Talk:Pedro J. Ramírez

Video scandal
I reverted the edit made by Technopat: the information about the contents of that video are not hearsay or "poorly sourced," since the link I added sends you to the VIDEO ITSELF. How can the evidence itself, the object itself, be less of a source than a description of its content? This reminds me of the silly editors who kept correcting Philip Roth's correction of the summary of the plot of one of his own novels... apparently Roth was not a "reliable source" (the author of the book that was being summarized). Now the video itself is not even of a source... Amazing. Wikipedia is an interesting microcosmos of what happens when you allow everyone to police everyone else: democratization of knowledge turns out to be its devaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anzu1939 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC) (I don't care about this issue anymore.)
 * As you insisted on restoring the link without first trying to reach consensus here, I have posted a final warning on your talk page. If you continue posting it without having reached wide-ranging consensus on this talk page, I shall request protection for the page. For the information of other editors, apart from the obvious violation of WP:BLP here, there was a court order in Spain prohibiting the press from even publishing frames from the video in question (in Spanish).


 * BTW, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "democratization of knowledge". While anybody is free to use whatever means they have available to try to access whatever information they want, Wikipedia is NOT a directory of links, especially if those links fragrantly violate Wikipedia's BLP policy. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the case of Philip Roth – Pedro J. Ramirez obviously has not authorised publication of the video. --Technopat (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Technopat's threats & the nature of "sourcing"
Technopat (or Technopath) sent me a private threatening note, telling me he/she would cancel my Wikipedia privileges to edit anything and kick me out over this one edit. He/she's a bully. Now understand three things: But don't worry. This is the last time I ever change a single word in your precious world of "technopaths," cyber-bullies, and ignorant jerks. Life is too short to spend it dealing with people who live in their parents' basements & collect Star Treck memorabilia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anzu1939 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the video is authentic for the simple reason that several high-ranking politicians were found guilty of conspiring with the woman and hiding to record it in secret: the autheticity of the video made it material evidence in the trial;
 * a gag order by a Spanish judge does not bind anywhere else outside Spain (not in the US where I live: mine is a free country);
 * an actual document is a source, so a source cannot be "sourced," only authentified, which the Spanish courts did in this very case.


 * For the benefit of other editors: There is no "private threatening note". I posted a final warning for violation of "Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article" on the user's talk page, an online document belonging to Wikipedia. I shall reply to the other points raised above on the corresponding talk page. --Technopat (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)