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)

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)

Biased POV

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability are the standard for Wikipedia articles. You have started or made edits in many related articles that are below these standards. Specifically, Subrah Iyar, Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, WebEx NEA, and Scott Sandell. I’m sorry that you can’t see the problem. As an ex-romantic and business partner of Erin Zhu and an adversary in a legal case, you’re too close to the situation. I suggest that you step back and let the community make decisions about these articles.--FloNight 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

FloNight, please see Kent Hovind and Larvatus' contributions. Let us know if those are also a similar infraction or not. With all due respect to him, IMHO, he simultaneously has a POV he wants represented in the entry and is willing to work with people to get it in there. --Jason Gastrich 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC notice

A user conduct RFC has been filed against you: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Larvatus. The complaining parties, User:FCYTravis and User:Demi have failed to properly inform you, so I'm doing it for them. FeloniousMonk 08:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's my fault, I started the thing after hearing about this as a third party. karmafist 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept responsibility. I had not finished writing my arguments, at which time I intended to make such notification. FCYTravis 08:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An additional demarche, in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Zhu was initiated by User:FCYTravis as well. You will want to weigh in there as well. FeloniousMonk 08:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions

I have some questions relating to this RfC, you may be able to answer them. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Larvatus#Cross-claim. --bainer (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a Request for arbitration in the matter of your allegations, to determine a final outcome in this dispute, as I believe the edit-warring has gone on long enough. I bear no ill will, I simply believe this is the only way to come to a conclusion either way. FCYTravis 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu case. Raul654 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rota was Jewish?

Where did you get the information that Gian-Carlo Rota was Jewish? I saw his entry in Who's Who in America from some time in the 1990s, and it said he was a Roman Catholic. Michael Hardy 23:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If Jesus can be a Catholic, why not Mr Rota? PiCo (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dmitry Galkovsky

I have nominated Dmitry Galkovsky, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Galkovsky. 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. Colchicum (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

As per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Larvatus, I have blocked your account for 31 hours. Please do not engage in sock puppetry again or you will be blocked for much longer. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Larvatus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not using any other accounts, and have never done so in the past. Although I have an ongoing interest in WebEx, I never violated the ArbCom rulings in this regard. I use hard wired connectivity with static IPs associated with TimeWarner and mobile links via T-Mobile and Sprint. The latter may be shared at any time by tens of thousands of users across the country. Please take this fact into account by assuming my good faith in this matter.

Decline reason:

Granted, the checkuser evidence isn't marked as solid; however I think it's enough to sustain a block this short. As for those "tens of thousands", only one person among tens of millions of Internet users has repeatedly shown interest in making this allegation. -- Daniel Case (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Larvatus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Zinovy Zinik - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If any admins review this, refer to arbcom. A note was made in the block log to that affect too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Larvatus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made no threats of any kind, legal or otherwise. cordially, - Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu - 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 - 323.363.1860 - http://larvatus.livejournal.com 06:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)larvatus

Decline reason:

In view of Rlevse's comment above and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu, review of this block by normal admins is not helpful because they do not have the information to determine whether the block was clearly unjustifiable. This block can therefore be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee. See WP:ARBCOM#BASC.  Sandstein  10:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per Sandstein, he can email Arbcom/BASC if he wishes to appeal. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DerekRaymond.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DerekRaymond.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RexerLongtieng67.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:RexerLongtieng67.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)