User talk:Larvatus

Welcome!

Hello, Larvatus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ≈ jossi ≈ 22:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning

Alex ex 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC) This is a warning according to Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress

Please stop spreading the information about the sexual abuse of your ex-partner! Even if somebody hurts your feelings very much, Wikipedia is not a place for personal insulting and revenge in the form of spreading the annoying and unpleasant intimate information about your ex-friend.

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, linking the article with a very intimate information (which is insulting) about your ex-partner in numerous other articles (particulary created by yourself, and probably just for this purpose) can be undestood as: Attention-seeking vandalism (Adding insults, personal attacks).

For example: bringing Erin Zhu into the context of the articles about Einstürzende Neubauten and Blixa Bargeld has not much sence for various reasons:

• the Wikipedia articles about the bands usually do not have any information about the band's webmasters and excecutive producers
• the only official information from the artists about Erin Zhu is, that she was an excecutive producer on the few recent releases.
• spouses of the band members are usually not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles, as long as the spouses are not the outstanding people or famous artists themselves (as John Lennon and Yoko Ono).

I shall consider your objections in order. If any given Wikipedia article about a band lacks information about its webmaster or executive producer, there is nothing stopping you from adding it there instead of attempting to censor it here. Given that Einstürzende Neubauten has rebranded itself as an Internet e-commerce venture, its webmaster's identity and ethical standards are very much to the point. Finally, the information that I am contributing is part of the public record, mainly owing to Erin Zhu's success in making a name for herself in public Usenet fora, as well as her past exploits as a con artist posing as an innocent victim of childhood sexual abuse. It is also substantially relevant to the subject matter of each article, not in the least in illustrating the causes bearing upon numerous petty frauds perpetrated by the neubauten.org venture, as independently noted in the Einstürzende Neubauten article, namely the deceptive purveyance of defective "supporter" products.

I understand that pointing out these unpleasantries is not a nice thing to do. Fortunately, you have a remedy at hand. Just license the Wikipedia content that agrees with your ladylike sensibilities under the GNU Free Documentation License, making sure that your readers are not exposed to mean-spirited disclosures. Till then, your accusations of Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress are best applied at home.

Larvatus 06:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)larvatus

On Plato's whereabouts

I was surprised to read your statement that "No such relationships have been documented in the life of Plato." Wiser men than I disagree with you. Please drop in at Talk:Historical pederastic couples so we can resolve this to our mutual satisfaction. Haiduc 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mike Godwin

Thank you for the note. I had a look at the article, and 68.49.2.164 had indeed broken the WP:3RR policy, and after ignoring my warning, has been blocked from editing for 24 hrs. I'm not sure his actions rise to the level of "vandalism" technically, but they were ill-advised in that they deleted well-cited and supported information. POV deletionism is what I'd call it. In your own reverting of POV deletionists/vandals, take special care to follow WP:3RR. FeloniousMonk 02:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Larvatus

Hi Larvatus, thanks for your thanks. I have a feeling that the page on the wikipedia may be deleted, despite any editing. Might I suggest you put a copy on a subpage of your user space (such as User:Larvatus/article) so it doesn't disappear altogether. Proto t c 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, and one that I support. As noted on the AfD page for your article, the content does not meet wikipedia guidelines for notability, however it would be a fine addition to your user page. I recommend you userfy it. --Dschor 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Un-Encyclopedic Color Commentary

The following comments are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. They are considered color commentary.

"At that point, Ali G was able to cast doubt on Hovind's objections to evolution by asking his guest:"

"In response to Hovind's nervous objections to his method of proof,"

"Hovind's protestations of fecal innocence were unavailing."

These things read like a gossip column and need to be removed, immediately. I took some time and wrote an nPOV contribution, but you keep reverting it completely in favor of your own. --Jason Gastrich 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

False Accusation

How can you call my contribution to Hovind's entry vandalism? You need to apologize and retract that false accusation. I offered a sensibile paragraph that resembles the other paragraphs about Ali G in other celebrities' entries. Furthermore, I didn't know the link YOU posted in the talk page was copyright infringement. Why did you post it if it was illegal? I thought you posted a legal link to the .wmv file, so I put it on the entry. --Jason Gastrich 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please look into the doctrine of fair use. Posting a link to a copyrighted file for the narrow purposes of private communication is perfectly legal. Referencing it for public use is illegal. As to your latest contribution to this entry, its main consequence was a summary deletion of a narrative summarizing the performance at issue, created by a collaborative effort. In doing so, you bypassed the ongoing discussion of merits and relevance. Please abstain from further unilateral action, pending our achievement of an editorial consensus in this matter. Larvatus 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

As I said, I had no idea the link you posted was to a copyrighted file.

See the discussion page. I believe consensus has been reached. Read the research by Daniel. He found a few Ali G mentions in celebrity entries and none had dialogue. Therefore, it seems that dialogue is inappropriate for this entry. Your thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You had no idea that TV shows are subject to copyright?

I think that the exchange between Ali G and Kent Hovind, as currently summarized in the article dedicated to the latter is both relevant and meaningful. I see no legitimate public interest in suppressing it from Wikipedia. Larvatus 21:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Well, we need a reason for its inclusion. Saying you can't see why it shouldn't be included isn't a reason for its inclusion.

I have several reasons why the dialgoue should be deleted.

1. Ali G doesn't speak in regular English, so it "dumbs down" the entry.

2. The other celebrities' entries that contain an Ali G episode mention do not include dialogue.

3. It does nothing to stimulate the creation/evolution or belief/unbelief interests that Kent Hovind is known for.

I'm going to move this conversation into the Kent Hovind discussion thread. Please respond there and not here.--Jason Gastrich 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

• Your continuous insertion of unsourced and potentially libelous material will not be tolerated. Cite verifiable sources, and you are not a verifiable source. FCYTravis 02:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • All assertions at issue in your deletionist frenzy have been properly sourced to public record and independently verified by other members of Wikipedia community. Do your homework. Larvatus 02:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
    • LiveJournal and Usenet posts are not proper sources for an allegation of a serious criminal offense. Has he been arrested for any crime? Charged with any crime? Are there reputable sources which support these allegations, such as newspaper reports? FCYTravis 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • You are missing the point. The referenced allegations have been made in judicial venues, as accurately identified in the online sources. The articles at issue refer to the allegations, which are of public interest. This reference is a purely factual pointer to public record. It need not and does not involve realleging anything contentious. Larvatus 02:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
        • They have not been made by any criminal court, nor any public prosecutor, nor has he been arrested for any crime. I can file a lawsuit callling you a murderer. That doesn't mean I can put on your Wikipedia bio "Travis Mason-Bushman accused Michael Zeleny of murder." FCYTravis 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • Sure it does. That's what it means to be an alleged murderer. Consider Michael Jackson, recently tried and acquitted on the charge of child molestation. The relevant allegations are part of his Wikipedia entries. Your deletionist justification applies to his case just as well as it does to the case of WebEx and its principals. Why not try your whitewashing on a worthier subject? Larvatus 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
            • Those relevant allegations were made by a prosecutor in a court of law following the rules of criminal procedure after an investigation and an arrest by police. Mine would be made in a court filing in which I can say anything I want. Saying something in a civil pleading does not constitute an allegation of a criminal offense. You are saying that this person has been accused of a crime, and he has not. More to the point, please cite where the alleged victim has filed any lawsuits. I don't think you'd have any standing to file a lawsuit as Party C alleging that Party A raped Party B. Party B has not filed a lawsuit making these allegations public, has she? Where are the verifiable sources which support your assertions? Simply pointing me to a case number is not acceptable. Cite your information. If your "source" is that you said in a court filing "Party A raped Party B," that's not enough. It's your responsibility to provide citations and sources which can be examined by other editors for inspection. FCYTravis 02:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Done and done. The relevant part of Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources present information or data, such as ... historical documents such as ... transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview... Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The court records in Santa Clara have been properly cited in the WebEx article referenced herein. Every statement that you find objectionable is borne out thereby. In the article at issue I am reporting that Min Zhu has been accused of child rape under oath by his daughter Erin Zhu. (Contrary to your attempt at building a strawman, this is not to say that he has been so charged by any official entity -- anyone can accuse anyone else, and some such accusations are of public interest.) This statement is factually supported by historical documents entered into public record in Santa Clara superior Court, Case Number CV809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx. This factual support falls within the quoted Wikipedia definition of source-based research. As referenced at the WebEx discussion page, it has been independently verified by other Wikipedia contributors. In summary, your beef is with independently verified, source-based research of public records that Wikipedia defines as fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Larvatus 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus