User talk:GaeusOctavius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello GaeusOctavius, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! HGB 07:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Daniel Friedan
He sounds like an interesting person. Could you supply references for this article and perhaps a bibliography if he has published.TheRingess 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Strange Edits
Hi. I just noticed (and reverted) some disparaging remarks about conservatives you put[1] into[2] the Kathryn Jean Lopez article. A quick check through your contributions found a mixture of good-seeming edits plus stuff like [3], and I'm really puzzled by [4]. Um, what's going on? Are you all right? If you need to vent like that, perhaps you should consider starting a blog.
I'll watch this page for a week or so, so if you want to reply, you can do so here.
Best wishes, CWC(talk) 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. In regards to KJL, I fail to see how it is disparaging to point out that she has an abnormally high I.Q. (for and American political conservative). Most people would consider a high I.Q. to be a positive attribute, but perhaps this is not the case within certain subcultures. In regards to your second point, I have actually heard Kaus on the radio on multiple occassions, and the words "nasal" and "grating" are accurate descriptors. I am just being objective. When someone broadcasts over the radio on a semiprofessional basis, I believe it is entirely appropriate to note his vocal qualities.
Regards, --GaeusOctavius 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Malicious gossip
Why are you spreading malicious gossip on high energy physicists on Wikipedia?
Um, why don't you stop beating your wife? --GaeusOctavius 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link to article GaeusOctavius has vandalized
You really need to look up the definition of the word "vandalism". It does not mean what you apparently think it does.--GaeusOctavius 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that edit does meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism as do lots of GauesOctavius's edits. GauesOctavius seems to be on some sort of crusade to smear conservatives ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), financiers (
[11],[12]), theoretical physicists ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) and Mickey Kaus ([23], [24], [25]). Most (if not all) of these edits violate two of Wikipedia's most important policies, WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. Here's a warning that should have been issued long ago:
- GauesOctavius, I suspect that you will end up being banned unless you change your behaviour. Please stop using Wikipedia to smear people. Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It does not constitute vandalism to bring to light facts which you for some reason find displeasing or which are inconvenient to you ideologically. Let's look at some of the above edits you purport to be vandalism. In [26] I pointed out that Yoichio Nambu discovered the string interperetation of the dual resonance model before Susskind did (Susskind is not a financier, by the way). This is a well established historical fact. You may not like this fact because you want to believe that Susskind is the father of string theory or some such nonsense, but that does not give you the right to rewrite the historical record. Likewise in [27] I added a paragraph about a shareholder lawsuit against Mr. Gross after he defaulted on a personal loan and tried to get his company to take over the debt. This shareholder lawsuit is a matter of public record. Perhaps you have invested in Idealab, or worship Mr. Gross, or something, and you find this lawsuit embarrasing, but that does not give you the right to declare any mention of it vandalism. I could go on, most if not all of your examples are like this. You need to get a life, and stop trying to destroy Wikipedia. --GaeusOctavius 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're right that Susskind is not a financier; that was a cut-and-paste error. (I've struck it out.) But that edit still makes the unsubstantiated claim the Susskind calls himself 'the father of string theory', then inserts an argument that he is lying about that. Neither does the BusinessWeek Online article you linked to substantiate any of your claims about Bill Gross defaulting on a load (it just says some plaintiffs in a lawsuit claim he did that), having a "lavish" lifestyle and purchasing a jet, a sports car and a mansion. I'm checking your edits not because I worship Susskind or Gross (I cannot recall having even heard of either man before yesterday), but because it seems to me that you are misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle to damage the reputations of certain people, in violation of multiple policies. Wikipedia editors must not put assertions into our articles just because we know those assertions to be true; only assertions that can be WP:Verified by WP:Reliable Sources are accepted. For articles about living people, the requirements are much stricter. Some (not all, but a significant fraction) of your edits are damaging Wikipedia. Please stop. CWC(talk) 05:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Here we go again. You're really wasting your time with insignificant minutia here. Susskind's own book refers to him as the father of string theory on the jacket cover. Technically, he may not have written it himself, but it was written on his behalf. With regards to Gross, since when is it defamatory to state that someone bought a sports car or jet? You have a bizarre sense of values. It's true that the specific article mentioned did not state these facts, but it is a matter of public record that Gross purchased a Ferarri and jet and built a large mansion in Pasadena. I could track down the references to all those facts, but why bother. You don't seem to be interested in whether things are actually true or not, you are trying to game the system to further your agenda, or perhaps you are just a troll. If people like you try to twist Wikipedia's legitimate interest in combating vandalism, making baseless allegations of vandalism at the drop of a hat, Wikipedia will collapse on itsself. Any 12 year old can play this game of screaming vandalism at every minute assertion, regardless of it's factual truth, that isn't backed by eight independent references. You are wasting my time and degrading the quality of Wikipedia, stop it!--GaeusOctavius 03:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Larry Kudlow
You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. CWC(talk) 05:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm, yes. Let's look at these defamatory edits. I removed and UNSOURCED claim that Kudlow had been a harsh critic of Enron, and I added a couple of SOURCED and factually accurate statements from the Salon article. I could not think of better evidence of your bad faith. --GaeusOctavius 04:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not assert bad faith in discussions with others, instead assume good faith when others bring things to your attention. Please review WP:BLP very carefully. ALL information put into a biography of a living person should be scrupulously sourced. The edit in question does not seem to include sourcing. My view of what you should do: Bring the material to the talk page first, get consensus on the wording, provide well sourced citations and people will be happy to see the material inserted. But if you assert that things are common knowledge that will not convince folk that the material belongs. Regardeless of how well or poorly sourced existing material is, all new and changed material shold be scrupulously sourced. If you are not comfortable with that policy you may find it more productive to edit in other areas than living person biographies. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The statements were documented in the Salon article and are not controversial or even debatable. I am convinced some users are gaming Wikipedia's BLP policies to keep out valid information which they find unflattering or ideologically inconvenient. However I will learn to fight back within the system. --GaeusOctavius 21:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- So they're sourceable? Awesome. Please provide the reference. We have a format for that and if you use the reference format you'll stop just about every objection that it's not sourced. If you're not sure how to do references, put, on the talk page, everything you know (the URL, what day you accessed it, and where on the page or pages it is, for online stuff... the title, issue number and publication date, article title, author and page number for printed stuff) and someone else will do it for you so you know how, the first time. Referencing and citing is very important as we mature from gathering lots of content to making all our content is solid. That said, there's no room, need, or place for "fighting" in our system. Edit collegially, please. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The source article was cited in the sentence previous to the ones I added. I should have made the relationship between the statements and the source more clear. However I don't think throwing around accusations of vandalism is the best wey to bring up formatting problems. Thank you for your input. --GaeusOctavius 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
