User talk:Bryant Boxer

AfD nomination of Operation Pseudo Miranda

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Operation Pseudo Miranda: A Veteran of the CIA Drug Wars Tells All

A tag has been placed on Operation Pseudo Miranda: A Veteran of the CIA Drug Wars Tells All, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kenneth C. Bucchi

I have nominated Kenneth C. Bucchi, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Bucchi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kenneth C. Bucchi

A tag has been placed on Kenneth C. Bucchi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darien Region

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Darien Region, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.panama1.com/places_to_see_in_darien_jungle.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of the information in that article. It really is a shame, but we really can't accept content that is copyrighted, even if it is attributed to the proper source. What we can do however, is use the information from good sources, to make good articles. As long as it is all in your own words, and not a refactoring of the original text (that would still be copyrighted, as derived from the original text), feel free to use any information from the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pseudo-Miranda

I understand your concerns and apologize for failing to be more articulate as to Wikipedia policy. The question at hand here consists of several aspects of Wikipedia policy pertaining to what can and can't be made into an article. In this case, the articles "Operation Pseudo-Miranda" (referring to the operation in the book), "Operation Pseudo Miranda: A CIA..." (referring to the book itself), and "Kenneth C. Bucchi" (the author) were all just cyclically referencing each other. Not a single one of any of these three articles had any independent sources (independent of each other, that is) attesting to their importance or reason for having an article here (see WP:NOTE). This is especially important for the article about the purported operation; it violates WP:BLP on several levels. Lastly, all of the articles in question (but most particularly the book article) were clearly designed as self-glorifying advertisements. Not only does this violate WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT, it also raises serious indications that you might either be the author himself or someone closely related to him that would stand to benefit from a glowing advertisement for his wares on a site as large as Wikipedia. We get this sort of thing a lot, and many people don't realize we have a Conflict of Interest Policy to help ensure neutrality in editing. I urge you to read it. I apologize for not being more forthcoming with my methodology; this sort of quality-control process is a necessary evil in a project like this. The absolute minimum standard is generally stated as being two independent sources (see: WP:CITE). Please don't be afraid to message me or leave a message at WP:HELP if you require any more assistance. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to help. Here's what needs to happen in order for you to be able to re-create any of the articles:

1) Gotta have at least one other reference (aside from the book itself) that meets the criteria in WP:RS and directly pertains to the article topic. So for the operation itself, you'd need a factual independent article corroborating everything you say in there. Likewise for the author and the book. Read it and find something online or maybe in a database somewhere that can hack those standards.

2) The book, for the record, is selling on Amazon, has been covered by at least one independent source (OC Weekly) and is thus probably notable according to our notability policy WP:NOTE, so all you really need to do for that one is re-create the article with a brief, WP:NPOV synopsis of the plot and high-points with a link to that article. Check out some of the other articles on books for ideas on how to make it sound even and balanced. If it's way short, it's way short. Remember, we are editors and compilers; we sort, organize, copy, paste and integrate data into useful encyclopedic pages. We do not editorialize, promote, or advertise anything. Just the facts, ma'am. Steadfast encyclopedic neutrality is probably our most core policy of all.

I apologize if I mistakenly assumed you were Kenneth Bucchi or a close associate, but around here we tend to see a lot of what we call "single-purpose accounts" or SPAs. These are people who come here with a singular purpose, usually to promote something they are selling, carry on a political struggle, boost their Google rating, damage the article on their personal pet-peeve, etc. I'm not accusing you of doing any of these things, mind you, but I have to ask why anyone would advertise for somebody's book unless they're the author or a close agent thereof. Just keep it in mind. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, my friend. This is a collaborative effort here, and we were all new once. I urge you to stick around. You don't have to edit every day if you're busy, but if you're anything like me, you'll find yourself wanting to change stuff you see is incorrect/missing now and then. Just remember to cite it and you're generally OK. If not, it never hurts to ask, right? Happy editing! Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kenneth C. Bucchi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth C. Bucchi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Bucchi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kenneth C. Bucchi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth C. Bucchi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Bucchi (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]