. I can only say that there are not very many people in the world sufficiently notable to be the subject of an article in Wikipedia, and it doesn't seem as though Mr. Gallo is yet one of them; this is a bitter pill that many, many people have to swallow daily, and some of them have more reason to be upset than Mr. Gallo because they are closer to notability. I would suggest that in order to publicize his YouTube channel you find some other website. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to leave me a note. I will also add that you are under no obligation to follow my advice; if you want to, you can recreate the article again. I am very certain that it will be a waste of your time, but you are entitled to waste your time if you want, and you're even entitled to waste the time of the volunteers who work here. Please consider your options carefully; best of luck with your future contributions and endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well thank you very much for all of your advice! I will show you an example fo what you said for me to show you in your response. Thanks again! --NewYorkStand (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)NewYorkStand

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember declining a speedy a week ago, and the guy had had a hit song called "The Duck's Yas-Yas-Yas"? After I got the CD I figured out what that title meant, from the rest of the words, and it's just a bit dirty (for the 1920s): "Shake your shoulders, shake 'em fast, if you can't shake your shoulders, shake your yas-yas-yas." Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, well done to track down the CD. I didn't stop to consider the meaning, but it seems very logical; I am old enough to remember a haircut called the "duck's ass", which I can only describe if you have seen and remember a character named "Squiggy" from the television programme Laverne & Shirley. But thanks for filling me in; I'm happy to have helped to preserve the article and its finer shades of meaning. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. It's actually more interesting than I thought, and there's a Dutch guy, a blues fanatic named Guido van Rijn, who's reissued a bunch of those old records and wrote the liner notes for the CD (released by Document Records, an Austrian company). It's brothel music alright! I never saw Laverne and Shirley, but I think I know what a duck's ass looks like--I think we called it "little chicken butt." Later, Drmies (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So now my three-year old daughter is walking around singing those lines, shaking her yas-yas-yas at the proper moment... Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I read the page about why you deleted an article. I do not understand why you deleted my article, as I referenced everything, worked hard on it, and left external links. What was wrong with the article that it had to be speedy deleted? Please reply, thank you, Alxeedo TALK 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to review the Wikipedia policy on references. In an article about a website, links to the website itself, and its own promotional material, are not considered references; they're considered advertising. What would be required are references to outside expert sources -- people writing in books, magazines and newspapers who have the credentials to be considered experts in the field -- who say that the website is notable in a way that can be verified. Since the article had been created and deleted five times in four months, I decided to make it impossible to recreate, but I'm prepared to reverse that decision if you can demonstrate that you have an article that contains references as they're defined above. Best of luck with your future endeavours and contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I will request to userfy the page at a later time, when the website is a bit more known and there are more websites with information about the subject of the page. Thank you, Alxeedo TALK 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The page you just speedy deleted, Kidswirl has been recreated. It sounds less like advertising now so I'm unsure whether it qualifies for another speedy deletion. However considering the name of the article and the fact that only the Kidswirl web site is given, it is probably just an attempt to get around the advertising accusation. On the other hand, it also reads like the introduction to a longer article so maybe it will be improved. ... Oops, I just checked and someone else has proposed it for speedy deletion again. If you have any comments on how I should handle pages like thi,s I would appreciate any advice you give. Thanks, --Sophitessa (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So why was my page deleted? I thought it was significant...

~~User: WallFlipProductions

Thanks for your note. Perhaps you haven't examined our policies on significance, or, considering the content of the deleted article, our policies on reliable sources, verifiability, or anything else. Let me know if I can point you to any further policies to understand why I disagreed with your assessment of significance. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

Of course it is very necessary to have the content of Wikipedia checked for keeping a good standard.

I have invented a new drive system having a so called SYNGEAR Belt and wanted to offer some information to the public via Wikipedia. I drafted the content "SYNGEAR Belt" and saved it some hours ago. Now I found the content deleted.

The question I have is how can information about a innovation be put to Wikipedia without getting in danger to be deleted because it is said to be promotion.

According to this approach nobody would get information in Wikipedia about innovations like the Edison Electric Bulb.

I only wrote facts and numbers about the innovation SYNGEAR Belt which will save a lot energy because it is running purely rolling and will be fully recycled after its lifetime because it is made of steel and not of rubber.

Would you be so kind and show me a way to bring information about the SYNGEAR Belt to Wikipedia.

Many thanks

Ludwig Dierl Ludwig Dierl (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You're absolutely right when you remark that "According to this approach nobody would get information about innovations like the Edison Electric Bulb." That would be 100% true -- until that bulb's notability had been discussed by expert sources writing in reputable publications in a verifiable way. If you can provide acceptable references to experts discussing this invention then there should be nothing stopping an article in Wikipedia from being created. You can follow the links in this paragraph to find more information about the policies I'm talking about; you can also look at this article and this one to get an overview of our policies. Best of luck with your future endeavours. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm aware that you deleted The Green Lantern page upon it's recreation because it had been deleted previously. I'm not sure if you deleted it the first time. However, I find it distasteful that it was deleted so quickly. It seems as though it was deleted within..... 10 minutes? That is if I'm reading my User talk page correctly. I'm especially displeased because if I had been given the chance to respond I would have pointed out that the film is very notable not just because of who is involved in the film, but the fact that the film itself is a "comic book/superhero film" which as you probably know are mostly among the most watched and highest grossing films of all-time. I'd like to put forth effort in getting the article reinstated. Thank you. The Filmaker (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I have very little choice in the matter; my responsibilities are very clear-cut because of the reason the article was tagged for deletion. The reason the article was deleted was because it had failed a fairly recent articles for deletion process (found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Lantern (movie)) and there had been no change in the situation underlying the reason for the article; the film still doesn't meet Wikipedia's future films policy, as near as I can tell. I believe your only alternative is to take the article through deletion review; if you wish the deleted content to be placed into a sandbox page to aid you in that process, feel free to leave me a further note. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wish they'd at least try posting something coherent. If you don't know the language don't use it. HalfShadow 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is sobering to think that India claims to have more speakers of English than any other country in the world. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I wasn't remotely offended. First thing that happened when I saw that page was a small portion of my mind shouted 'Yaa! Wall of text!' and ran off screaming. Frankly, anything in Vancouver isn't likely; Vancouver is about two days from here. If I were still in Nanaimo, it'd be a simple matter of taking the ferry. HalfShadow 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that you please undelete the page called "The Dos". It's the nickname of a widely known rap star in Houston who also happens to contribute daily to a widely read blog. Links to information verifying the "notibility" of this person were provided on the deleted page.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPE727 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I would ask that you examine our policy on notability; it's an absolute requirement for anyone who is going to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The individual in question doesn't qualify, and I'm going to decline to undelete the page. You are welcome to submit the article for WP:Deletion review; my advice would be to try some place that doesn't have such stringent requirements for the material it hosts. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just nominated First houses in Mid-Levels for speedy delete under A7 and thought I'd ask you if that was appropriate. The way the criteria is written it seems like it only applies to people, animals, companies, and web sites. So what do you do when some creates a page called Tuna fish cans with red labels, for example? In this particular case, I guess I could have suggested that it be merged into the article Mid-levels or just tagged for improvement. --Sophitessa (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Wow, that's a tough one. I might have used db-nocontext, because I had to read through it quite carefully to realize that they were talking about Hong Kong and not, say, Scotland. I honestly think this is a case where WP:SNOW might apply, because any admin who looks at it will understand what prompted you to tag it even if the tag is not absolutely 100% right on the nose. Many times, though, I find that if there's no actual speedy category that leaps to mind, there's usually a way of describing the problems using a PROD tag that's appropriate. This one, for instance, might be original research, or "lack of reliable sources", or something like that. However, you could also be WP:BOLD (not in this case, but as a rule of thumb) and move any relevant content to the correct location, then PROD tag the article and make it clear that you've already merged anything useful. Then if the creator deletes the PROD tag without improvement, the same reasons are used if you initiate an articles for deletion process. Always a pleasure to be of assistance, if indeed I have been, and don't hesitate to contact me in the future if I can offer a further opinion. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the coining of a phrase not significant enough to merrit a page, or was it a lack of citation? If it was the latter i would like it restored to a 'sandbox' page if you would. The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gym_betty.

Thank You

Tbert86 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer and the question. The article in question seemed to be about a musical group of some sort, and was deleted because there was nothing that met the requirements of WP:MUSIC, so the point about coining a phrase didn't really come into it. However, yes, the coining of a phrase doesn't bear any weight unless and until you can demonstrate that the phrase has more than purely local usage by quoting reliable sources. (It would pretty much have to be used from coast to coast of the US; I don't know of any examples of local slang in Wikipedia.) You may want to contribute the phrase to Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary; I believe that accumulating such phrases is their function. If you have a look at the requirements listed at WP:MUSIC and truly believe that your group can meet them, and can prove it with reference to reliable sources, leave me a further note and I'll be glad to copy the deleted content into a sandbox page for you. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)