Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgar181 (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 20 June 2012 (speedy deletion declined - user talk pages with extensive history are generally not deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User Page   Talk   Userboxes   Awards   To Do   Adoption   Bookmarks   Subpages   Tools   Email   Sandbox

This is OrenBochman's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Welcome!

Hello, OrenBochman, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as ThinkUp, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BelovedFreak 13:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cigarette holder

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cigarette holder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

After Crying

You're free to dispute it. The problem is that such an old and established page really shouldn't be subject to the speedy deletion process; it's meant for egregious problems (e.g. copyvios), housekeeping, and new pages that don't appear to stand a chance at becoming decent articles. Obviously we have someone disagreeing with its deletion, so a PROD would not be appropriate; therefore, if you wish to see it deleted, please send it to WP:AFD. I have no opinion on the suitability (or lack thereof) of having an article on this band, so I'll not participate in the AFD if you start it. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An additional issue is the fact that five other Wikipedias have articles on this band. That's by itself no reason to keep it at AFD, but when five others think it's article-worthy, we really shouldn't subject it to speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out to explain your actions and for letting me know my options - you are the most curteous Admin I've met since I joined. As I pointed out, I am not on a crusade to delete this article - but to see its promoted to a threshold of Wikipia's strandards. As it stands it is not possible to verify any of the information on all five Wikipedias. If after years - the article's has never demonstrated its notability this is an indicator for exluding it rather than including it. OrenBochman 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ISSUE

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I found an improper named user - User:PittChEGSA which is the account for Pitt Universtu Chemical Engeneering special account. I don't know where to report it and how to notify the user of the problem. ThanksOrenBochman 09:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Already done - user has been blocked. CyanGardevoir 09:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Heights (band)

A tag has been placed on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Heights (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CyanGardevoir 09:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

moved to wards page OrenBochman 06:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Batman's utility belt. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  13:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good-faith edit

Hello. It appears that you mistook my recent edit on Tulsa, Oklahoma for vandalism. If this was an oversight, could you please revert your revert of my edit? If not, could you explain why you believe my edit was vandalism? As I said in edit summary, I removed the police chief's quote because it is simply tongue-in-cheek; it adds no information and does not help illustrate the information already presented; it is therefore superfluous and doesn't meet the standard of a feature article. If you disagree, please discuss it on the article's talk page and I will be happy to debate the point. I am an experienced Misplaced Pages user with a variable IP address, hence my lack of an edit history. However, my lack of a user account does not make my edits less credible than others'. Thank you. 98.178.129.147 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done OrenBochman 05:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, from STiki !

moved to awards page OrenBochman 06:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

Talkback

Please Fix your signature. :) It will be convenient if you had a link to your talk page. Regards DBigXray 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is required to include a link to your talk page, your user page, your contributions or any combination of these. So yes, please fix your signature. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi I must admit that the Sig was mangled due to an attempt to conform with the sig policy - since the version above was too long.... However based on your suggestion and link - this matter has been fixed, I hope satisfactorily. BO | Talk 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

your message got archived User_talk:DBigXray/Archive2012_1#Thanks_3 --DBigXray 05:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

mass speedy deletion requests

Are you serious? Cavarrone (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have just removed a bunch of CSDA7 tags that you had placed on a number of articles. All of those had credible claims for notability, so none of them was CSD eligible. Perhaps you should read up on the speedy deletion criteria before tagging more articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. While we disagree - I will proceed with these are Afd where I can make a fuller demonstration of their lack of notability. I will also review the CSD criteria. P.S. nominations are not sufficent evidence for notability according to WP:PornBio OrenBochman 08:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• You're perfectly welcome to pursue these at AfD and perhaps they will get deleted for lack of notability. However, for CSD A7, things have to be exceedingly clear (i.e., not even a credible claim to notability). In all other cases, you'll have to go with PROD or AfD. Also, it didn't help your credibility that you nominated several articles created by Cavarrone immediately after another one of your CSDs had been denied, you should perhaps also read up on WP:POINT. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again - You pointed something out that is missing in the CSD documentation - It does not claim that the issue of notability must be crystal clear. BTW the previous CSD action refferd to is serveral days old. This particular action is part of general patrol action I did this morning including anti vandalism, and two AfD this morning. I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual. However as per your suggestion - I will take care of other matter in the meanwhile so as not to appear WP:Pointy. OrenBochman 08:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is laughable! Just one minute after you posted a rancorous message on my talk page about that CSD action, you are randomly stumbled in five my articles created months and months ago in about three minutes. Are you kidding us?Cavarrone (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

First you incited this situation - next you declined to communicate - now you come here to gloat and play it for maximum effect - I will not be annoyed by this childish behaviour - the constent dispute and will be decided by a wider consensus. Good day. OrenBochman 08:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Olga Bisera

Hello OrenBochman, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olga Bisera, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 07:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Hi Oren. With respect to blocking policy, it might possibly be a good idea to read WP:COOLDOWN.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shirt58 - Thanks for the corteus assistence - I will certainly review WP:COOLDOWN before I proceed with further partolling and editing. I plan to disclose more information from the previous action and demonstrate that this is serious wikipedia buissness grounded in policy motivated good faith work. OrenBochman 13:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What CSD A7 means

Hi there Oren. CSD A7 applies to articles about individuals, organizations, and websites/web content that do not make a single credible assertion to its importance/significance. As you have learned from the deletion adoption assignment, this criterion does not mean "non-notable" - importance/significance is a lower standard than notability. There have been multiple incorrectly applied taggings by you recently:

What is even more worrying that you tagged this when winning multiple notable awards is a clear claim to notability.

Please don't tag A7 again until you have fully understood the real meaning of it. A7 does not mean an article "is not notable as per WP:GNG", A7 is an article that makes no credible claim to importance/significance. I'm not angry and I am not intending to hurt your feelings by writing this message to you.

Best, →Bmusician 08:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Brynn Tyler

Hi, out of deep respect for my menotr and in gratitude for the effort spent on my behalf on the admin's noticeboard. I have decided to explain my CSD rational for this which was described as particularly controversial. I fear that the remover of the CSD notice did not look at the article - because most people find looking at Pornography based bios so distasteful they simply move on as soon as possible. I find that arguing with people who consistently introduce pornbios is more distasteful but necessary.

I noticed the following things in this article:

1. This is a BLP and requires per the WMF, Jimbo and WP:BLP the highest levels of fact checking. After all Misplaced Pages's reputation is always being tested on how accurately it has assessed its subjects worthiness for inclusion and and how well the community has checked the fact of this article.
2. Both the title and the first sentence are misleading. - and would be easier to delete than to correct. The most basic fact in this article is under dispute. Is this article about Brynn Tyler ? Is it an article about Londyn Allison? Is it an article about some one else? Without reference to a real person none of this article can be reasonable WP:V Consider Mark Twain or Lewis Carrol. Is Brynn Tyler a person actually born on November 14, 1987 in Texas. Clearly not - Brynn Tyler is a fiction which was born years later by Wicked Pictures or another similar company whose interests are being promoted by this article WP:COI. Isn't the existence of multiple aliases further evidence that other companies later decided that Brynn Tyler is not a good name for this subject? All in all it is clear that this the title is misleading and a lie of omission. How can Misplaced Pages editors condone this article notable if they cannot possibly verify or correct the inaccurate statement drawn fully from WP:OR. If it is not 100% correct - it has no place in a WP:BLP The second sentence is no better:
3. "She debuted in 2007 and since then has appeared in about 90 movies." - this again is unfit for inclusion in any serious encyclopedia since it is WP:SYNTH. Since when do we publish assessment. This is a serious statement which boldly claims that someone has engaged in about 90 sexual encounters. I am certain that all our editors would be shocked if they were described by Britannica as having been in about 3 porno movies - especially if they had been in none. Further more it is contradicted by the info box which states exactly 87. Secondly these are not movies which debut in a Cinema as the article and its sourced would like to claim but pornographic videos, dvd or just internet based media. The article is clearly fails WP:NPOV in this regard. Finlay this material is plagiarised from IAFD in contravention with their usage policies. And in are still think that 87 == 90 consider that more reputable databases list 60. No database actually makes such bold claims this number is subject to change and cannot possibly be sourced in an adequately way it is just WP:SYNTH. So this too should be deleted immediately according to WP:BLP.
4. The rest of the article is promotional links and a list of awards added to create an illusion of notability.

• Once more: if an article is proposed for speedy deletion (CSD) it is not tested against any notability guideline. It is tested against an intentionally low-set bar: is there a credible claim for notability. In this case, the article lists several nominations and claims that this person has appeared in 90 movies. Those claims indicate that it might be possible that sources exist that can establish notability. That is sufficient reason to decline a CSD. If you have doubts about whether those sources actually exist, you can PROD it or take it to AfD. There the subject will be examined for notability, but that is not the function of CSD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

About My Signature, Transparency and My Conduct

Hi I first point out that I my user is my real name - which I disclosed when I joined Misplaced Pages. I think that this more transparent than normal. I recently completed my adoption - and noticed a compact signature by another adoptee. I spent a couple of hours modifying it for my own use. But when it was done I noticed that it code was too long to comply with sig policy. I therefore blanked the signature code in my preferences. The signature now looked fine but was infact too short. Yesterday I was informed that it was not too short. I fixed it promptly and notified both editors which had pointed the issue out. I hope in light of this you will revise your assessment of a lack of good faith with respect to in my recent work as expressed in

My antagonist has performed multiple breaches of policy in retaliation. You can also check that he has quoted my statements out of context.

I have stated clearly that I plan to go on with removal of certain articles using a wider consensus at XfD. This action is the next logical step if CSD proves unsuitable. For maximum transparency I disclosed the full reasons for one of the CSD articles and the form of the AfD will take. Since appearances are important I have made effort not to appear pointy. I requested third opinion comments from the remover of the CSD. If this is disruptive please tell me how to better proceed in a non disruptive fashion to remove these WP:COI motivated WP:BLP articles which are neither notable not accurate ? BO | Talk 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

First, I strongly suggest that the two of you should avoid each others' edits. Calling him an antagonist is probably not helping things either. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. We wish collegiate interaction, not adversarial.

That aside, after going through your edits, I'm of the opinion that your understanding of deletion criteria is not what it should be for someone mass placing CSD tags on pages. I think you need to spend more time at XfD as a commenter before nominating any more pages for deletion. At this point, it is becoming disruptive.

And in my opinion, your usage of Stiki (and other automated tools) is shaky. In particular, unsourced material is NOT vandalism. And mass-reverting good faith edits and placing warnings on IP and user pages for it, can be considered bitey.

Right now there is a "push" by the Wikimedia foundation to try to draw in new editors. Actions like what I've described above can drive them away.

As there is not currently a way to remove these extra editing gadgets: Be aware that any admin who sees this kind of thing in the future can block you for disruptiveness.

With all of the above in mind, I'm removing your rollback priviledges for now. Any admin is of course welcome to grant them to you again, but I suggest waiting at least a couple months before restoring, to give you the opportunity to show the community that you're learning and are trying to do better in your interactions with other editors and their edits.

Note in my comments above I have not linked to the edits I'm talking about. For now, I'd like to leave the past in the past and move forward. And I hope you will too.

I wish you well. - jc37 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.
2. Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
3. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
4. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

• Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions