User talk:3vil-Lyn

Discussion

Bel Ami
Hi. First I have to apologize for getting back to you so late. And then I have to thank you for that nice little picture you put on my user page. Looks as if you know me. ;-)

Thanks for reverting Accountforwp's edits on the BA page. I also want to inform you that I just have filed a [3RR complaint] against the user. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Hello, I'm glad you liked that motivation picture ;) I noticed you trying to remove some names on the German language Wikipedia and then followed your talk page to this one big discussion on screen names here. While at it I decided to make your name blue ;) As for Accountforwp, I have no idea what this user is up to eight o'clock in the morning... NUTS! both of you ;) Ne ne, don't take such provocations seriously, it's just a matter of time and Accountforwp will get tired of it. ciao --3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting again. Accountforwp has just been banned for one week for 3RR. When I told him that the picture he explicitly linked to not even shows Duroy but a well known Slowakian actor he left out the links to the tabloid in his edit. So let's hope that he gets tired of it. If he continues to be disruptive he risks getting blocked indefinitely. The names have gone now from the German language Wikipedia and on the Katja Krassin all references to her real name have even deleted from the history a few days ago due to a WP:OS request from a contributor. BTW I am on CET and enjoying bad weather. ;-). (Jamesbeat (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Regarding the USPTO
This has come up before when I had a correspondance with the wikimedia foundation, specifically Jeandré du Toit, from way back in 2007:

the USPTO page is not original research as rejected for WP, it's just research for information. - Jeandré du Toit, 5/23/07

The USPTO is not, and never has been, OR. –– Lid(Talk) 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with Jeandré du Toit (and at least regarding the name inclusion nor does Jimbo Wales), as in case of adult actors such a source gets trumped by WP:BLP and its associated sensitivity in favor of personal privacy. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. There is currently a discussion on this ->here. As there are no secondary sources I consider your revert original amplification. We would not publish the name based on a scan of a driving license either --3vil-Lyn (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point of conjecture was the labelling of using the USPTO as original research, not the moral or privacy issue of their names inclusion. I am more than willing to accept you reverting my reversion to your version and will not try and stop you, but please don't remove USPTO cites claiming they are OR. You have pointed me to an interesting discussion, and I will read it more thoroughly to get an idea of the situation. –– Lid(Talk) 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to join that disasterpiece of a discussion, but it seems that the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of reliably sourced pornographic actors/actresses names is not a decided issue. Someone, correctly, pointed out BLP was for the removal or poorly sourced negative information, not well sourced possibly could be considered negative information. I still won't intrude on your name removal, but that is due to me not wanting to provoke anything. I will say, however, that if I had seen that discussion before our recent discussion I would've erred on the side of name inclusion if the name could be reliably sourced. –– Lid(Talk) 12:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Every adult actor can now write an e-mail to Jimbo Wales and get the name removed and that's all that counts. No more long discussions with civilians ;) --3vil-Lyn (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sedlmayr, etc.
I'm sorry that I didn't reply to you message on my talk page previously, but I've become just tired of Wikipedia at the moment. If anyone ever said that WP would be about writing articles, he was wrong; it's more about discussion about articles. That is why I am kind of willing to just close the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required discussion now; but I am not willing to concede that the full names don't need to be removed. I think you have found the discussion about Nazi occultism on the German Wikipedia. Sometimes you can't push something through although you are right - and I really would like to get back to writing articles. That's why I have given up on writing a similar article for the German Wikipedia, that is, until I finish the English one. I really appreciated your encouragement on my talk page, and I would like to give you a long reply and explain the difficulties of the Nazi occultism topic, but I just couldn't find the time for it the last 10 days, I was too strained by having to deal with that discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Zara, thank you for your reply. I'm sorry, I was very busy last few days and it seems i'll have to travel again this month. :/

Guess it's time for me to finally bow out of that discussion, because there is no common ground with the people currently involved especially in face of those recent attemps to either derail or oversimplify.

This might save you pains too, not because you aren't one of the few who can carry the subject forward, but this case keeps you away from what you like better. Don't let that happen ;) Also, that user Lid got some of my jokes the wrong way is one thing, however when an editor suddenly proposes to entirely scrap the BLP policies you know it doesn't make sense anymore to continue dialog.

I think it's not that there ain't enough people who have the sensitivity to weigh privacy rights of indviduals in  accordance with WP:BLP in a reasonable manner or even comparing it to a legal point of view that is somehow more sophisticated than what even American Law asks for. It's more like a kind of insecurity among editors to make a stand for a strong WP:BLP policy. It might even have to do with the wording not being clear and precisely enough. So, I think I will write this essay (maybe call it WP:Anonymize) sometime in the future and see if I can get support for some stronger terms.

As for your article on occult roots of Nazism in German language, I really found this dicussion you spoke of. I hope you get around to post it again some day, right now I don't have easy access to literature on this topic. I just got curious as I had in mind it was Hitler himself who ordered to ban most occult organizations following the totality claim of the NSDAP. --3vil-Lyn (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Sorry for taking so long with a reply, but when I decided to come back to Wikipedia I first wanted to do some stuff that ha piled up a long time ago. I then got into some other useless controversies (currently there is one ongoing at Varg Vikernes) and that took up my time, too. So actually, I don't want to revive the sedlmayr discussion, not not and probably not ever. However, if you started working on an appropriate guideline, I would contribute to it. If I had now, I could give you some more details on the background of Nazi occultism etc., but with the current controversy I need to make a note of it at the appropriate noticeboard. Zara1709 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars kid...again.
Can you drop a few words at Talk:Star Wars kid about why we shouldn't include his name? Thanks.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)