Talk:Mike Godwin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dispute with Larvatus

Resolved

 – Thread has been dead for 3.5 years.

This page is being repeatedly vandalized by an anonymous user posting from IP address 68.49.2.164 removing information supported by public Usenet record. Larvatus 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

The article is still being vandalized by the aforementioned anonymous user posting from IP address 68.49.2.164, now extending his or her censorship efforts to this discussion page. Larvatus 05:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Anonymous vandalism is ongoing with no attempts at justifying the removal of documented information. This cowardly behavior pattern is strongly reminiscent of the titular subject in the referenced incident. Administrative assistance is welcome. Larvatus 21:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

If Mike Godwin is notable, his entitlement to public attention is due to his Usenet presence. His career as a tergiversating duellist is well attested in that venue. [1] The referenced public record of his Usenet posts includes notice of Godwin's own escalation of the imbroglio into the pages of The Wall Street Journal. [2] Godwin's effort at promoting himself as an Internet peacekeeper deserves to be commemorated here. Larvatus 02:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

These comments are highly inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks.

As for the substance of your claim, remember that Wikipedia is not for original research. A Google search is not proof of anything. The referenced Wall Street Journal article only contains a quote from Mike Godwin which does not concur with your version of events. Not that Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this he-said, she-said kind of thing. --Grouse 08:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I defer to the notice of impropriety and extend apologies to all concerned parties. I have replaced the offending epithets with a neutral description of the subject matter at issue.

Thanks for making Wikipedia a more civil place. --Grouse 18:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the substance, a Google Groups search is 99% dispositive in matters pertaining to Usenet celebrity. It does not represent original research, but rather comprises the matter at issue. This is owed to the undisputed fact that the article under discussion is predominantly dedicated to Mike Godwin's Usenet persona. I contend that my contribution is an accurate and neutral summary of the referenced events. Nevertheless, in the interests of impartiality, instead of reverting your edits, I am inviting any disinterested third party to evaluate the subject matter objectively. Larvatus 13:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

It's unclear why "larvatus" is trying to turn this biographical stub into a larvatus-centric vanity page. It seems to be the case that there's already a vanity-page entry for "larvatus" on wikipedia, largely dedicated, apparently, to his stalking of his ex-girlfriend. Probably that page should be marked for deletion, since it violates Wikipedia's policies under a range of criteria. In any case, MODERATOR ATTENTION IS INVITED regarding "larvatus" and his frequent attempts to insert himself into this page.

It is a base slur to say that the "larvatus" entry in Wikipedia is a vanity page, given that the discussion of my exploits on that page is an important entry in any relevant encyclopedia. Similarly, it is vile of Godwin and/or his allies to assert that my relationship with Erin Zhu was anything other than holy. Finally, given the baseness of Godwin, I believe I should be exempted from the three-reversion rule. Michael Zeleny

Note: Michael Zeleny is an impersonator of User:Larvatus. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I confirm that the party deceptively registered as Wikipedia User:MichaelZeleny has nothing to do with me, Michael Zeleny. Larvatus 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

If true, this is not appropriate behavior either. You guys need a timeout. --Grouse 08:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)