Talk:Fravia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Fravia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Other sources

Here are a couple of other sources -that I hope could be considered reliable- which refer to fravia's (and more generally searchlores.org) work:

http://www.ccc.de/congress/2004/fahrplan/event/158.en.html (he held a workshop at 21c3 and the torrent for his presentation is available)
http://media.ccc.de/filez/congress/2005/lectures/video/mp4/22C3-videos-complete-20050506-torrents/22C3-408-en-private_investigations_in_searching.mp4.torrent

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=searchlores - a list of papers which cite works published on searchlores. Many of these papers have been actually published in scientific conferences and journals (i.e. International Journal of Network Security, Natural Language Engineering, SWUI Workshop at CHI), after a review by a scientific committee.

http://www.archive.org/details/websearching - a presentation held by Fravia at Ravensbourne College in 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.165.48 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Table of contents

Intro Work
-Education
-early work on Reversing
-Later focus on searching

Political Views
-Anti-advertising / anti-consumerism / pro-free ideas / linux gnu
-world

Hobbies / family / language / etc. already disclosed by his own action (not too personal if you knew him irl)
The ORC stalking legend
Awards / Commendations
Associations (with other influencial members of the scene... perhaps covered under WORK)
Criticism (I guess, lol)

These are just a couple things I'd like illustrated. I doubt this is complete, or the best way of organizing things, but I think we should clairify our agendas before we start modifieing other people's work; stepping on toes.Xetxo (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Xetxo, Thank you for your contribute and your approach. mgua (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Fixed citations, fixed typos, and made some other improvements. More categories should be added, but I'm unsure which categories he falls under. Enigma^msg 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Honestly, I don't know either, mostly because I don't know about WP's categories :-). I hope more sources will surface, and more people will help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorbid (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently the sources are two blog posts. This does little to establish notability, so I'd request we keep the banners in place for now. — Matt Crypto 16:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The events.ccc.de blog is one of the official communication channel of the ccc, which should count as a secondary RS IMO (the primary source being the searchlores site). Zorbid (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Marco found a book referencing (and praising for that matter) Fravia and his role in the reverse engineerin scene in the 90's. Doesn't it qualify as a non-controversial, reliable secondary source? Zorbid (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the book looks like a usable source to me. With respect to the tag, I don't think enough has been done to demonstrate that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTABLE) -- a couple of sentences in a security book is a start in that direction, but not sufficient. — Matt Crypto 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Any Better Pictures?

There are better pictures of +Fravia out there. Keeping in mind the copyright issues when including it in wikipedia, there are videos in archive.org of +f's lectures that we could take a snapshot, actually in the picture section of the site we could still take a better picture. it is very sad to have a picture of fravia in one of his last days as the main picture in wikipedia. while being that picture true, i think he, his friends and all his family would like him to be remembered with a different image sort of say. Does anybody agree on this. Sorry im talking about doing things and not doing , but i don' t have access to computers with photoediting programs. But i am pretty sure someone will not mind and do it. Why not putting up a picture of him "in action", teaching as he used to do, since he was known for sharing his knowledge. -- alguien de sudamerica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.245.218.2 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wholly unacceptable? It contains in fieri things that can be removed (altogether with notes about the status); the used words can be better (but this is true for 90% of Wikipedia articles) ... If it's "wholly unacceptable" for WP policies, WP policies (altogether with WP respecting it wholly), are a crap, and I use this specific word not without reason. (Sounds rude to you? Sorry, I don't know a better word bearing the same meaning) --Ittakezou0 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please stop calling this encyclopaedia. It's confusing. An online encyclopaedia cannot be like this. Maybe the better online encyclopaedia is only the whole web, not this wiki in particular. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

To Matt Crypto

Matt, I am again re-editing the page, adding new sources so you can be happy. I changed the style, reworked some sections. Tried to separate facts from opinions. I also added a (hopefully reliable for you) reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Guardigli (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I added the link to the photo in which mr Ravia is along with Mr. Stallman, who went to meet him during his illness. http://www.searchlores.org/spring2009.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Guardigli (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let me work and stop reverting my changes.

How can we (me or other friends) improve the page if you revert it?

I frankly think you have something against me or against mr. Ravia for acting like this. Or maybe you dont have anything better to do than bother people trying to contribute.

Please explain.

-Marco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Guardigli (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being accused of acting in bad faith, so I'll simply refer you to my previous statements on this page about Wikipedia content policies. — Matt Crypto 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing, I was asking why you were so angry against me. Just think about overall knowledge. Just think about the time we are wasting on this issue. Can you please check the new sources I added? (photos and blog entry of mr. Tommaso Dorigo) Can I ask mr Zorbid opinion on my last version of the page? Can I ask how old are you and your real name?

Marco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Guardigli (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did check the sources you added, but they don't meet our standards of reliable sources. (My age and identity are not a secret, but they are irrelevant to discussion about this article). — Matt Crypto 23:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so given this situation,

1. Can I ask to have another administrator to be in charge of checking Fravia Page? Possibly someone who has not involved till now in the discussions, with a fresh mind attitude?

2. Can I ask, since by your admission your name, age and identity are not secret (but you obviously want not to disclose it here) if you can send to to my email mgua(-)tomware(-)it?

3. Can I ask if there is a procedure for having an administrator not to touch a page for some days, until the people can add and integrate the facts you need to approve the page?

4. Can I ask why the new sources are not to be considered reliable?

5. Please check these other sources:

http://www.darkridge.com/~jpr5/local.html Fravia's Pages of Reverse Engineering - the most elite online reference to reverse engineering there ever was. it was taken off the 'net because Fravia was pissed off with the general attitude of people using his stuff; he did this all for the sake of art and challenge, and everyone used it to just break and steal software. it lives on in other places, apparently.. (check out Fravia's new site).

http://www.techuser.net/searching.html If you are interested in learning more about searching the web, you will find Search Lores to be a great resource. The searchlores site has many pages so you might want to use some of the techniques described in this article to search and find the relevant ones.

http://drgnu.org/ One day I was reading one of my favorite websites searchlores.org written by a witty and sarcastic stranger named "Fravia+" and he was encouraging people to migrate away from using proprietary and restrictive software. Well he had a relatively new page about GNU/Linux (specifically Ubuntu) at the time. From reading the site and doing my own searching I learned that it was possible to try out this Ubuntu (which by the way meant "I am what I am because of who we all are").

https://quequero.org/store/link/links.php Fravia's Searchlores Il sito del grande Fravia, dedicato esclusivamente al WebSearching.

http://reverse.put.as/2009/04/24/fravia-is-dying-long-live-fravia/ Bad news about Fravia, http://www.searchlores.org/spring2009.htm . Fravia’s reverse engineering site was fabulous and his new project, searchlores.org is another fantastic effort. His contribution to reverse engineering is huge and I loved his site, fravia.org.

http://2005.recon.cx/recon2005/papers/Fravia/ Montreal_2005.htm 2005-Jun-28 16:42:40 76.6K text/html searchlores.org link presentation video 2006-Jan-24 20:06:66 -_- link

http://iwaw.europarchive.org/05/maccown1.pdf look on page 7

http://home.dei.polimi.it/matteucc/MSI/download/handout-lecture-e4.pdf see on page 6 the source of the image

http://www.terminal23.net/2007/05/staying_anonymous_part_4_irc_1.html More information can be found at http://www.searchlores.org/irc_kane.htm. If I had found this before writing my post, it sure would have saved me a lot of composing!

http://www.finlandforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32769 Re: Universitys/Polytechnics.. Entrance examinations. CLUE! Postby Upphew » Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:53 am First advice: learn to search! Really! If you know how to get information, your studies will be much easier. For help with that: http://www.searchlores.org/ Second: http://www.teli.stadia.fi/Info/Valintakoeteht/English/ some earlier exams. Matematiikka = maths.

Pisa university http://bfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/telema/ar01s03.html Un’utile pratica è provare diversi motori (si può cominciare a partire dalla pagina dell'hacker finlandese Fravia: http://www.searchlores.org/main.htm, dietro cui vale la pena perdere un po’ di tempo), sperimentandone le caratteristiche.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/7207/1/CHI2008_Online_deception_paper_Taylor&Mair.doc cfr note 11

http://www.monitorulsb.ro/cms/site/m_sb/news/cum_si_cita_apa_bem_pe_zi_19066.html see citation reference note

http://events.ccc.de/ look for fravia

http://koeln.ccc.de/c4/faq/index.xml look for searchlores

http://www.mediSearchlores (keine Suchmaschine, dafür die wohl beste Seite zum Thema "Suchen")enkultur.org/lesezeichen/index.html

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Neuromancien wikipedian citing searchlores

http://www.lehongphong.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5641 vietnamese message pointer to searchlores

http://www.disidents.org/2009/02/ see reversing links on the right

Marco mgua (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick glance through some of the above list, and I don't believe you've grasped the notion of what qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Feel free to discuss further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or there is the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. — Matt Crypto 08:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad glance then. And I bet This Wiki is full of pages you think they have "reliable sources" according to arbitrary definition by this Wiki, but that are not reliable indeed. To be honest, there's nothing reliable enough but personal direct experience, if you look too close to the "problem". And I believe This Wiki has one eye too near the montain, so it can't admire (nor pretend to "talk about") a wider panorama. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Matt Crypto

Your behaviour is extremely disappointing

My working on this page is incompatible with you. You can exult. I am stopping.

Have better things to do than fight with a bored child.

Hope you will grow up one day.

Please consider to stop playing and try to build yourself a real future.

Farewell. mgua (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad you see it that way, Marco. Ultimately, the trouble is that Wikipedia isn't the right venue for the type of article you want to write, in the way that you want to write it. — Matt Crypto 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then This Wiki is not a reliable source (it wants not to be that), nor a Wide Index (since it does not try to index the whole knowledge), and of course is not a *pedia at all. What is it then? Just a wiki. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is not really the best place for extended discussion about the philosophy of what Wikipedia is and is not; perhaps the Wikipedia:Village pump might be a more suitable venue. — Matt Crypto 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)
Yes, it is realiable. The conference is called SIGINT and is organized yearly by the Chaos Computer Club. Fravia did finish writing the presentation for the talk. The site admin for www.searchlores.org is publishing the article today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.57.71 (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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=

http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/fahrplan/speakers/186.en.html -fravia spoke at a confrence with these folks apparently? They list off some facts briefly (verifiably online).

Fravia spoke on several occasions at the Congress of the German Chaos Computer Club, annually held in Berlin. I know of talks held by him in 2001, 2004 and 2005. Links can be found further down this page. (Neismark (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

CodeBreakers Journal published http://www.codebreakers-journal.com/downloads/recon2006/recon2006_Fravia_Searching.pdf Presented by Fravia at Recon 2006 conference (Montreal, Canada - 16 June 2006).

Searchlores noted by Hendrik Scholz - Security Lecturer Hendrik Scholz describes Fravia's Searchlores.org as excellent; "dissecting search engines any closer in [his] paper since Fravia is running the excellent Searchlores website..." http://web.archive.org/web/20070721023415/http://www.wormulon.net/files/pub/Google_SPOF.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetxo (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources by Mhyst

You need sources, right? I am a source myself, for Fravia+. He was all Marco said, and probably much more. I never met him in person. Only interchanged a couple emails. Also I used to be one of his ~Seekers~ and, I think, I'll be one of them forever. Fravia+ helped us a lot. He always insisted about the importance of sharing knowledge. His website (http://www.searchlores.org) is the big and ultimate SOURCE (and proof) for his life. I'm going to miss a lot his existence in this crazy world. He was light among darkness. He devoted his entire life to cast out fear and help everybody. Sorry if my scripting goes a bit smudged... tears don't help.

I'll end my rant with one of his quotes (this one probably was intended for me): "You'll find here a considerable amount of sheer, raw searching knowledge ~ however, if your attention span is too short, please, by all means, bugger off"

Why don't just leave this article alone and spend your time fixing the rest of the Wikipedia which is worse than this article. I mean... after all, who you think will come to Wikipedia to find reliable information? Many other people will want to complete and fix the article. Let the knowledge grow its own. Mhyst (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia because I care about sharing knowledge, but I don't believe it would serve to advance knowledge if Wikipedia relaxed its rules about reliable sources and original research. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, exists to collect and summarise what's already known about a topic. There are better ways open to people for presenting new ideas, or sharing personal perspectives on a topic, or conducting original journalism. — Matt Crypto 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect these things from a paper encyclopedia, or from a "closed" (to contributions) encyclopedia like Encarta or whatever; sometimes Wikipedia pretended to be more, but ended to be less: do not call it encyclopedia at all. And "collecting and summarising" wasn't what the article wanted to do? The fact that you (and many more) do not know anything about Fravia, it does not mean that it's "new idea": the topic "Fravia" is already known and so should be collected and summarised. And what about "original journalism"... a Wiki is that after all more than anything else first (journalists talk, or should talk, about facts and rumors and a journalist talking about a fact or rumor before everyone else is "original", but the fact / rumor itself is not and this fact must be taken into account, or noone could talk about anything for the first time, i.e. nobody could talk about anything at all) --Ittakezou0 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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).

Please leave his family out of this. Thanks. -- Last Wishes

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)

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)

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)

"Recognized master"... proofs are on the web, if you are able to find them, and fravia's site is all (or almost all) about that. And what a better source than his personal site, and the "clues" people knew him can spread around? --Ittakezou0 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

There does not exist such a thing like "neutral point of view": it's an illusion which scatters much more ignorance and confusion than a clear explicit non-neutral point of view. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

He called it "tribute". I call it "expanding knowledge"; knowing who Fravia is (was), is something that an online "*pedia" can't miss. But I already realized that the *pedia in Wikipedia is wrong naming; my new definition is just "collection of selected references to existing material, with the possibility to collaborate, not to let the knowledge grow, but only to make the index bigger". I've already wrote about the gnoseologic problem behind the obsession for RS, maybe in some italian page. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)