Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) at 15:11, 11 March 2011 (topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Porchcrop/StatusTemplate User:Porchcrop/Icons User:Porchcrop/Pages

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

BEFORE POSTING A COMMENT. Please read the instructions for contacting. While if you disobey the rules, your comments may get ignored or deleted. But some of the rules you disobey could get you in trouble.

Helpme:Javascript

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.

The javascripts that I had installed in my account don't seem to work. What's causing this? Lord Porchcrop 07:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) hmm. Are you referring to User:Porchcrop/vector.js? To start, I would try running only Twinkle and not Friendly, as Twinkle now includes all the features of Friendly. After that, make sure you are bypassing your cache appropriately. Quitting and relaunching your browser or trying another browser is another good troubleshooting step. I would also make sure you aren't trying to enable a script both in your vector.js file and in your preferences->gadgets settings, as that could potentially cause errors with a poorly coded script. Failing this, I'd start commenting out parts of your vector.js file to try to track down the problem. Start by commenting out everything besides, say, Twinkle's importScript. See if Twinkle works properly. If so, add another script, then another, and so on, until you see what's causing the problem. I'd try commenting out User:Porchcrop/rollback.js as well, since a script you've been editing is more likely to cause a problem then one with many other users. Hope this helps, let us know how it goes. Zachlipton (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So I just tried loading up your vector.js myself and it seems to work alright. What exactly isn't working? Do any of the scripts work? Does Twinkle show up? Or is it just one specific script that isn't working? If it's all of them, I would definitely pursue the bypassing your cache route as the most likely candidate. One other thing: make sure you are using the Vector skin in Preferences->Appearance, as that script file is only loaded when you're using Vector. Zachlipton (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just that any page I go to is not loading any of the javascripts that I had installed in my account. I read every instruction in WP:BYC, and still no effect happens. I would like to know what's causing the problem. Lord Porchcrop 08:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. First, make sure you are using Vector as mentioned above. Assuming that you are, what happens if you try another web browser? Between Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, and IE to name a few, you've got some options. Zachlipton (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently, because of the new Mediawiki 1.17 deployment, many scripts are getting broken. Some are glitches in the Mediawiki system (these get fixed quickly), others are conflicts with existing userscripts. For example, 1.17 introduced jQuery support, which created the $ function. Many people use $ as an alias for getElementById, and quite a few scripts can break. So you just have to wait till the dev fixes it. Twinkle shouldn't be a problem though.

On a side note, if you are a developer, and have trouble with purging you cache, you might want to use User:Manishearth/purger. It makes it easier to develop scripts, and allows you to purge individual scripts easily. ManishEarth 13:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have a similar problem for a while now, even before the switch to MediaWiki 1.17. For example, Porchcrop's rollbackSum.js works on the History page but not on Diff pages. Similarly, the RevisionJumper from the Preferences has stopped working a few weeks ago: it is loaded but just shows empty drop-down boxes. Nageh (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm yeah. But even Twinkle is not working. Lord Porchcrop 05:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah Twinkle should certainly be working even if the upgrade broke less popular scripts. What happened when you tried another browser? Zachlipton (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Even other browsers that I use don't seem to be loading any script even Twinkle. Lord Porchcrop 05:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

CHUS clerking tip

That "ping user" link adds a new section containing a {{CHU note}} to a user's talk page, useful for when you leave a note that requires their input =) demize (t · c) 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the tip Demize. -Porchcrop 03:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoclave (band) CSD

Hi, I'm just wondering why you removed the CSD from Autoclave (band). Your edit summary wasn't very clear to me. I thought the article met criterion A7, but I am a new user and had a hard time wrapping my head around all the deletion policies. Like I said, I'm new to editing and I would appreciate a little help here. Thanks! - Lebowbowbowski (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has a lot of information and does show notability. However, if the article explained it was an unremarkable band, then it would not indicate notability. One more thing is that if there are references in an article, then the article is unlikely to be deleted. More information can be shown at WP:N and WP:NM about notability and band notability. -Porchcrop 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To the contrary, I cannot find any criterion on WP:NM which the article meets - which one (or more) do you think it meets? It also has no verifiable reliable sources. Lebowbowbowski (talk · contribs) wrote "I have nominated this article for speedy deletion because the page meets WP:CSD A7, as the page cites no sources, and the only references I could find were from the band's label, which means it is not notable according to WP:N." in this edit, and I agree. Misplaced Pages's musician notability standards have changed since this article was created in 2005 by Badagnani (talk · contribs) (who has been indefinitely blocked for over a year, since 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)).   — Jeff G.  ツ 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. (Talk page stalker here). In order to escape speedy deletion A7, it is not necessary for a subject to satisfy the notability criteria, nor to provide verifiable sources - all that is required is for some claim of importance to be made. Failure to satisfy notability criteria is handled by the WP:AfD process. As it says at Misplaced Pages:Csd#Articles, under A7:

"An article about a real person, individual animal(s), 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." (my emphasis).

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the claim that the subject is important or significant?   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That they released an LP (later reissued as a CD) and a singles compilation, and there is a source covering them in some detail - that's enough to suggest a proper discussion through AfD (with the chance to investigate further to see if notability can be established) rather than a speedy deletion is required. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and "important or significant" is loosely defined and is pretty much in the eye of the beholder - essentially anyone who thinks it's not an obvious A7 (other than the original author) is entitled to remove the speedy tag. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have sent it to AfD - please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Autoclave (band).   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

uaa

Thank you for patrolling UAA, but before defiantly questioning the reporter please check around a bit. www.chanhas.com. For further info contact: info@i-rok.co.uk  7  06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Showcase Showdown (band)

How does Showcase Showdown (band) assert notability? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't needed to avert speedy deletion - the article claims a reasonable discography, which I think is enough to require WP:AfD. (But note to Porchcrop - please be sure to check out and understand the difference between notability and CSD:A7 - TPH is right that this one does not demonstrate notability). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the info Boing! =) -Porchcrop 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD removal

You removed a CSD tag, stating that the article was not a copyright vio. Please read the version you un-tagged and this source again; it may be a borderline case, but there is definitely some plagiarism there. (I have removed the copyvio material.)  Frank  |  talk  02:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it didn't look like a copyright violation to me because it was written in own words. -Porchcrop 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't written in "own words". Entire sentences were copied directly from the source into the Misplaced Pages article.  Frank  |  talk  03:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that there are a few sentences that are copied from the given website. Thanks for fixing it. -Porchcrop 03:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a few sentences of copyright violation in an article that has only about a dozen sentences overall is a pretty big deal.  Frank  |  talk  03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I will. Thanks. -Porchcrop 03:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Cind.amuse 05:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Before removing anymore CSD tags from articles, it may be beneficial for you to consider taking some time to review the deletion policy, including the criteria for speedy deletions. (*A7-band applies to bands, singers, musicians, and musical ensembles ) (*clear copyvio ) Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cind.amuse 07:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh could you explain how those articles met criteria for speedy deletions? I had removed those CSD tags because the articles did not meet any CSD, it'd be better for them to be taken to AFD. -Porchcrop 07:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sure:
  • Elijah (rapper) and Hubert Buchberger. You removed a db-csd tag stating: "Rm CSD -- article not about band, about a person. Doesn't meet any criteria for A7. If possible, feel free to nominate it for AFD." Please review the applicable policy here. The db-band tag covers articles about bands, singers, musicians, and musical ensembles.
  • Dee Hartford. Copyvio. You stated that it was "written in own words". Let's review.

http://www.allmovie.com/artist/dee-hartford-30801:

• Born Donna Higgins in 1927, she was the older sister of Eden Hartford, who married Groucho Marx in 1954. Dee Hartford initially achieved fame in the late '40s as a model for Vogue magazine — a tall brunette with beautifully etched features, she could stop traffic or conversation in a room by entering it, and cut a startling figure in photographs. Hartford chalked up exactly one big-screen credit in her early career, with a role in the 1952 Groucho Marx vehicle A Girl in Every Port, directed by Chester Erskine.

Misplaced Pages article Dee Hartford:

• Born as Donna Higgins, Dee Hartford was a model turned actress who became the third wife of director Howard Hawks. She initially achieved fame in the late '40s as a model for Vogue magazine. Hartford was cast in one big-screen credit in her early career, with a role in the 1952 Groucho vehicle A Girl in Every Port, directed by Chester Erskine.

http://www.allmovie.com/artist/dee-hartford-30801:

• She married Hawks — who was more than 30 years her senior — the following year, and did no acting during the six years that they were together. The two divorced in 1959, but the director gave her a small uncredited role in his 1965 film Red Line 7000. She had already resumed her acting career by then, on Gunsmoke, Perry Mason, Burke's Law, The Outer Limits ("The Invisibles"), and The Twilight Zone ("Bewitchin' Pool").

Misplaced Pages article Dee Hartford:

• She married Hawks, who was more than 30 years her senior, the following year, and did no acting during the six years they were together. They divorced in 1959, but the director gave her a small uncredited role in his 1965 film Red Line 7000. She had already resumed her acting career by then, appearing on such television programs as Gunsmoke, Perry Mason, Burke's Law, The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone.

http://www.allmovie.com/artist/dee-hartford-30801:

• Her later work included appearances on Batman, Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants, and Lost in Space. Her work on the latter three series likely came about in part as a result of Hartford's sister Eden's marriage to Groucho Marx — Marx was one of the primary investors in Irwin Allen's production company, which was responsible for all three programs.

Misplaced Pages article Dee Hartford:

• Her later work included appearances on Batman, Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants and Lost in Space. Her work on the latter three series may have came about partly as a result of her younger sister Eden's marriage to Groucho Marx (from 1954 to 1969). Marx was one of the primary investors in Irwin Allen's production company, which was responsible for all three programs.

http://www.allmovie.com/artist/dee-hartford-30801:

• Her performance as the android Verda in the 1966 Lost in Space episode "The Android Machine" led to her return in the same role in a sequel, "Revolt of the Androids." Hartford brought an engaging warmth and sincerity to the role of an android who finds herself turning into a human, and is no longer content to allow herself to be treated like a piece of property, with no rights. As a result of "Revolt of the Androids," Hartford became one of the most popular female guest stars in the three-year run of the series. Her last screen role to date was in Michael Campus' 1976 thriller Survival.

Misplaced Pages article Dee Hartford:

• Her performance as the android Verda in the 1966 Lost in Space episode "The Android Machine" led to her return in the same role in a sequel, "Revolt of the Androids". As a result of "Revolt of the Androids", Hartford became one of the most popular female guest stars in the three-year run of the series. Her last screen role to date was in Michael Campus' 1976 thriller Survival.

Any other questions? Cind.amuse 08:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dee Hartford has already been told by Frank above. But Elijah (rapper) and Hubert Buchberger should be taken to AFD rather than CSD tagging the articles as A7. (These articles already have enough context to avoid A7, but if they don't have notability, they need to be taken to AFD.) -Porchcrop 08:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Context??!! What does this have to do with an A7 nomination? VQuakr (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It has sufficient context and information to prove that the articles don't meet A7. So an AFD is more appropriate. -Porchcrop 08:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Porchcrop, articles flagged for speedy deletion are not required to have established notability. The copyvio in the Dee Hartford article is clear. Please review the deletion policy. You are obviously over your head here. It is clear that you don't know what you are doing. Cind.amuse 08:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When I say "the articles don't indicate notability" does it mean to you I am talking about all three articles (including the one with the copyright violation). The copyvio one has already been explained by Frank above. But the other two would be preferred with AFD. I know what I do -- I only make mistakes. -Porchcrop 08:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to your statement that "if they don't have notability, they need to be taken to AFD." This isn't actually true for any articles on Misplaced Pages. Sorry about the overkill on the copyvio. I hadn't noticed the comment by Frank above. Cind.amuse 09:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Hubert Buchberger already exists on another Wikimedia project. Therefore, the article is reliable. -Porchcrop 08:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This article indicates significance and therefore does not qualify for speedy deletion. I placed a BLP PROD on the article as a BLP article lacking references. I brought up this article because you removed the speedy tag stating that since the subject was a person, rather than a band, it did not qualify for the db-band speedy deletion. This was not accurate, since the db-band is for bands, singers, musicians, musical ensembles, etc. Cind.amuse 09:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well Elijah (rapper) would be better to be taken to AFD and waited for consensus. But for Hubert Buchberger, it would be better for {{BLP unreferenced}} to be placed on the article instead of PRODing it, since it already appears on another Wikimedia project a long time existing, but I think it would also be better to be taken to AFD. Maybe from now on I will read the content of articles more carefully and there will be no worries. Hehe. -Porchcrop 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. And I am familiar with the deletion process. But just to improve with it I will review the deletion policy. -Porchcrop 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The last thing Elijah (rapper) needs is an AfD discussion. The best thing would be an A7 speedy deletion, which is for articles that don't indicate their notability (it has nothing to do with "context"). You removed it because, "article not about band, about a person", even though individual persons and bands are both covered by the criterion anyway. The next best thing would be a BLP PROD, which applies to any unsourced BLP created since March 2010. I don't understand how it wouldn't be covered. Swarm 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad Ass F.C.

I notice you removed the A7 nomination at Bad Ass F.C.. Would you be willing to provide a little more detail as to how this article asserts a credible claim of significance for its subject? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See the multiple issues tags in the article. This article does not meet any CSD, but it can be taken to AFD. -Porchcrop 08:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tagged it before I nominated it for the A7 so I am aware of the tags on the article. But your answer does not address the question. You said in your edit summary that the article, about an organization, did not meet the criteria for A7. Why? VQuakr (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem it meets A7. Could you explain what parts it meets A7? If you feel it is out of notability, please take it to WP:AFD. -Porchcrop 08:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Porchcrop, the onus is on you to present why, according to policy, you believe that the article does not qualify for speedy deletion. you seriously need to review the CSD/deletion policy. You removed an A7 tag stating that "Doesn't meet any criteria for A7." Please explain how this article makes any credible claim of significance or importance. This is an article about two young boys who play together after school and decided to create an article about their friendship, stating they were in a club, of which they are the only two members. The removal of some of these speedy deletions are becoming disruptive. Please review the applicable policies. Thank you. Cind.amuse 08:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you removed the speedy deletion tag, so I hoped you had a reason. To review the policy here, the criterion for A7 is "No indication of importance." Applicable topics include people, individual animals, organizations, and web content. As a soccer club, the subject of this article is clearly an organization. Now, where in the article was a credible claim of significance that led you to removed the speedy tag? The only claim in the article that I see at the time you removed the tag, at all, is "this is the name of our elementary school football team." VQuakr (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh. Thanks for pointing it out to me Cindamuse. This is a mistake I made. -Porchcrop 08:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Francesca's Collection

Hey Porchcrop, just wondering what this was about. The entire article is blatantly promotional in nature, and how you failed to see that is beyond me. Swarm 09:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If I might butt in, I tagged the article for clean up, after having considered a PROD. I don't really understand the curious WP CSD process but I was gratified to note that it had been tagged for CSD. I too would like to know why Porchcrop declined the CSD tagging. I should add I'm considering sending the article to AfD but I will wait upon Porchcrop's response before I do. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article's already been sent to AfD actually, the page is here so feel free to comment. Four editors concurred that the article is blatant spam within 2.5 hours of the nomination- this agreement only puzzles me as to why the CSD tag was removed. Multiple other bad CSD tag removals that are being brought up here, so I'm wondering what exactly is going on. Swarm 10:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My delete !vote added to the AfD. Porch, are you sure you understand how the Misplaced Pages deletion process works? If not are you sure you should be nominating articles for deletion? Lovetinkle (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored the CSD tag. The rationale to remove it made no sense - the article is clearly promotional. Perhaps you should sit back and observe the CSD process for a while, Porchcrop. Once you have a better understanding of policy, you will make better decisions. P. D. Cook 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't see the article while the AFD is running, and the article is deleted now. So I don't know if I am in error. But if an admin could show me the article and its content right now and I'll know if I am wrong. -Porchcrop 00:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Electoral district of Ingleburn

It didn't appear to me you were acting in good faith, but I accept that I was wrong. I have been working at WP for almost 5 years and almost everybody that was working on the project when I started have now left, often after groundless claims of copyright violation. I did not threaten to report your behaviour, I don't do that. Incidentally you have a threatening statement at the top of this page.--Grahame (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

When I saw you tag I didn't realise that you had linked it to an alleged identical source and I over-reacted.--Grahame (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) But I just realised that you created the article, and you removed the speedy deletion tag from the article. That is not appropriate. Because you created the article, you should wait for another user to remove the speedy deletion from the article. -Porchcrop 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP

I thought we had agreed you would limit yourself to making reports at UAA and not replying to them. There is a reason it is called usernames for administrator attention. By way of demonstration this edit is wrong. The user has made edits, they were deleted. You couldn't have known that because you are not an admin. And as I've mentioned many times I do not believe you posses a sufficient understanding of the username policy to respond to reports. Make reports if you want, but please stop responding to them for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is even worse than that because if you had bothered to check their talk page you would see the notification that the article they created was nominated for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The article name was different from the username. -Porchcrop 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You said to wait until the user edited when they already had. What edit they made was not the issue, it was whether they had edited at all or not. Yet another badly reasoned nonsense argument that fails to address the relevant point.

You could save a lot of time and embarrassment by simply agreeing to be bound by the topic bans I proposed right now. As of this moment there is unanimous agreement that the bans are warranted, but we can keep it open for another day or two if you prefer. And you should retract the request for admin coaching as well. I and others have been telling you again and again and again you need to put all thought that you will be ready for adminship anytime soon out of your head. Every time you make it obvious you are still trying for it you move that much further away from it. You need to open your mind to the reality that you are a long, long ways away from being ready for it. I think that WP:ADOPT might be a better route for you, since you will soon be banned from several admin-related areas anyway and will not be allowed to run for at least a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Adoptees are newcomers and inexperienced editors. However, I am not an inexperienced editor (overall, I am not under the amount of time, edits, and mainspace edits). All I am trying to do is help the project, and yet you ban me from helping (as I said, I might do things wrong, so you could decline the edits I make). And now you want to ban me. Instead of me being adopted, I need to have an admin mentor instead for me (so that I realise all the mistakes I make or what goes against the policies and guidelines). Since all of you have given me too much negatives about me, I will help out in the project as much as I can at my best, until I get banned or blocked from editing (because after that, I will leave the project permanently and I will have no mercy, and the project can be outdated and can take longer to be improved as much as it possibly can). -Porchcrop 04:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you have one hell of an ego on you. Believe it or not, the entire project is not dependent solely on your contributions. People come and go all the time and yet Misplaced Pages keeps going. We have all tried to help you but you are too damned proud to believe you need any help, so you leave no choice but to sanction you instead. Being around for a long time while making the same mistakes over and over and over is worse than if you were a newbie who just didn't know any better.I fully expect that after your soon-to-be-imposed topic bans expire you will go straight back to incompetently grasping for the brass ring of adminship and will end up getting kicked off altogether. I dare you to prove me wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I do listen to other editors when they explain to me how I am wrong. Like said below, I now know that autobiographies has nothing to do with your possessions. Autobiographies are only information about you. However, I already know articles about shops that gives information about what they sell, their products, their store contact information, all that is blatant advertisments. (Although that was a mall, therefore, it is not advertising, unless the article welcomes you to the mall.) But for companies that explain about the company (not anything that the company can do for you), then it is not advertising, but it is a non-notable company. -Porchcrop 04:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't want you to leave the project. At least I don't, and several of us have made comments today that you "clearly mean well," "are trying to work with 100% good faith," and "your heart is in the right place." If we wanted you to leave the project, we'd just say so or block you, but we're not doing that. What we do want is for you to become a better editor, and that can't happen if you leave. I know that you're trying to help the project, but the point here is that its taking all of us a lot of time to review your work and revert your mistakes. Certainly everyone makes mistakes, but what I'm not seeing from you is that you're learning from your past mistakes and that you're stopping and thinking before you edit. That's the problem here and that's why we're having this discussion. Even within the confines of the proposed ban, there are literally tons of ways you can contribute to Misplaced Pages as you develop your skills:

• You can write new articles (WP:REQ has a billion ideas if you need some)
• You can add missing (sourced) content to existing articles of your choosing
• You can help with articles tagged for cleanup
• You can help find quality references for unreferenced BLPs
• You can help with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation and fix links to disambiguation pages
• You can help wikify articles in need of wikification
• You can help link orphan articles
• You can help categorize uncategorized articles
• You can help add geotags to articles needing coordinates.

That's just to name a few activities offhand. Every single one of those projects is massively backlogged and well in need of help. You could be a huge help contributing to one or more of these efforts. If you have questions or need a hand getting started, I'd be happy to help and I'm sure many other editors here would be too. I agree that a mentor would be very useful, but there's absolutely no reason why that mentor needs to be an admin. How about you tell us what you hope to get from mentorship over, say, the next three months? Zachlipton (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for all the information Zach. :) -Porchcrop 05:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So, your first edit to Misplaced Pages was a little over three years ago and as of today you understand the definition of the word "autobiography." Wonderful. Astounding forward progress. By the way, now that you know what an autobiography is you should also know that an article being an autobiography is not in and of itself a reason to delete it. I'll make sure someone lets you know when your ban starts. Goodbye. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I know what autobiography means. But I didn't know that writing about something that you possess is not an autobiography, nothing so big about that. -Porchcrop 06:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Square Mall

Porchcrop, you recently removed a couple of CSD tags on the above noted article. The article was flagged with db-spam and db-A7. You mistakenly stated that since the article was about a mall, no CSD tag was valid. Before tagging anymore additional articles for deletion, please review our deletion policy. Cind.amuse 23:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Porch, I don't know how much collective patience you think the community has for this stuff, but you are approaching the outer limits of it. You are rapidly moving further and further away from your goal of becoming an administrator. If you can't get your behavior under control I'm afraid some sort of formal sanctions may be needed. You need to pay attention to all the users who are trying to get you on the right track and stop charging about in areas you do not understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it was about a mall, so no CSD criteria is valid. (However, if it was about a house that you live in, then it is an autobiographical article or an attack page, and therefore not notable.) -Porchcrop 23:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is it stated that malls are not subject to any CSD criteria? I know the criteria pretty darn well and I've never heard of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, Porchcrop, you seriously need to take a step back and REVIEW THE DELETION POLICY. A house cannot be an autobiography. An attack page is a separate issue. A mall may qualify for speedy deletion under both A7 and spam criterias. You also placed an "unreferenced" maintenance tag on the article when it is clearly referenced. With all due respect, this is honestly becoming disruptive. Enough is enough. Cind.amuse 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Writing about a house about yourself is an autobiography. Writing about another person's house is an attack page. A mall is a public place, so therefore notable. -Porchcrop 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Please see new thread atWP:ANI, "Topic bans for Lord Prochcrop." This has to stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Porchcrop, while several editors have attempted to provide guidance, this support appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Again, the rationale under which you edit on Misplaced Pages is seriously misguided. In my opinion, this is a detriment to the project overall. Please review the deletion policy and criteria for speedy deletion. An autobiography or biography refers to a person. If you write about a house, that is a building. A mall is considered a business, corporation, and building. For example, the Bradley Square Mall is a business holding of Urban Retail Properties, LLC. Under this umbrella, the mall rents retail space to corporate entities. If you write about a building or business in which you are involved, it may be promotional (also known as spam), while lacking indication of importance or significance. Speedy deletion tags do not address notability. Again, please review the deletion policies. Cind.amuse 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to try to clear up at least these few misunderstandings...

• An autobiography is writing about yourself, not about your house
• An attack page (or negative unsourced BLP, in CSD terms) is one that is derogatory about a person - it's got nothing to do with houses
• Public places are not automatically notable. And even for notable public places, an article could still be exclusively promotional

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. :) What I meant was that public place which are shops and stores that give information about what they sell, their products and their store contact information, then it is advertisements. But for malls, it is not non-notable, and not advertisements unless the article welcomes you to the mall. And for privately-owned houses, I meant since they are privately owned, they are both non-notable and attack pages, they are attack pages especially if you state their address or show the house's picture. But I now know that biographies are only to do with people, not with possessions. Thanks for informing me on that part. -Porchcrop 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Did you read anything that Boing just said? An attack page has nothing to do with houses. Stating an address and/or showing a picture is not an attack. Malls cannot be promotional? Wrong again. There is often semantic confusion over the definition of spam, publicity, promotion, and advertising. One of the ways to better understand the criteria pertaining to appropriate inclusion on Misplaced Pages is to determine if the article has been written or edited in an attempt to manage the public's perception of the subject of the article, or to initiate or enhance the anticipation of an event. Common subjects that are often written to promote include persons or groups (for example, political candidates and performing artists), goods and services, organizations and events of all kinds, and works of art or entertainment. Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales, products, or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject prior to notability would be considered inappropriate and promotional. Hope this helps. Cind.amuse 05:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So, it is okay to say where someone's house is and say that person's house address? And for malls, I said that they are not promotional unless the article welcomes the person to the mall. Please read comments more carefully. Thanks. -Porchcrop 05:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please review:

1. Saying where someone's house is and say that person's house address? Depends on the context. Not necessarily an attack.
2. Not promotional unless the article welcomes the person to the mall. Wrong.

Cind.amuse 05:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? I never knew that you could reveal another person's house address. And how is not welcoming people to malls not promotional? Is it okay to say "Welcome to the mall. This mall has many different shops, you can choose which shop you want to go to. If you are lost, you can speak to the information counter in so-and-so aisle and they are friendly people who will help you."? It appears to me that you have no common sense. -Porchcrop 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Revealing another person's address depends on the context. Misplaced Pages is not a primary source. If the address was previously published and is applicable to the article and subject's notability, then it would be appropriate. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 10050 Cielo Drive. 1313 North 13th Avenue. 2. The statement that you just made would be promotional. However, promotional content is not exclusive to an invite to the mall. Cind.amuse 06:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes. It is okay to reveal another person's identity if it is already been published. And in an encyclopedia, you never welcome a person to any place, you just give information about the place. -Porchcrop 06:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Once again, you have a complete lack of ability to comprehend what others are trying to tell you. Hello? McFly? Oy vey. Get a mentor during your ban. Cind.amuse 06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A key point you are missing here, Porchcrop, is that you claimed that CSD criteria were not applicable to malls, period. And that is just plain wrong. It is absolutely not true that all malls are automatically notable and that all privately owned houses are automatically non-notable. My house is not notable, but the Queen of England's certainly is. And in the UK, many listed buildings are notable (I've photographed some for Misplaced Pages myself), even if they are just private houses owned by non-notable people.

Also, even if an article discloses someone's address when it shouldn't, that's still not an attack page - an attack page has to say something negative and unverifiable about the person, and must be exclusively unsalvageably negative. An inappropriately revealed address should be removed from the article, and maybe RevDel is needed, but you leave the rest of the article alone and don't speedy it. The same goes for a genuine attack added to an otherwise acceptable page - you don't speedy the page, you remove the attack, and request RevDel if appropriate.

But can I get to what I think is the core problem here? With CSD criteria, there are few "by rote" ways of deciding - there is, for example, no rule that if an article says "Welcome" it's spam, and if it doesn't it's not spam. Instead, what you need to do is analyze each case in its own context, and make a judgment. And I think that's where your abilities are lacking - you are trying to follow hard rules, when what is needed is perceptive judgment, which you lack. It's not personal - it's something that many young people lack. I'm sure you'll gain that judgment with age and experience, but it genuinely will take time, and right now you should stop playing at admin.

Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (Modified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Changing CSD tags

Porchcrop, please stop changing CSD tags to a preferred rationale. If you recognize additional criteria, add an additional tag. Thanks, Cind.amuse 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the info Cindamuse. -Porchcrop 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello, this is to let you know that several editors have provided feedback at your Editor Review page. The review itself remains open. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR

Regarding this, I thought I would explain this since no-one else has... The site you linked to that you thought the article was a copyright violation of is actually a mirror site, so they're actually copying us. You can often tell by the presence of wiki-markup on the website (notice the "references" section and the stub tag.) Grandmasterka 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I now know about mirrors. . -Porchcrop 03:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Porchcrop. I'd be willing to mentor you, though not to become an administrator (I'm not one myself) - but to become a great editor. See response at Editor Assistance. Worm 09:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed Worm's contribs and except for having high standards for RfA voting theres nothing not to like. They seem helpful, good humoured and very sensible. So it might be of great benefit to accept them as a mentor. Like any promising relationship, a good seeming mentorship doesnt always work out, I remember when my friend Ikip was mentored by the excellent Jclemens but it seemned to be unfruitful. But you never know until you try and it looks like you have the opportunity of linking with a very good editor. Having a mentor as well may be much better than having just an Otter as we can be reclusive and sometimes don't come out of our caves for days or weeks at a time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You think I have a high standard at RfA? I'm quite surprised by that, I didn't realise I had a standard! But thank you for your kind words. Porchcrop, just to let you know, I am an adopter, an ambassador and a guide on wikipedia - I like to think I'm clear in my comments and whilst I may sometimes be critical I will always give the reasoning behind it. I will not knowingly insult you and if you feel offended by anything I ever say, call me on it. If I'm not what you're looking for in a mentor, then so be it - but I am willing to devote my time to making you the best wikipedian you can be :) Worm 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm. I'm accepting your offer. But you're saying not to become an admin. Why? I would also like you to help me to become an admin. Anyways, thanks for your kind offer. And if I have questions about the policies and guidelines, I will be happy to ask you. -Porchcrop 05:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear it. Would you mind popping over to User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Porchcrop when it turns blue and you have a moment? Would be good to have a chat about what you expect from this process. Worm 07:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Otter reporting for duty!

Hey Porchcrop, I got your message. I need to investigate before commenting on ANI and not sure how much time I'll have today as its busy at work, but will say something for you soon. From a quick look some editors are suggesting you could do more improving articles and this sounds a great idea. If you'd like to work with your otter on improving an article, suggest any article that youre interested in and I will write you about good ways to reasearch it, find sources and add text and references to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have now commented on ANI for you. I hope you don't get down about all this, at least you've got many people saying positive things about you which more than some other editors receive when their under attack. I recommend you take a few days off to reflect on the great advice you've had. There's been times when even expert scholars have caused disruption but they've had a lot less help offered to them than you have, which shows that many people in the community do value your efforts. Looks like you'll need to change the type of work you do here for a while, but if it leeds you to develop better content building skills that will likely help you both for career in the real world and for when you eventually run for admin. So things may well turn out for the best in the long run. Of course if you feel differently and want to take a long break thats fine to. All the best, your wiki otter. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good move

I'm pleased to see the User:Porchcrop/Problems page and associated rule has now gone - you deserve recognition for listening and acting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Now if only User:Porchcrop/Instructions for contacting could go the same way. People know how to contact you; that's what this very page is for.  Frank  |  talk  18:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI conclusion: Topic Ban

Hello, Porchcrop. Per consensus at ANI, a temporary topic ban is in place against you for a duration of six months, starting today. The terms are as follows:

• You may not respond to reports by others at WP:UAA
• You may not instigate discussions with users about their usernames but instead should report them to UAA for review by admins
• You may not remove or alter a speedy deletion tag placed by another user

To get a better understanding of what this means, please read through Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. Typically, violating a ban will reset the timer and may result in blocks. Presuming all goes well, you will be free of restrictions on 12 September 2011. Do, please, keep in mind that there were other concerns raised at the discussion that the community seems to be trusting mentorship to resolve. I would have care with respect to those as well.

I hope you won't find this too discouraging. I note that there is wide agreement there that your work is well-intentioned and several editors have emphasized that it is often helpful. I also see that User:FeydHuxtable and User:Worm That Turned have offered to generally advise and mentor you; I believe that they will be very helpful to you as you move forward so that when this ban expires there will be no further concerns. I'm sure they can also advise you in other difficulties you may encounter along the way, too. I hope that all goes well with you. --Moonriddengirl 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)