Talk:Fravia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:42, 8 May 2009

While the dispute is being resolved, the WIP article can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to reverse engineering.

There seems to be demand for an article about this person, and he passes a Google notability test. Also, the fact that so many people have edited the page suggests he's notable. The AfD discussion suggests that the reason people didn't like it was that it was badly written. This can be fixed. Evercat (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood that Fravia was a big name in certain online circles, but it's not at all clear at present that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people); in particular, can we construct a biographical article from reliable sources? — Matt Crypto 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , there is enough information on his web page and on other sites such as woodmann in orde to do that Stefan.petrea (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main...

IMPORTANT! It is not good to redirect fravia to reverse engineering. he was a master in software reversing (which is *related* to software reverse engineering), and (in the last 10 years), dedicated his efforts to internet information searching.

I was a personal friend of Mr Fravia, and knew him since 1996. definitely i disapprove the choice of redirecting this searches to reverse engineering, which was NOT his field.

Marco Guardigli Technical Director TomWare Group

(this comment was made in the article by Marco Guardigli)

New version

The last article was deleted because of it's fanboyish tone, it's bad style, and it's lack of citations. I don't know much about Fravia personally, so I restored the page to an absolute minimal stub. Please expand it wisely :-) Zorbid (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Jon's Blog post

I don't want to start an edit war, so:

There are exceptions to the WP:RS rules for self-published sources, and I think that DVD Jon qualifies as an expert in the field. Zorbid (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seconded - riffic (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." — Matt Crypto 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about last reverting by Matt Crypto, and about fast-undo style

Matt, I am trying to rewrite the whole page in a fairly decent style. It takes me time to do that, and I need the help of many friends. For this reason, since i have a job to do and i can not devote a lot of time to this, please give me some time. If you editors do revert some other people work, please consider that sometimes the full article can not be written in a single session.

Thank you for your understanding. Marco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Guardigli (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, it wasn't Matt, but Enigmaman who erased your contributions. I reverted them. That said, the article you are writing is more of a praise than an encyclopedic article. I know that Fravia was a personal friend, so it may be hard for you to write about him otherwise, especially since he died recently.

Wikipedia isn't the place to write an eulogy. You need to write the article in a neutral tone. Maybe you could ask the other people who knew him, maybe less closely, to help you in writing it?

Kind regards, Zorbid (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I did, in fact, undo Marco's contributions once.) You have my every sympathy at the loss of your friend. I'd second Zorbid's advice about the need for a neutral tone, and add another request: reliable sources. Unfortunately, it seems reliable sources about Fravia are very scarce indeed. — Matt Crypto 05:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the best chance we have to find "reliable sources" about him (in Wikipedia's meaning of the phrase) would be to wait for an eulogy in a recognised publication. Zorbid (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO: I do not understand

Zorbid, Matt, Enigmaman: I will go on and find the sources you demand. There are indeed many. In the meantime, could you please let me work on the page? I understand that you have to do your moderating, but consider that it takes time for me to collect the proper informations. Furthermore, if you go on in undoing my edits, friends who could contribute and improve what I wrote are impeded to do so.

If this sounds not good for you, please explain me clearly why are there in wikipedia many so completely and insignificant pages which do have the right to exist, and why Fravia's page can not even be reverted in the form that it had for years, while being below your radar attention level?.

thank you Marco Guardigli

Marco, I'm sorry about the locking of the page. Actually, it's not that I or we want you to find sources. Wikipedia has very strict rules about biographies, to prevent vanity pages and other abuse. The fact that the article stayed unnoticed for years in it's previous form doesn't mean it was acceptable by the official standards. That said, I think that some admins are overly strict about these rules, especially for an article that's actively being worked on. It must be very frustrating for you right now. You can work on the article here while the dispute is resolved.

It's indeed kind of absurd that you cannot write a proper article about a grassroots/underground hero, while the most obscure anime characters or porn stars have full fledged articles. Zorbid (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your last question, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. I suggest a better way to proceed is to add information piece by piece, citing a reliable source as you go. — Matt Crypto 08:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again

I want you to know I find these rules of you completely against the spirit of knowledge freedom. Yes, I am sad. I am angry. I am feeling very frustrated. I will go to the burial, and wanted to give to his orphans and widow that page as a tribute to a father and man who in many cases enriched and changed the life of many (including mine). Go read the messageboards if you dont believe. You censors do not own information. You censors have not to be overzealot custodes of a single immutable truth.

Give me a decent explanation about which that page I wrote is vanity. Remove my name if you think it is unfair. Maybe I should start hiding like you all behind a silly nick. Still now I can not understand your reasons for which the current stub should be better than what I was editing. You did not give a decent explanation.

Im stopping right now. Otherwise I could really become impolite and offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.248.71 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sypathise with your mourning, but I think that you are currently misguided. I don't think that there is any vanity in your intent. I gave you the reason for the existance of the rules that are barring you from writing the article You'd like. The problem with the article you are writing is that it is based on your personal account of his life. Most of what you've written is highly subjective. I'm sure that you have a lot of knowledge to share about Fravia, but Wikipedia articles have to be factual and have external, recognised sources. Articles cannot be written based on a first hand account. The advices for writing the biography of a living person apply here too. Zorbid (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to write a Wikipedia "NPOV" article about a subject you are deeply familiar with. But the main problems with what you have written is that it expresses opinion, makes subjective claims, and uses vague qualitative descriptions, rather than sticking to facts which can be sourced. For instance, it calls Fravia a "recognized master" without stating who so recognizes him, it cites his "unique capacity" and the "rather appreciable community" community he built. And so forth. Much better would be to give numerical or neutral descriptions, and express his greatness through specifically listing his acts, rather than grandiose hand-waving. Have no fear that your efforts will be "censored"; the process is frustrating and imperfect, but nearly always the neutral facts of an article bubble out, especially if many users read and work on a page. —140.247.99.232. (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my point clearer. For the record, NPOV means "neutral point of view". --Zorbid (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you want to write a tribute; simply, Wikipedia is not the right place to publish it (Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL). — Matt Crypto 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are sites that have tributes to Fravia. Why does this tribute have to be on Wikipedia? What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? Enigma^msg 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RMS

If he was known and respected by RMS then perhaps someone should attempt to contact RMS and request a reference from him that could be used as a citation.

Daniel (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but RMS may not be that easy to reach. —Zorbid (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe :-) —Zorbid (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the semi-protection

Could it be lifted?

Enigmaman doesn't seem to care about discussing his editing motives. This is a WIP article, we should let it being worked on until it becomes good, doesn't it? I will not restore the article to it's previous state since I was involved in the reverse "war", but I think it should be done. While I agree that the WIP article in its current shape is highly POV and could be better sourced, it can be worked upon and improved until it becomes suitable. —Zorbid (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at Wikipedia policies? This was sent to AfD and it was closed as a redirect. Certain people refuse to accept the result of the AfD and edit war to put the article back up. But aside from all that, this is wholly unacceptable for Wikipedia, period. Enigma^msg 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that being harsh towards beginners was among wikipedia's policies. The AfD went unnoticed because the people who could have argued in it's favour were not present. I agree with you that the version of the article you pointed to is in a bad shape from an encyclopedic point of view, but new users have to be "educated". Your pedagogic methods are not exactly tactful, especially in this context (did you read the rest of this page?). —Zorbid (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being harsh towards anyone. I just removed content not appropriate to an encyclopaedia. You are being harsh by assuming bad faith. Enigma^msg 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my standards, deleting someone else's hours of work, rather than telling him what he's doing wrong in order for him to correct it, is being harsh, yes. I know you're acting in perfect accordance with the local policies, but that doesn't make your behaviour less rude IMO. —Zorbid (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do what's right by Wikipedia. If that's rude in your opinion, there's nothing I can do for you. Enigma^msg 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you try to do the best possible job, you wouldn't have been nominated admin otherwise. I fully agree that POV, OR and unsourced content don't have their place here. But there are other methods than simply slshing into it. I guess you missed the context on this one. Had you seen that a grieving man had been spending hours in creating it? -Zorbid (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add, I overreacted to your reversing. I should have discussed it with you before re-reverting. -Zorbid (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Enigmaman points out, a version of this article went through an AfD; therefore subject to Wikipedia:CSD#General, "Recreation of deleted material". I don't object to unprotecting the page, but it's not appropriate for people to edit war to retain material that is unsourced, OR and/or POV. — Matt Crypto 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proper deletion review was filed, but wasn't completed because the article was brought back to life independantly. The recreation of deleted material refers to a verbatim restauration of the content, not the recreation of a page on a given topic. The page in it's current shape is significantly different from the one reviewed for deletion. Therefore, the aforementioned rule doesn't apply. —Zorbid (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the protection because edit wars should result in a full protection: no prejudice to applying full protection if edit warring continues, but it would be ideal if a compromise could be reached wtihout re-protection. –xeno ^talk 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that full protection has been instated. –xeno ^talk 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The now deleted discussion from Scarian's page

Could you please unprotect the Fravia page. Enigmaman doesn't seem to care about discussing his massive defacing of the article, or any compromise regarding the editing conflict.

Thanks in advace, Zorbid (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was made to protect the article from edit warring, friend. Its intent was to stir up some discussion between you and E-man so you could work out your disagreement. I would hope that you'll use this time to point your side of the argument to him without edit warring, and visa versa. If you're adamant about getting it unprotected, you're going to have to ask another administrator to do it. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the page as edit warring should result in full protection, rather than semi: semi-protection gives the appearance of side-taking with autoconfirmed users. No prejudice to full protection if someone feels it's warranted. –xeno ^talk 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry. My error. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and full prot'd, as was my original intention. Sorry again. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. cheers, –xeno ^talk 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the edit war was effectively over, since both Enigmaman and I are oldbies, hence able to edit a semi-protected page, and we didn't do it. Legitimate sources are starting to emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorbid (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry, I saw the redlink'd userpage and just assumed. –xeno ^talk 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agree with E-man on the substance of the argument, but I don't like his ways. Could you lift the block or do I have to find a third admin since by now you are invloved too :D? -Zorbid (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block can be lifted if the war is over... So I'll do that now. –xeno ^talk 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Zorbid (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drop potential reliable sources here

If you find sources, but don't have the time to improve the article, please drop them here.

From the Hacker News user rchase. It's actually an official announcement from a conference where he was suppose to speak. Do you think it's reliable enough? -Zorbid (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source (german): http://events.ccc.de/2009/05/06/sigint-2009-fravia/
Somewhat skinny on details, but it's a start and mentions several other potential sources.
Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://events.ccc.de/2009/05/06/sigint-2009-fravia/&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

Article Unlocked.

I've expanded the stub, but I have some troubles with the citations. There are only two, but one of them appears 3 time.

I don't think that the notability banner is still required, but since this article has been contentious, I prefer not to do it myself.

BTW, I know my style is bad, but writing in NPOV feels very unnatural to me. -Zorbid (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 :::::I'm trying to do what's right by Wikipedia. If that's rude in your opinion, there's nothing I can do for you. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 :::::: I know that you try to do the best possible job, you wouldn't have been nominated admin otherwise. I fully agree that POV, OR and unsourced content don't have their place here. But there are other methods than simply slshing into it. I guess you missed the context on this one. Had you seen that a grieving man had been spending hours in creating it? -[[User:Zorbid|Zorbid]] ([[User talk:Zorbid|talk]]) 19:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
+:::::: I have to add, I overreacted to your reversing. I should have discussed it with you before re-reverting. -[[User:Zorbid|Zorbid]] ([[User talk:Zorbid|talk]]) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 : As Enigmaman points out, a version of this article went through an AfD; therefore subject to [[Wikipedia:CSD#General]], "Recreation of deleted material". I don't object to unprotecting the page, but it's not appropriate for people to edit war to retain material that is unsourced, OR and/or POV. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)