User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

== Jason Lytle ==

If you want to see the result, it's up—looks delete-resistant to me. Thanks for your help with this. Closenplay (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BRC

It's time. GlassCobra 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

Hey I am trying to create a page here, whats the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forinstance (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Clipper Darrell

hey. i just wrote the Clipper Darrell page and you deleted it. Is there any way you could help me improve what i had written so the article could be of importance? I think Clipper Darrell is deserving of a Wikipedia article, and if you could help me out on it i think he could get the article he deserves. Thanks.

JasonDaniel123 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give you all the help I can, even though I disagree -- I read the article closely and analytically and I don't think the individual has notability. It just seems to me as though he has notoriety -- not necessarily notability -- in a very limited geographic area and that no one outside the area served by the sports team would find him of any notability. But I've been wrong before, and I can try to tell you what's needed -- maybe you can prove me wrong, in which case Wikipedia gets a new article, and that's a good thing. The citations were a step in the right direction, but they seemed self-serving; a sports team telling people who their biggest fan is just doesn't seem like anything except advertising to me. Also, there would probably need to be some demonstration of national-level attention from, say, a national sports magazine. It's also hard for me to accept that a person can gain notability through merely being a fan of someone else's notability. To my mind, notability is achieved by actions that lift an individual above nearly everyone in terms of an expertise or ability. If there is a citation or even an assertion to suggest that the individual has some expertise, some extraordinary degree of competency that no one else has, that would also bolster the article. Does he have an extraordinary knowledge of the particular team that is acknowledged by experts in a verifiable way?

As I said, I'll give you whatever help I can. I'm not sure if you would agree, but one way of getting the opinion of the community would be if the article was proposed for deletion using the Articles for deletion process and, if you like, I'll recreate the article and immediately take it there. If you would like me to retrieve the content of the article and put it into a "sandbox" page for you to work on, I'd be happy to do that too. Let me know what your wishes are (I'll be offline for some hours, though). Accounting4Taste:talk 06:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well i don't know. I guess you're right that aside from people that go to Clipper games regularly or like the team a lot, he isn't all that noticeable or recognizable. i think people forget about him pretty much right after they leave the game. I don't see what hurt it would do to have an article about him, though. One for the people who do care who he is. he's pretty devoted to the Clippers, and i just think he's the man. i don't know all that much about him because there really isn't all that much to know besides he's a huge clipper fan. maybe that in itself justifies not having him on Wikipedia. but i think what i had on there was what people interested in him would want to know and that justifies having an article. i'm not a really prolific writer/editor on wikipedia, as i'm sure you've noticed, but if i could figure out how to get a page to redirect, maybe "clippers fan" could redirect to that page and more people would read it. i don't know. it stills seems fitting to me to have an article about him. JasonDaniel123 08:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BRC part deux

Muahaah. Okay, is it uploaded to WP yet? Once that's done, just tell me and I'll toss it up on the page for you. That's about it! Feel free to join us on IRC and/or on our brand new schmooze lounge. :) GlassCobra 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble figuring out the directions. Is there a "location" to which I should be uploading this? Should it go to the Commons? Sorry to be such a techno-peasant. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By George, I think I've got it. It's Accounting4Taste.jpg. Please let me know if there's something else I need to do. Thanks so much for helping!! Accounting4Taste:talk 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Accounting4Taste.jpg doesn't seem to work. You've never uploaded a picture to WP before? It doesn't need to be to Commons. Just go to Wikipedia:Upload. :) GlassCobra 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm wondering if the capitalization matters. Try Image:Accounting4Taste.JPG, because I can see it there. (Yeah, I've never uploaded a picture before. Hell, I just got a new phone with a camera in it and all I managed to do was take pictures of my foot.) Accounting4Taste:talk 04:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are all set, my friend. :) GlassCobra 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple thanks from your technologically-challenged friend. Gee, I've never been a member of a secret cabal before!! LOL Accounting4Taste:talk 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Welcome to the club! :D GlassCobra 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Jungle

WP:BRC

Please accept your honorary Bathrobe Cabal Slippers... Of Doom!

Welcome brother, to our Bathrobe Cabal. Please familiarize yourself with the aims of the The Illustrious and Honorable Bathrobe Cabal of Wikipedia.

As is customary, the welcome song shall be sung:

Welcome to the jungle! We got fun n' games, We got everything you want. Honey, we know the names. We are the people that can find - Whatever you may need. If you got the money honey; We got your disease. In the jungle! Welcome to the jungle! Watch it bring you to your shunn,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees; I wanna watch you bleed!

If you have a suggestion for the advancement of the Bathrobe Cabal of Wikipedia; or a country you would like to see invaded, please direct your comment to the Bathrobe Cabal diabolical discussion page. Stay Frosty! Dfrg_msc 05:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

We have also named you the resident surly old guy of the BRC. That position mostly entails you sitting out on the front porch and telling people to get the hell off your lawn. Trusilver 16:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<belly laugh> Like the old guy on "Family Guy" with the walker -- perpetually seen in his bathrobe -- who keeps inviting the paperboy in for a cool glass of water, except I get apopleptic about dog crap on the lawn. Nice to have a role. Anyone want some unrequested advice, or want to know what it was like in the old days? LOL Accounting4Taste:talk 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I made us all avatars to use on the BRC forums. Drop by and check it out! GlassCobra 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ha Ha Sound" - not vandalism

I resent the categorization of my creation of the page "Ha Ha Sound" as vandalism. It was in fact intended as an unorthodox way of alerting the administration that someone was pursuing a policy of frequent and persistent vandalism. I can't always find the protocols for this sort of thing when I need them, and past experience has shown that tracking down a protocol can be time-consuming and frustrating. I got a snarky response from Master Bigode within seconds of uploading the article, and have responded on his talk page.

You're taking a 1 year old blog comment way too seriously. Also, I'm pretty sure that guy was just trying to be funny.- Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hullo! Are Master Bigode and Accounting4Taste the same person, or are the two of you good friends? What I'm actually taking seriously is the charge of being a vandal. I didn't take much notice of the date on the comment. My guess is that Ha Ha Sound actually is the vandal he claims to be, simply because I understand the temptation perfectly well. It would be astonishing if no-one at all was in the habit of carrying out subtle sabotage on a regular basis. That's why anyone caught should be severely zapped. Koro Neil (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) I have no idea who User:Master Bigode is, I don't remember ever encountering him before (and have a bad memory for such things, my apologies) but thank him for his concern in this matter. It's always worthwhile paying attention to potential vandalism. (b) When a page is tagged as vandalism, when it looks on first glance like vandalism, and it actually says it's vandalism, I don't have the time and/or inclination to work out if it's something more subtle -- I delete it as vandalism, grateful for not having to waste time probing it further. I did find it sufficiently unusual to look at a few of the editor's most recent edits and, finding that they weren't vandalism, made a note to keep an eye on the account because I suspected it might have been hacked. For the rest of it, as far as who's a vandal and who isn't, "Frankly, Scarlett ..." -- sort it out among yourselves and let me know if I need to consider some administrative action that you want done with respect to the page in question. And for all concerned, take a deep breath and assume good faith, please. Thank you all for your interest in improving the 'pedia. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thongsuk Samdaengpan deletion

I was interupted before I finished translating that so posted it anyway! Please at least give me the content back again so that I can complete the work. The equivalent complete article is in the Thai wikipedia and is considered notable, as this personage is an important link in the lineage of the Dhammakaya Movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanissaro (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox page for you at User:Thanissaro/Sandbox containing the deleted content that you've requested. I would suggest that you need to add something to this article that asserts notability in a verifiable way, since the article I deleted seemed to meet neither of these policy requirements. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Please also remember to sign your posts using four tildes, or the signature key. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User page

I hope you do not mind me doing this? Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no worries, if that is what's appropriate, no problem. If I'd thought about it at all, I would have thought that leaving it full size would deter vandalism, but it doesn't seem to have done THAT <sigh>, so, great. Is there a sort of policy that the protection status should be in a small font? I'm just curious as to the reasoning, not complaining. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not believe, though I am not really sure. I have just mostly seen the large font on articles that are recently protected, which is usually changed to small font after a little while of protection. I also thought it being large drove down the look of your user page, and that being small made it look better, but thats my opinion and its your user page. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Earthbendingmaster has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Many thanks -- aesthetics are not my strong point, so I'm happy to know that someone wants me to look better -- and thank you also for the smile!! Accounting4Taste:talk 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Cheers, and happy editing.

P.S.:Don't forget to smile! Earthbendingmaster 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

About the article that i recreated

hi there, thanks for your message and now let me tell you why i've recreated an article about Kord (band) and why i don't understant someone has deleted. First i think this band named Kord it's notable because they are a good band and i find out more details about them on google. I read the Wikipedia policy for artists and because they had at least one charted hit in a national chart, they were for many times subject of half hour a broadcast on a national radio and tv channel, and one of the members was a part for a very well known band of artist named Nicola Nicoleta Alexandru, because of all of this i think they should be present here on Wikipedia, i mean they are notable. I understand that YouTube is not considered a reliable source, but in this case how should i prove that they were a subject of a broadcast on a national tv? I think there are already many motives for Kord (band) being present on Wikipedia. So, let me know if i'm not right? Lukassandi (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are right. (Please bear in mind that I never knew any of this -- all I saw was your assertion that YouTube was a reliable source.) If they've had one charted hit in a national chart, they're notable, according to WP:BAND. What I suggest is that you make it very, very clear to anyone who reads the first paragraph of the article -- even the first sentence -- that that is the case. Remember that even though they meet the notability guidelines, that notability must come from reliable sources and it must be verifiable. The easier you can make it for anyone to verify the charted hit, the easier it will be for someone to decide to not tag the article for deletion -- perhaps you could provide a link to a webpage that contains the official charts (whatever the equivalent of Billboard is in the country of their origin). If you want a "sandbox" page to work on the article, adding the links and making sure they work, let me know -- and also if you want to use the content that was deleted, I can put that in the sandbox. Let me know how I can help you further. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

hi there. I'm glad that someonelse re-created this article which i started long time ago, but at a moment there were some ussers who want to delete it and i don't know why, because this band has been placed in rotation nationally by some major radio network, had a charted hit on a national music chart - RT100 - and that can be verified right here , just look forward Issue nr: 50/2005 , and now with this link that usser lukassandi put it in the article, it can be verified that they (KORD) were the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a TV network. I looked up for some other links on youtube with interview of Kord and i found a big part of an interview with Kord and i put it in article. Because i'm a begginer in Wikipedia i didn't knew at that time how to make an article notable and prove that all the details that i writed are true. Now, i'm glad that this article about Kord has been re-created and even if i still don't very well how to use some links i can put right here an external link who prove that one of the Kord's members (Stefan Corbu) was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable - NICOLA.Drokstef (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} hi there, i have a problem with the article KORD (band) which someone deleted because of your CSD G4. Can you help me to re-back this notable article ? Drokstef (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, I have reviewed the deletion log, and the ArticleForDeletion(AFD) log, and it seems there is definitely at least one verifiable source, possibly 2, that the band had a hit on a national chart. It doesn't matter that they are a one-hit-wonder. I would like to keep the helpme tag up until a competent admin (not that there are many on Wikipedia) can recreate the article with some clout, because if I do it, it will be speedy-deleted again citing reposting of already-deleted content. That's why Wikipedia stinks, and its pro-deletionist admins. How many articles do we need to delete because admins can't be @#$#ed to check sources or put up warning tags. Shout it from the rooftops: is there a single rational admin out there!???. ... Rfwoolf (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Helpme tag deactivated... Okay, as per the deletion guidelines I have contacted the admin that approved of the Article-For-Deletion(AFD) debate. You can see my comments here: User_talk:Kurykh#Deletion_review_of_Kort_.28band.29. I will await his response. If he cannot show good reason as to why the article shouldn't be recreated, we will then move to Deletion Review. If that fails, well, Wikipedia had a good run before it was doomed by its own admins... On the other hand, they might have a good reason that I fail to see. By based on the history here, it looks like just another case of deletionist tendancies by an admin. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to mention that I didn't have anything to do with the subsequent deletion of this article or, indeed, anything after the exchange above, to the best of my knowledge. I haven't tagged the article again, or deleted it, and I'm not sure why this is taking place on my talk page. However, I'm still happy to help if there is something I can do. Based on what I read above, I'm going to ask Rfwoolf to remember to assume good faith on the part of all concerned. If someone wants me to do something in connection with this article, this would be a good place to do it. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You speedy-deleted the article based on "no meaningful content", and this was probably because whoever recreated the article didn't want to repost already-deleted content (G4), which might be the reason no meaningful content was there. It's a terribly big bug in the system, and I just hope one day enough admins start reading the G4 speedy-deletion rules properly and that the G4 rule is clarified, to prevent speedy deletions in cases where the content is being reposted because the article finally meets notability guideleines (as mentioned, the system is rather broken). So nobody is really blaming you, but I suppose the user is frustrated at the beaurocracy of the system.

In terms of what you can do, you could, as an admin, paste the deleted article in Drokstef's userspace, allow him to edit it and add all references, and then we can take this to the local kangaroo court (Deletion Review) and ask them to recreate the article with this content? Sound like a fair deal? Rfwoolf (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring to his userpage/sandbox. :) I think we can move the discussion to his userpage and close things from here. The admin that adjudicated the AFD said his sole job was to rule in favour of consensus (ignoring any validity to the keep-votes) rather a sad system, honestly. The truth is anybody can vote in an AFD, but only an admin can look through the votes and see whose votes are based on policy, logic, and reason. All the admins usually don't. One day this system has to change. As an admin involved in the deletion of articles, I hope you will remain mindful of these issues. Thanks :) Rfwoolf (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent deletion of The Fast and the Furious 4

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review#The Fast and the Furious 4. This was under discussion and recreated, and then redeleted by you just afterwards. I would also appreciate if you could put a copy of the deleted article here. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Noah Parsons

I don't understand why I'm in the middle of working on something and you just come and delete it? How can anyone be expected to get the feel of Wikipedia if the article I create is deleted within 3 seconds of me making it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nparsons21 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, although one of the things about Wikipedia that you'll need to get a feel for is signing your posts using four tildes. I'm going to suggest that you read Wikipedia:Your first article, which may answer some of the questions you have. Essentially, I deleted the article because it did not meet our Notability policy -- new articles are overseen by many, many volunteers and are subject to a rather ruthless winnowing process, because (among other reasons) as a not-for-profit organization we have a limited amount of bandwidth and hosting space. I'm going to go to your user talk page and leave a standard welcome message there -- that message will contain links to many relevant policy pages and things that will help you get the feel of Wikipedia. If you still have questions about specific policies or want further help, just leave me a note here. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, if something is considered notable to you, you just have the right to delete it. So basically, nothing on a local level can have it's own page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nparsons21 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rude, but accurate. I suggest a social networking site like MySpace, where your biography will find a more welcoming, less critical home. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Albu

No problem. Let me know when the AfD is set up and I'll vote to speedy delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I used to be that way. After the 4,572nd occurrence, I got over it. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May be interested in AFD discussion

As you previously advised an editor with NPOV and COI issues, you may be interested in the discussion of one of that editor's articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Dictionary.

I thought you might want to know about it because you had offered to help the editor comply with policies and guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I assure you I don't regard this as canvassing -- I did work with this author and I am interested (and somewhat saddened) to see the result. I assessed the article independently and made up what's left of my mind <grin> before commenting. I appreciate your extra trouble. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm impressed with your time and effort to provide the conflicted author with comprehensive advice, too. — Athaenara ✉ 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Taylor Hobson

I created the Taylor Hobson page, as I explained in its talk page, to deal with the orphaned Talyvel page and my revision of the Cooke Optics page. (IMHO the Talyvel article is a much better candidate for deletion, and, as I said, the Talysurf and Talyrond products are more important anyway.) Basically "Taylor Hobson" covers the first century of what is now Cooke Optics: the latter was only bought out in 1998, leaving behind the metrology products for which Taylor Hobson has been known since 1941.

In the metrology field, Taylor Hobson has been at least as much of a leader as it has been in lenses. Perhaps the difference is that the average Joe does not buy metrology products, but a few of them buy Cooke lenses. Surely this does not determine notability in Wikipedia terms? Googling "Taylor Hobson" will turn up a number of secondary sources that I would expect to satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for notability. There are books that I could cite as evidence.

FWIW, an expert who was asked to name the most outstanding lens makers said Zeiss and Taylor Hobson, and after that he would have to think. Rodenstock, Schneider Kreuznach and Zeiss have extensive articles in Wikipedia. Taylor Hobson/Cooke Optics is comparably important but currently makes much less demand on Wikipedia's bandwidth. I have no commercial connection with Taylor Hobson or Cooke Optics, although I have used their products.

The existing redirect from Taylor, Taylor and Hobson ought to go to an article on Taylor Hobson, with links in both directions between the Cooke Optics and Taylor Hobson articles. The article that I wrote on Taylor Hobson was just long enough to clarify its history and the relationship with Cooke Optics. EEye (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What was lacking from the article that I found tagged for deletion was sources. If you can find a way to quote the expert you cite above so that the quote is verifiable, that would be a good starting point. I can appreciate that "Googling "Taylor Hobson" will turn up a number of secondary sources" that you would expect to satisfy the notability criteria, and I also accept that there are books that you could cite as evidence. The thing is, you need to do that within the body of the article rather than just stating that such evidence exists. Someone who is assessing the article for notability will not Google "Taylor Hobson"; they rely on the face of the article itself to demonstrate notability. Add in those references and sources and I'm betting that the article will pass initial scrutiny.

If you want me to retrieve the deleted material and put it into a "sandbox" so that you can work on it to add those references and sources, I'd be happy to do that -- or if there's something else I can do to be of assistance, you can let me know. I'll try to help you however I can; if you're convinced that this topic is sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia, I accept that it is, so let's make it happen. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please put my deleted material into a sandbox. It will probably take time to track down the necessary sources. I did include links to the current Taylor Hobson and Cooke Optics websites, both of which include extensive company histories. EEye (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For blocking the idiot who vandalized my user page in response to my reporting his nonsense. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Darkfighterman

Look, it is unfair that you have delete my page because you don't know jack. I am going to make my list of fictional barefoot characters one way or the other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfighterman (talk • contribs)

Oh, I think I know more than jack; I know how to report suspected sockpuppets of User:Creepy Crawler. Enjoy the remainder of the AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, {{unsigned}} produces the above message, put a pipe with the user name after the 'd'. Thus - {{unsigned|Darkfighterman}} WLU (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

<grin> See how much more you know than I do? I'm the kind of technopeasant who waits for the bot to take care of it, and I guess I just never came across that particular piece of information before. Thanks!! Accounting4Taste:talk 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, it's monkey-see, monkey-do; didn't know about WP:WARN for the longest time and used to write my own vandalism messages. I don't write the templates, I don't edit them, and I usually have to write it down somewhere if I want to use it more than once. I'm currently driving myself mad trying to track down an obscure policy I'm sure I've read (lay summaries of scientific articles should accompany the original article rather than being a separate reference - can you help me out on that one?) and the number of times I've tried to find the WP: link for "don't use quotes unless you have to" is downright embarassing. Oh, and best template ever - {{sodoit}}. WLU (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Col. West, of course, is of note.

Yet I suppose how extensive of coverage he "deserves" may well be some kind of interesting philosophical issue. I appreciate concern about whether a torturer should be publically celebrated. (But, come to think, isn't "notoriety" just as applicable to disparagement as sanction? And isn't it mostly Wikipedia's biz to objectively cover whatever are the bare fact of whatever happens to have become of "public note"?)

((And, not to overstate it, but another "philosophical" issue is... While some exuberant sorts (such as me) busy ourselves giving coverage to whatever chimera of the moment (which we deem to be "issues of current interests and debate," we suppose?), there's another camp such as yours who are legitimately concerned about standards and control of such exuberance. Allofwhich results in some kind of somewhat seat-of-the-pants and somewhat carefully calibrated Wikipedia determination calibration holding that "this subject has X many paragraphs that are OK and Y many that are not." (While my oftentimes quickly-written jottings most often still somehow fall into the X category, I appreciate those who care enough to want to test them to see if they're in some way more Y than X....))) Justmeherenow (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I had another look at the article and it's certainly gone quite far in a short time, with good references/citations and some in-depth background information. I think I disagree with a little bit of the philosophy you expressed above (nothing serious, though), but I definitely applaud your hard work in improving the article so quickly and so thoroughly. Well done, and thanks for your vote of confidence in my efforts. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sonopia page deleting

Hi, you have deleted Sonopia page on 08, February, 2008 in spite it had different content from the latested version. All previous versions were created by other person but actually I am interesting in the last version. I just want to know what was incorrect just to improve it and change the article to be according to the wikipedia policies (I have read it allready and I have tried to edit page according to all policies). I will appreciate any help, thanks! Sonopia Guru (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The Sonopia article was deleted because it was recently involved in an Articles for Deletion (AfD) process -- read the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonopia for details -- and failed. Because it failed this process, it is subject to immediate "speedy" deletion by any administrator who recognizes that it has failed AfD. My understanding of Wikipedia policy suggests that the only way to proceed now is to request that the AfD be re-considered -- this is done by entering the page into what's known as deletion review. Please carefully read the page at WP:Deletion review, as well as the page at Deletion policy, before you move forward. I hope this explains matters to your satisfaction; let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Although the effort involved in taking the article through deletion review is your responsibility, I'll be happy to advise you on policy matters if I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cripple mr onion (band)

Would you be able to usefy the contents of the article pre deletion to here and I will try and show the user why it was deleted and see if I can assert notability? Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been done as you requested. If you have problems explaining the deletion, let me know and I'll help if I can. After a quick review of the deleted material, I assess (and assessed at the time of deletion) that they don't meet WP:BAND -- no recordings, no recording contract with a label, no mention of a national tour, no famous members, etc. If there's something further I can do to help, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Darkfighterman

Sockpuppet, eh? Why am I not surprised? Thanks for the heads-up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on recent events, I'm also keeping an eye on User:72.51.199.6, who makes exactly the same edits to exactly the same articles. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, some relevant archived pages include User:FisherQueen/Archive11#Barefoot, User:FisherQueen/Archive11#Sock, and the mother load. I've been tagging suspected socks with {{sockpuppet|Creepy Crawler|evidence=[[{{highssp|1={{{User|Creepy Crawler (2nd)}}}}}]]}}, so by going to Creepy's user page and checking the 'what links here', you might get an idea. I also humbly suggest tagging any suspected socks with the same template. WLU (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, more. User:FisherQueen/Archive13#Creepy_Crawler_is_back., User:FisherQueen/Archive13#Feeling_alone.3F, User:FisherQueen/Archive13#Creepy_sock. The 'mother load' section is, perhaps to the point of redundancy, the mother load. WLU (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CockyTalk

I tried creating this site 3 different times. It was deleted because it wasn't notable...can this be explained? I provided a direct link to the actual web site. It is a notorious forum among Gamecock fans who seem up to date news, videos, images, and stimulating discussion regarding University of South Carolina athletics. Do you want an actual e-mail from the creator of the site or something? I find it hard to believe this doesn't belong on Wikipedia with all of the junk that I have browsed in the past. ColaCock (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)ColaCock

Tolga Bayrak

Not a prob and no wasting of my time. I put up so many articles for speedy deletion that it's only natural that good editors like yourself wonder if I'm not just randomly marking them :) -Yupik (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FFR

According to deletion logs, you were the last admin to delete Flash Flash Revolution. I saw why you deleted it, but I would now like to re-create the page again. Yes, I know it's been created many times, but I believe I can make it a valuable page. I don't see how it is non notable as there are 1.4 million members, the bands that have allowed their music to be featured are extremely notable, and the site is now making widgets to put on notable bands' myspace pages. I am a member of the site, I have been for a long time, and I do believe I can make an article about this site and make it notable. If you need to see proof of the stats that I am talking about, i.e. the member count and widgets, please visit the home [page] and see for yourself. I know you deleted this in November, but I believe that the editor who had created the page did not know how to make it fully notable. If I am allowed to recreate it, I would need someone to put a page protection on it as it was subject to a great deal of vandalism during it's first appearences here. Please respond to this on my talk page. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go. This is an edit I left to Chardish describing the mentions/reviews of FFR on the web. That alone satisfies WP:WEB. Please make the sandbox page for me and I will take off with it. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One Other Thing

I was nominated for adminship not too long ago, and I failed miseraby. XD I was wondering if you could just take a brief look at my contributions and tell me what I'm doing good on, and what I need to improve on. (don't bother with the whole rollback issue, i've taken care of it and heard enough of it lol) Thanks. Undeath (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give this some thought and attention before I reply. I went and read your RfA and found that a couple of editors whose opinions I respect -- notably User:Pedro, who is the reason I'm an admin at all -- had interesting things to say that seemed worthwhile. I need to log out for a while but I intend to look into your contributions, since you've honoured me by asking for your opinion, and I'll report back to you. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Zooillogix

A couple of months ago I created a brief entry for Zooillogix, a zoology blog on the ScienceBlogs network. It was deleted because it did not indicate the subject's importance. I totally understand that Wikipedia cannot simply allow every blog with an overblown sense of self-importance to create an entry for themselves. That being said, I believe that Zooillogix's importance and relevance can be firmly established. First and foremost, it is frequently referenced by off-beat but mainstream online media (Mental Floss, Improbable Research, Pantherhouse). It also frequently cited by the online science community, including PZ Meyers and Bora Zivkovic (Community Manager for the Public Library of Science) as well as in university biology course syllabi. At this point it receives 20,000+ unique visitors a month from over 170 countries, but, while this number might seem small, the vast majority are biologists and conservationists who look to zooillogix for news, research reviews and humor. Within this informed and international community, Zooillogix is half CNN and half the Onion but exceptionally well known. Perhaps most importantly to its readers, it is the only the website focused on off-beat zoology news. Any suggestions for better demonstrating Zooillogix's relevance would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks for your time. DeKreeft27 Zooillogix (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've skimmed the article briefly and I think it has two problems, which essentially boil down to one problem. The first problem is called WP:NPOV, because the article is not neutral in tone. Who says this blog is humourous? Who says it's authoritative? Who says it's well-known? As it stands, those are opinions. The second problem, which encompasses the first, is a lack of references. There are references there, but in a sense they're the wrong ones. Such-and-such says that so-and-so many other blogs link to this one. Since I'm neither a zoologist nor a habitue of the blogosphere, that doesn't mean much to me, and it doesn't give me any sense that the publication is notable. What is definitely required is reliable sources -- I've linked to the WP:RS page so that you can have a good look at what constitutes "reliable sources" in Wikipedian terms. I admit that it is unlikely that a blog is going to be written about in, say, Time magazine any time soon. I suggest that when an editor or administrator considers a blog in terms of deletion, it needs to have the best possible references outside other blogs, because blogs themselves are not considered to confer notability. (The reason, for the same reason that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, is that anyone can say anything in a blog at any time for any reason -- no expertise can be guaranteed.) My advice would be to search in publications OUTSIDE of the blogosphere for citations, where experts in zoology say that this is a good site -- ideally, in a verifiable format.

If you want me to restore the deleted content to a sandbox page for you so that you can work on bolstering it with citations and references without being disturbed (at least for about a month, say), I'd be happy to do that. And if there's anything further I can do to help, let me know; I'm starting to think that this is something that is sufficiently notable that it should have an article. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you could restore it to a sandbox page I would sincerely appreciate it. Thanks for the help and thanks in advance for any future help you can provide. DeKreeft27 Zooillogix (talk) 4:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See User:DeKreeft27/Sandbox for the material, and let me know if there's something further I can do to help. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That user page

Thanks for your note. You don't know how disappointed I was when I realized that was a PROD and not a speedy tag. Alas, it is a user page, and speedy criteria probably don't apply. PROD is the best. If the user becomes constructive, we can always get the inappropriate stuff archived or something. Oh, well. He'll either fix it or not. Either way, we'll get it dealt with. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, speedy criteria probably don't apply. We'll get it dealt with in five days at the most and, who knows? As you suggest, he could become constructive. (Not holding my breath, but you never know.) Accounting4Taste:talk 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

question about deleted article

I just wrote the Acorn Designs, LLC page and you deleted it. This is my first page and I was adding marterial as I go. Can I correct/complete this page and add it later or does there need to be a new titled article? Is there a template I can download and use and then upload? Thanks for any assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcornDesigns (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it...

I created the page about the British artist James Allen (Painter,illustrator,Stained Glass artist. So... let me know what was the problem for you not to like the article and delete the page.

The page had bio and photo gallery of the artist work.

Please let me know what was the problem so I can create it again in a way it wont be deleted. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomer38 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Venomous

Hi Accounting4Taste, Just thought I'd warn you about a possible dispute that may come up. Someone just mentioned on the Pythonidae talk page that the "non-venomous" link in the lead section of that page was directing people to a page describing a musician. "Venomous" had been a redirect to the Venom page since June, 2004, but someone decided to rededicate it to the musician in question only a week ago. Silly, if you ask me, since more than a few pages linked to "Venom" through that redirect. So, I went ahead and repaired the situation, moving the artist's page to Venomous (musician), redirecting the new "Venomous" redirect back to "Venom", creating a Venomous (disambiguation) page and finally tacking a link to the latter onto the disambig statement on the "Venom" page. Does that seem okay to you? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This all seems very sensible and makes things useful to the widest possible range of users, so I have to agree with what you've done. If there is a dispute, let me know, please. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Something further occurred to me, so I went ahead and did it: I added a (See also) link at the bottom of each of the two disambiguation pages to the other disambiguation page. So the "see also" at the bottom of Venom (disambiguation) leads to Venomous (disambiguation) and vice versa. If anybody gets mixed up even with that amount of help, well, I can't think of anything else that could be done. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, and again, let me know if a dispute arises. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger! Looks good to me. I also slightly tweaked Venomous (disambiguation). Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ford Trucks Rock

Ok what did I do wrong? Kingranchowner (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Book (2007)

I dont understand why the article was deleted. If i was given time, i could have fixed the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChiefJohn117 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; apparently you still don't understand the notability requirements for the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day. I still suggest that you read WP:Your first article before proceeding further. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Morales

Hey, this page has been tagged for a little while now, and i notice that your specialty is CSD-A7. Was wondering if you could turn into a red link please? :p Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

<grin> My fame precedes me. I looked at this one and wondered, "What the heck is CSULA?" I take it CSULA is not the highest level of amateur competition or any level of professional competition, so upon your recommendation, it's gone. If I've made a mistake here, please let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much! :p Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, I could have just clicked on the link for CSULA. Thanks for bringing this one to me, it deserved to be gone faster. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, oh, we all have those days. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lights Music Action

I had had this created for a few minutes and it was already delted for having little information in it! I was still updating it with a friend, and we both attend lights music action. How can we create a file without it beign deleted 2 seconds later if it's not given a chance to be adapted? Billy-is-hyde (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, as a general rule, you politely ask an administrator to create a sandbox page for you with the deleted material, like I've done at User:Billy-is-hyde/Sandbox. The sandbox page should be safe from interference for a couple of weeks, but not forever. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Your first article and pay particular attention to the bits that discuss notability and reliable sources, because without those two elements, it's unlikely that your article will last very long. There's a small area between WP:SPAM and non-notability which is difficult for most companies to traverse successfully, so I'd advise paying attention to those boundaries too. If I can be of further assistance with Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikihate

Apparently someone hates you. Just wanted to let you know, so if any red dots appear on your forehead, you'll know to duck! :P Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edith (dancer) UC Irvine DanceSport

Please do not delete Edith Su Ho / Edith (dancer). This page is currently being updated with information and a photo. This page deals with UC Irvine DanceSport, a recognised programme at the University of California, Irvine. Thanks. Edithsuho (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edith (dancer) UC Irvine DanceSport

Hello, thank you for advising. I am still learning how to contribute. I'm afraid I am unsure how to proceed.

This is an university team that has a wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Ballroom_Dance_Team Hence I created a wiki page for UC Irvine. As I've listed the directors, I'd like to provide some info about each. Please do not delete.

Edithsuho (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edith (dancer) UC Irvine DanceSport

Hello again. First, the UC Irvine DanceSport wiki has been deleted, although I understood that this is worthy of a wiki. I'd like to re-instate it, if I may. Second, I believe that Edith (dancer) / Edith Su Ho is worthy of a wiki because she was the founder. The actual wiki that was being created wasn't done yet. Teresa Shiry is worthy of a wiki because she is listed as an American Smooth Champion with David Hamilton (list of champions is a wiki in itself). Thank you for your patience and help. Edithsuho (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edith (dancer) UC Irvine DanceSport

Hi, there appears to be some sort of misunderstanding. The UC Irvine DanceSport wiki (that has been deleted) is similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Ballroom_Dance_Team because these are two university teams/clubs that compete in dance, like the BYU team. According to the source/ref cited, UC Irvine finished 2nd at Nationals, a very good result. If UC Irvine DanceSport does not warrant a wiki because of a 2nd place result (Because UMichigan got 1st), I don't know what to say. I did read the guides you suggested and believe that UC Irvine DanceSport did/does warrant a wiki as a result of the UMichigan team wiki. I can see your reasoning with regard to Edith (dancer) / Edith Su Ho and Teresa Shiry, although many dancer wikis have been created. Fyi, I have not re-instated any deletions to any of the wikis I've created. Thank you for your patience and advice. Edithsuho (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rapist card game

Hello I am writing to discuss the deletion message you left on the page for a card game i thought up. I cannot quite understand why you have sent this message. For one the game is an actual game me and my friends thought up and play.

I dont see the need to have this page deleted as other people may come across this game and wish to play it themselves. I see this as information of a newly invented game and it is perfectly suitable for a encyclopedia.

Please reconsider your proposal and at least get back to me on reasons etc.

Thanks.

I see, thanks. although at no point in my article did i mention anything about rape being humurous in any way.

is there any way that I could possibly change the article or do something else to stop it's deletion?

Hello again. Thanks for your feeback, although I am quite confused by the way you seem to despise the thought of this page being allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Are there not more serious articles you could be proposing for deletion, such as abusive or threatening articles etc.

I see this as quite petty to be honest and although I realise your point about the 'rules' of Wikipedia, no harm is being done by leaving the page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrraeme (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rose Harris

That is not a problem at all. I did see the new article, and it looks very nice. I did not want to remove the speedy that I placed myself, as I was unsure of the etiquette involved. Thank you, Runnynose47 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, deletion guru

Can you take a look at this article and compare it to this to the info and links to one's own web site for User:AeronM with a follow up to proof of commercial promotion? I am in something of an edit spat with this person over at bitless bridle, and although I think we have the main debate cooled for the moment, I really DO think this is commercial promotion of one's own invention, but for me to carry it to AFD would throw fat on a fire that may have temporarily cooled. Do as you see fit, I really want to get out of the spat and stay out. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe what's happening presently with the Riding Halter article may be what you wanted to have happen -- if not, let me know. I certainly agree that the link at the bottom of Riding Halter is a commercial link, but haven't delved more deeply into it. Sorry to have not picked up on this message immediately -- if ever you leave me a note and I don't get back to you pretty smartly, please, do feel free to prompt me -- sometimes I get three or four new messages on the same day and might miss the upper ones. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem about the delay, thanks for getting back. There has been such an edit war with this author that I am deliberately avoiding the AfD discussion. I am a bit concerned about what the rules are for commercial promotion on User Pages, not sure if putting the link to one's commercial site is within the guidelines for a user page or if it's an attempt to do free advertising. Any feedback welcome Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that specific policy at WP:UP#NOT and, yes, I believe putting a link to one's commercial site is NOT within the guidelines for a user page. Is this User:AeronM? I'll look into it. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Had fun, did you? Can you perhaps watchlist hackamore for a bit? Have had the feeling there could be some risk of potential retaliatory editing going on, talk page threats to downgrade the article to a disambiguation page. I guess usually these situations resolve themselves one of two ways, people either figure out the rules and become good contributing wikipedians, or they quit in disgust and go post on all their message boards about how bad wikipedia sucks. Just makes for an ugly few weeks until the situation resolves one way or the other. I just had a big round of this about two weeks ago with a PETA fanatic over in the rodeo articles (animals do get abused at rodeos, but not in the way PETA claims) and so had about one nerve left when this thing heated up. My blood pressure really doesn't like these things. Montanabw^(talk) 08:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for make a sandbox page for me

Thanks for made a sandbox page for me at User:Drokstef/Sandbox for article Kord (band). Thanks to Rfwoolf and you, and maybe some others too, i hope that article Kord (band) will re-back at the original place. Indeed i had a difficult time here because i'm a begginer in Wikipedia and i don't know very well how the things are going here, but I'm trying to learn how to make correctly an article which is notable and reliable and sometime receiving help from others it's welcome. So, if i understand well, now i gotta wait that article goes to deletion review, and after that will be placed-back? And sorry for (helpme) tag on your talk page, but i didn't knew what should i do for reback the article.Drokstef (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch Santa Barbara

I am sure this page is useful to many in Santa Barbara as it has been requested by family and friends that information like this be made readily available, I personally am not in this business but the restaurant industry, but i do like these men and their philosophies for life and their approach to what they do. I wanted to create a source about local people that fellow Santa Babarans might know and contacts that may be useful for their college planning and 401 K planning needs, I did this page in the most encyclopedic manner I could muster considering it is simply a page to help the interest of regular people like myself in this area which is foreign and complex for most laymen, judging from your user name you are more savy than most in the area of finance and accounting but Im sure your aware this comes as a difficult topic to most... is there any way to maintain the usefulness of this page, contact information, bios and so forth while making it suitable for such a wiki forum? kind regards -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by BullishwML (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Robbie Hummel Deletion

Could you possibly retain the information that I stated in creating the article for Robbie Hummel, so that I may better list why he is a notable figure, as well as list sources that I information could be obtained from? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purdue2010 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Purdue2010 (talk)Purdue 2010 —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am currently working on revising the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purdue2010 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply re: .biz extension

Hi Accounting. No, a .biz extension is not reserved for commercial enterprises. It is the second most popular extension after .com, and as the name with the .com extension was already taken, I took this one. My site is not commercial. It is my personal blog. You are welcome to check it out: www.naturalhorsemanship.biz. You can also get there via www.aeronmack.com. Thanks. AeronM (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, and may I also say that I'm happy that you're discussing this in what I might term a professional fashion. I'm afraid I wasn't able to reach your site by going to www.aeronmack.com -- that led me to a kind of holding page that seemed to sell things like chairs. Have I made an error? The other thing I wanted to mention is that I did a Google search to inform myself more about the .biz domain, went to [1] and found this:

"7. What does the .BIZ extension stand for?

The .BIZ domain name extension, or Top Level Domain (TLD), is meant to be used for commercial or business purposes. The .BIZ registry has issued guidelines that .BIZ domain names are not intended for wholly personal or non-commercial purposes."

I did actually visit the page in question before communicating with you, and since the second paragraph is about a reality show in which you're participating, and the third paragraph was about a commercial product which you're promoting, it led me to conclude that this was actually a commercial site. (I wouldn't have troubled you otherwise.) I didn't think it would be much trouble to simply delete the link, since someone found it questionable; are you strongly resistant to this idea? Accounting4Taste:talk 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Malibu Rehab Model

Hi--i've done a lot of work on this artilce. it also looks like a few others chiped in--what do you think? thanks for your help reagan 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fresh out of the Wikioven

AgnosticPreachersKid has given you a cookie! The good thing about this cookie is that it's fat free, calorie free, and cholestorol free. Enjoy!

Forgot to tell you thanks for the message on my talk page. I needed a few days to regain my sanity and composure after my first WikiBreakdown. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SUPERAntispyware

I saved my article here: User:Family_Guy_Guy/Sandbox/SUPERAntispyware, is it wiki-ready? —Preceding comment was added at 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Minto Mingle

The reason given for deleting the Minto Mingle article was it pertained to a club or organization without sufficient notability cited. Although the history of the Minto Mingle does closely relate to the history of the Three Tree Point Yacht Club which serves as host for the event, the Minto Mingle is open to participation by the general public and represents interest in the broader issue of NW maritime history. The originator of the Minto Sailing Dinghy was Ed Hoppen, also the originator of the Thunderbird sailboat. Ed Hoppen's EDDON Boat Yard has been purchased by the city of Gig Harbor to serve as a working maritime museum, and the 50th anniversary of the Thunderbird will be celebrated by Gig Harbor this summer. There is a real interest in preserving the history of NW boating industry, and the Minto represents part of that history. The purpose of the Minto Mingle article was to help preserve the memory of NW boating traditions and to help them to continue forward. Please suggest changes I should make to the submitted article which would make it acceptable. I do believe the purpose was valid. MAEllis (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MAEllis —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAEllis (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Surrealistic Artists

I saw your edit on this article, and I want to ask your opinion. It seems to me that this article was created as a sort of end run around the deletion of Gary Huey, and that his inclusion in this article makes the creator's motives suspect. I have blanked the page and turned it into a redirect to Surrealism. My only question is, what do I do with the talk page? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It took me a minute to work out just what I'd done and what was going on. I agree with you that Gary Huey is a non-notable artist, at least according to the contents of the article that I read -- however, I deleted the article for copyright violation. (I admit that had it not been a copyvio I would probably have considered it a non-notable topic.) I believe the talk page you're referring to is Talk:Surrealistic Artists -- I don't think it's doing any harm where it is, and I'm hesitant to delete a talk page for a page that serves a function, even a redirect. May I suggest we just leave it in place? If I have somehow mistaken what you were talking about, please instruct me further. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you interrupted correctly. I apologize for not having been more clear in the first place. I have no problem with leaving it where it is, and I appreciate your advice and your response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10