Talk:Jim O'Rear

message: Both citations which allege to "prove" Mr. O'Rear's involvement in the 1985 film 'Day of The Dead' do not constitute reliable sources. The first book that is cited is entitled 'Film Prodigies and Legends' and is credited to 'David Byron' on the citation itself, but the book in question is edited by Mr Byron, but is also credited to Jim O'Rear himself as a contributor and as such constitutes a a self penned, partial autobiography, in short, Mr O'Rear is being cited as his own source, which does not meet the criteria of a valid citation. The second book to cite Mr O'Rear's alleged involvement in 'Day of The Dead' is a self published work created on the 'Createspace' online tool.  This work is entitled 'Rock n Roll Party of The Dead' and is credited to one 'Jack Sawyer' and features an interview with Mr O' Rear, who just again repeats his claim of being in the film, so this again is essentially Mr O'Rear again citing himself as a reference. Neither of these books constitute legitimate third party citations, only Mr O'Rear's claims are cited as sources. 
(Sellpink (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available through Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation.  Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher.  Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article.
SELLPINK has already been warned not to repost this material in the article of on the talk page by GBFan but continues to do so anyway.  Here is a copy of that warning:
"I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If, as you've stated above, you "do not know if Mr O'Rear was in these films," why are you changing content in the article?  This would show that you are making changes that you are not knowledgable of.137.200.1.109 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can prove with reliable sources that he was in those films the information does not belong.  The sources that have been used have been questioned as to the reliablity of them.  If you feel they are reliable you can ask the question at the reliable sources noticeboard.  GB fan 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many reliable sources were contained in the original edit of material... several of these were the same sources that are still being used in the current article.  For example, a previous edit used Dread Central news articles as proof of svereal statements in the article.  Those statements have been removed from the current edit as not being reliably sourced, however there is still a statement remaining in the current article that is cited with a Dread Central reference.  Why is the cited reference considered "reliable" for some statements in the article but the same source is considered "not reliable" for other statements in the article?137.200.1.109 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CITATIONS RESPONSE 

message: Neither of these are "valid" sources by any definition I'm certainly not on this page to debate you, but I will point out that Mr O'Rear is indeed credited as "contributor" on the first book cited: http://www.amazon.com/Film-Prodigies-Legends-David-Byron/dp/1593935129  The blurb states: " David Byron (Author), Roberta Lannes (Foreword), Jim O'Rear (Contributor), Monique Dupree (Contributor)". Contributor would defined as he has an active role in contributing content to that book and as such, it is partially autobiographical, as is the second book which was merely documents that Mr O'Rear, in the course of an interview, claimed to be in the film (http://www.amazon.com/Rock-n-Roll-Party-Dead-Jack-Sawyer/dp/146092973X). If you or anyone else has some verifiable information, other than Mr O'Rear's dubious claims, you should certainly post it and put this issue to rest.As for my talk page entries being deleted. The one I did re-post which outlines the invalidity of these claims, was re-worded to remove any reference to 'fraud' or any potentially libelous wording that may be an issue and I was never told I could not re-post this, only that it was removed due to the accusatory wording. This issue is now in the hands of the adminstrators. (Sellpink (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: My Response 

message: As an owner of the book in question, I can verify that Mr. O'Rear did not contribute material to this book as a writer.  The use of the term "contributor" can have many different meanings and definitions and the use of this word by Amazon does not necessarily mean that Mr. O'Rear is an author of either of these books.98.193.225.142 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is the place to discuss how to improve the page.  Administrators have no control over the content in the article.  GB fan 00:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: GB fan is right IPs... Shearonink (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MY RESPONSE 

message: The term 'contributor' by definition is indicative of his direct participation in what content eventually found its way into the finished book. The editor's argument that O'Rear, despite being clearly, and prominently, credited as a 'contributor,' didn't actually contribute to the book is laughable. I should also point out that these books were also created using the Createspace online tool for self publishing and sale on Amazon which allows anyone with an account to create their own manuscripts, no matter what the content, and then offer their finished product for sale on Amazon as a book on demand. What this also means in plain English is, the writer of such a book does not have to adhere to standards and rules that would be in place had the book been published by a reputable publishing firm in which, ideally, a legal team would search the finished manuscript for potentially libelous content, proofreaders would correct grammar and tense useage, ghost writers would streamline the content and narrative style. With these "anyone can do it" style self published books, all of those safeguards are absent. To use these largely non-vetted "books" as citations is clearly an attempt to circumvent the intent of the rules Wikipedia put in place originally, as they can be nothing more than fan-sites self published on paper or to a Kindle, in short it's a loophole. If I were to create a fan site about Jim O'Rear and include a filmography, a biography and photos, it would not be considered a "reliable source," but if I were to 'cut and paste' all that content into the Createspace online tool and re-format all the same exact information for a self published "on demand" book, it suddenly becomes a valid source for citation simply because it now technically constitutes a "book?" I would also point out that if you were to look at the edit history there has been a long standing and clear pattern of either no citations for numerous claims of film credits, when challenges are made to that by other editors, they find their edits quickly reverted by one or two core editors and described almost always as "vandalism" when they are almost always good faith edits, when challenged about lack of citations, or when the intervention of an administrator was needed, citations would tend to be consumer reviews on Amazon, or on fan sites. The citations for 'Day of The Dead' have been continually challenged and recently these questionable, self published "on demand" books have been cited, the first book clearly credits O'Rear as a "contributor" and the second features an interview with 'O'Rear' in which he merely repeats these claims, but offers no evidence of his involvement. Not only is the factual accuracy of these books called into question, but Mr O'Rear's direct and credited(at least in the case of the first book) participation in both of these "do it yourself" books would also tend to point towards a potential conflict of interest. I would also be curious, given the other editor's rather (in my personal opinion) belligerent response to any questioning of the veracity of the entry, if the editor has a personal relationship of any manner with Mr O'Rear as his responses to criticism or questioning of the subject entry seem to elicit an emotionally charged response that seems wholly out of proportion with the situation. I would encourage any interested parties to carefully look at the edit history of the entry and ask if they see any patterns of intimidation involved when a good faith edit is made that doesn't align itself with what some editors might not care for. I have come to the personal conclusion that all indications are that if this page is not written and protected by Mr. O'Rear himself, that there is a great possibility, given the history of the edits and what would appear to be a hyper vigilant "guarding" of this entry and that the primary editor has some manner of personal relationship or friendship with the entry subject, which if true, would also constitute an apparent conflict of interest. (Sellpink (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that the only "emotionally charged" responses here are from user SELLPINK himself, making it questionable as to his intentions of edits to this page.  In addition to the fact that this users only contribution to Wiki has been to Mr. O'Rear's page.  Seems suspect that malicious intent to destroy content of a Wiki page is involved.  In addition, his comments made about various writing styles in the article making it appear as if multiple editors have had a hand in the content is ridiculous... it's Wikipedia... anyone can add anything. So, of course all of the articles are going to seem like multiple people had a hand in them.  It would seem that SELLPINK doth protest too much... and we know what that means.  137.200.1.109 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, please comment on the content, please do not discuss editors.  GB fan 23:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Citations/Possible COI

message: I'm cutting and pasting here to that Wikipedia protocol specifically prohibits the use of self published works as citations in the biographical entries for living people:
"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[8] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
This would indicate that both citations used to "verify" Mr O'Rear's involvement in this film are specifically prohibited ones and should be removed.
Original link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
(Sellpink (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy on Self Published Works Used as References

message: It would appear that the only "emotionally charged" responses here are from user SELLPINK himself, making it questionable as to his intentions of edits to this page.  In addition to the fact that this users only contribution to Wiki has been to Mr. O'Rear's page.  Seems suspect that malicious intent to destroy content of a Wiki page is involved.  In addition, his comments made about various writing styles in the article making it appear as if multiple editors have had a hand in the content is ridiculous... it's Wikipedia... anyone can add anything. So, of course all of the articles are going to seem like multiple people had a hand in them.  It would seem that SELLPINK doth protest too much... and we know what that means.137.200.1.109 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment on the content not the editor. GB fan 11:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: In addition, content regarding SAG rules mentioned above have not been thoroughly researched.  More research will show that other laws and factors come into play regarding what SAG is allowed and not allowed to do, especially regarding "right to work" states, Taft Hartley laws, etc and make the content noted above false.  Further research on the history of the books being cited above also shows that they were originally published by BearManor Media, not Createspace.  The Createspace publications came later when BearManor Media rights to the publications ended. The content provided by the above user has not been properly researched.137.200.1.109 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: If the above user would kindly check the edit history on this article he would see that several people have had input on this article and their input has not been changed or deleted, as he suggests here (rather angrily using exclamation points, I might add).137.200.1.109 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SELLPINK DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH 

message: Again, I have made numerous valid attempts to engage the user(users?) in a constructive dialogue in order to reach an agreeable solution to these issues, but I have been met with diatribes which continually, defensively and without evidence call my intent into question. The fact that this page would appear to be possibly a self-penned 'vanity page' and that the page would appear to be 'guarded' with any and all good faith edits reverted by the primary editor and automatically, and without apparent cause, and always labeled "vandalism' would tend to indicate that this entry would be an ideal candidate for Semi-protection, as it should be readily clear that there would appear to be an ongoing attempt intimidate other editors from contributing to this entry, as well as a hyper vigilant guarding of it by one, or a small number of contributors who would appear to have an unusual degree of interest in the content and whose reaction/reactions about any challenge to, or valid question regarding this entry and respond belligerently and continually attempt to change the subject by baseless allegations regarding any editor's "intent". Wikipedia entries were never meant to be primarily controlled by either the subject entry himself and/or a third party with close ties to the subject as that constitutes a clear conflict of interest and I would defy anyone interested party here to deny that this is what it indeed appears to be, based both on the unusual edit history and other unusual factors involved. The seemingly angry and defensive responses of the editor/editors in this case leads only in that direction that there is a clear conflict of interest here and that there is an effort afoot to intimidate and discourage any user from making any edit to this entry. If one were to take the time to research the edit history, one may be inclined to come to same conclusion. (Sellpink (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that the above editor needs to be reminded to comment on the content of the article and not the editor.137.200.1.109 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia entries were never meant to be primarily controlled and manipulated by one person, either... especially when it's the only article an editor has every had any input on.  In response to your insinuation... it would appear that there is a conflict of interest from the editor above repeatedly protesting and trying to change Mr. O'Rear's article, as if there is a personal grudge against Mr. O'Rear.  This editor has not been a productive member on any other articles besides Mr. O'Rear's... and in conjunction with his angry and defensive responses to the verified content of the article... it would suggest that much of the content he is providing is only in an attempt to damage Mr. O'Rear's article.  As the editor above suggests, if one were to take the time to research the edit history, one may be inclined to come to the conclusion that the above users ONLY focus on Wikipedia is to delete information from this one, singular article. I am making reference to the editor in this case because he has made specific accusations here of other editors.137.200.1.109 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Case for COI/Vanity Page

message: WIKI POLICY POINTS ON CITATIONS REGARDING BIOS OF LIVING PERSONS STATES:
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article. Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution.
The JIM O'REAR page has been carefully researched and cited with over 50 references in order to well-document sources that many be questioned and challenged, under Wiki policy regarding living individuals. The changes to the JIM O'REAR page remove valid, cited referenced needed in the article to adhere to Wiki's "well-documented" policy on living public figures.
137.200.1.109 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is stated above that sites, such as Ain't It Cool News, are not valid sources yet the edits to the content agreed upon by multiple editors to this article use sites such as Fangoria, Dread Central, and GeekTyrant as credible news sources.  These sources are exactly the same as Ain't It Cool News and other valid news sources used as cited references in this article.  To use Fangoria and Dread Central as references and NOT use Ain't It Cool News as a valid reference of citation to content is, using your words, "asinine."  Also, you state many things above about the content of the article that can be considered opinion and bordering on libelous, such as statements like the article is "bogus," responses being filed with "hysteria" and insinuation that a user/editor is paranoid.  Theses comments, opinions, and "name calling" have no place in a discussion regarding factual content of an article.137.200.1.109 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPOLICY CONCERNING LIVING PERSONS 

message: There was no "name calling" involved here. Terms such as 'hysterical' and 'asinine' are perfectly valid descriptive terms regarding some of the behavior and comments made by this editor/editor(s). While we are on the subject of "name calling" describing any, and all, good faith edits to this entry as "vandalism" would be closer to the generally accepted meaning of "name calling". I would again ask that all third parties again look at the chronic "cyber guarding" of this entry and the likely possibility that this page is a text book example of a clear 'conflict of interest'. I have continually attempted to engage this editor/these editors in a debate to reach a workable consensus, but as shown from the irrelevant, rambling comments of the other party/parties, they seem either incapable or unwilling to work with other editors. I fear that these parties are simply attempting to wear down, and essentially bully other interested editors in an attempt to discourage them from  contributing to this article and also that there is a concerted and, at the very least, a semi organized effort to make this entry their own protected, personal entry in which other contributors are, in essence, harassed in order to ensure that the entry remains what I feel it clearly has been for most of it's life on Wikipedia: a glorified publicity release/whitewashed idealized biography of the subject entry rife with questionable citations, a highly disproportionate number of "uncredited" work in major motion pictures, multiple valid credits in markedly minor direct-to-video releases and a "self-congratulatory' tone through out the entire text. I have reached the conclusion that if this entry is not written by the subject himself, that it is, at the very least, being edited and closely guarded by someone with either a personal or professional relationship with the subject entry. It's apparent from the other editor/editor's seemingly angry response to any challenges and from the convoluted and irrelevant "arguments" they are making that they have no interest at all in engaging in a constructive or civil dialogue, but are attempting to shout down any challenge with convoluted arguments which merely exhibit a jarring misunderstanding of various Wikipedia policy and a feeling that if they continually, baselessly and wrongheadedly, question the possible motivation of others, that they will somehow 'win' as if they see this entire situation as a sort of game show. Again, I feel that any unbiased third parties who care to examine the edit history of this page, as well as examine the comments made by the other party/parties, did so, they would clearly see a disturbing trend. There clearly will be no bona fide debate here given the other parties' unwillingness, or inability to engage in one as evidenced by their previous and frankly pointless, posts.I will be formally requesting semi-protection of this entire article based on all of the aforementioned issues involved. (Sellpink (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss the content of the article and stop discussing and attacking the editor/users.  It is very clear that several editors have agreed upon the current article as a concise descriptive article containing pertinent facts about Mr. O'Rear's career.  It is hard to understand why one particular editor/user (whose only input has been on this singular article) would continue to rave on and on about the material in this article and continue to attack the users who contibute here.  No one seems to be griping about this article except for this particular user and his gripes tend to be more personal, subjective, and opinionated in nature as opposed to actually discussing the content of the article.98.193.225.142 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for Semi Protected Status of This Article

message: I have continually, and sincerely attempted to engage the other party/parties in a constructive debate, but given their convoluted responses which seem to consist of accusations that I am here to somehow "vandalize" Mr O'Rear's page, that I am here only to somehow hurt Mr O'Rear, and their seemingly constant string of finger pointing , and frankly baffling, posts, I have reached the conclusion that there is no possibility of compromise, common ground or consensus to be had. I have requested semi-protection status for this article, but in retrospect, I probably should have discussed this with you first before I proceeded. I can assure you that this is not the outcome I hoped for. Please contact me if you have any questions o comments regarding this matter. Thank you! (Sellpink (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss the content of the article and stop discussing and attacking the editor/users. It is very clear that several editors have agreed upon the current article as a concise descriptive article containing pertinent facts about Mr. O'Rear's career. It is hard to understand why one particular editor/user (whose only input has been on this singular article) would continue to rave on and on about the material in this article and continue to attack the users who contibute here. No one seems to be griping about this article except for this particular user and his gripes tend to be more personal, subjective, and opinionated in nature as opposed to actually discussing the content of the article.98.193.225.142 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Again... Please discuss the content of the article and stop discussing and attacking the editor/users.98.193.225.142 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: GB FAN

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim O'Rear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831010448/http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/10/24/exclusive-interview-actor-jim-orear-vs-brian-s.html to http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/10/24/exclusive-interview-actor-jim-orear-vs-brian-s.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831010448/http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/10/24/exclusive-interview-actor-jim-orear-vs-brian-s.html to http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/10/24/exclusive-interview-actor-jim-orear-vs-brian-s.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified