User talk:Sp0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] talk

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jet Li hero premiere.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Jet Li hero premiere.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More care

Please take care not to remove tags that should remain with images, such as the {{Non-free reduced|02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)}} tag you just removed from Image:HolographicDarthMaul.jpg. --EEMeltonIV 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another note about FURs

Additionally, "For informational purposes" is NOT a sufficient reason to use copyrighted non-free images. Such images are generally only permissible when offering critical commentary on the subject at hand. Once again, please review WP:NONFREE. --EEMeltonIV 10:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A better use of your time...

...rather than looking through an editors' logs to leave very, very clever notes on their talk page might be to actually read Wikipedia policy. --EEMeltonIV 11:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:DOAKokoro.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DOAKokoro.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jet Li hero premiere.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jet Li hero premiere.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Darth mual from movie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Darth mual from movie.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:DOA Zack.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DOA Zack.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced controversial information

Do not add unreferenced controversial biographical content as you did in this edit at Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kww (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient": This is an unconfirmed rumor. Therefore:
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's policies against defamatory content by inserting controversial, unconfirmed, defamatory content into any Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:Lindsay Lohan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No where did I say the following quote: "staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient"
Neither does the url link I posted mention that. The url I posted talked about how Tony Allen's wife is divorcing Tony Allen because she believes the allegations that Lindsay Lohan had sex with Tony Allen in the bathroom at a rehab clinic in Utah.
I would appreciate it if you did not threaten me anymore about blocking my account for defamation. Even if I made an argument that relied on a quote that is a rumor, that is not defamation.
Furthermore, your script must be outdated and in error. First, it did not give any link for "policies against defamation." Second, the phrase "inserting controversial, unconfirmed, defamatory content into any Wikipedia page" is in error. My comment was controversial, unconfirmed, but it was not "defamatory." However, for that phrase all you have to do is say "inserting defamatory content into any Wikipedia page," which I did not do. It is a rumor, something that has not been verified to be true or untrue through reliable third party sources.
Thus, I do not understand why you threaten me with a defamation warning about a discussion about a rumor. The most that is, is something that is not verifiable, but you were threatening based on "defamation." Sp0 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No where did I say the following quote: "staff found her in the bathroom ...": You said it here, here, here, and here.
"a rumor, that is not defamation"": Wrong. Making public statements (and a Wikipedia talk page is very public) about someone based on rumors IS defamation. Ask any attorney.
"it did not give any link for "policies against defamation."": Read WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Please read them thoroughly. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy. The first time may have been because you did not understand. Continuing to do so after it is explained constitutes vandalism and will result in a block. I don't plan to continue arguing basic Wikipedia policy with you. If you don't add more libelous content, we're fine. If you do, I will not discuss; you will simply be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
First, I did not say the said quote. I paraphrased what I read.
Second, a rumor is not necessarily defamation. Defamation is making a false statement and expressing it to be true. For this rumor, it has not be proven to be false. Furthermore, Wikipedia says that burden that it is a false claim is placed upon who the statement was made out [1]. Again, it is a rumor. Therefore, future justified grounds for blocking me would be based on verifiability and not on being defamation of libel. To illustrate this, if Lindsay Lohan did have sex with a patient in a bathroom while she was at a rehab clinic and someone tells lots of people this information; then, it is a rumor and it actually happened. That is not defamation. If you ran a stop light and I do not know you, yet I publish in a newspaper that you ran a stop light; then that is not defamation because it is not a false claim. It is a claim that has not been verified. Sp0 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is guilty of using the words "defamatory" and "libelous" loosely. Doesn't matter much, really. What you posted was poorly sourced gossip. That violates WP:BLP, and, if you keep it up, you will get blocked from editing.Kww (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is my last round with you because I don't have time to argue fundamental Wikipedia policy that everyone is required to follow. As I said, if you add rumors that could be considered defamatory again you will be blocked. That's the bottom line no matter what kind of excuses you try to come up with.
"First, I did not say the said quote. I paraphrased what I read": You did not indicate that it is a paraphrase. You said "staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient" as if it was a fact. And secondly, whether it's a paraphrase or not, you are the one adding the information in a manner to make it look like a fact, and that is defamatory.
"[Defamation]] is making a false statement and expressing it to be true": Correct, and that's what you did. You don't know what Lohan did, but you wrote the statement as if it was true.
"Furthermore, Wikipedia says that burden that it is a false claim is placed upon who the statement was made out [sic].": And when you placed it in the article without indicating that it is a rumor of which you have no knowledge, then you are making a potentially libelous statement based on rumor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a tabloid. It has no place for rumors, especially when they are written as if true.
"if Lindsay Lohan did have sex with a patient in a bathroom while she was at a rehab clinic and someone tells lots of people this information; then, it is a rumor and it actually happened. That is not defamation.": But you DON'T KNOW that it actually happened, so when YOU wrote the statment (four times) "The worst thing I remember about Lindsey Lohan in the news was while she was in a drug rehab clinic, staff found her in the bathroom ... (etc.)", YOU added defamatory content to Wikipedia.
Once again, no need for you to continue this debate because I'm not wasting my time any more. But you will be blocked if you add defamatory content to any part of Wikipedia again. Ward3001 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I added poorly verified content to wikipedia. You cannot say it is defamatory unless you prove it is a false claim. I do not understand why you persist on arguing that it is defamatory because that line of argument is unsound, unfruitful, and a waste of time unless you wish to understand semantics of "defamation." You arguments that is what I did are unsound. This can simply be said by saying that the claim has not been proven true or untrue; therefore, it cannot be judged to be defamation or not defamation. You give me truism statements, but that does not matter. It does not matter if I make a bunch of guesses about Lindsay Lohan because that is not a necessity to something being defamation. Defamation is making a false claim to be true. By that token, I could make a bunch of guesses about something I do not know and about someone who I do not know, if those claims are guesses that are also true claims; then that is not defamation. Again, it is fruitless to continue to argue that I defamed someone when those claims have not been proven true or untrue (neither one nor the other). Therefore, judgment of defamation has no backing. Now, if you argued that the comment is poorly verified; then, that is grounds for being blocked, based on wikipedia's policy. However, in three comments to me, you continue to pursue defamation even after I told you that being unverified is a more sound argument. Sp0 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"You cannot say it is defamatory unless you prove it is a false claim": With that kind of pitifully absurd logic, I could claim that you secretly are a Satan-worshiper, and you could not argue defamation because you can never prove a negative. So go ahead: prove you are not a secret Satan-worshipper. If you say no one has ever seen you worship Satan, remember that you have to prove that no one has ever seen you worship Satan, and you have to prove that you've never done it secretly. Want to accuse a politician of having sex with children? With your logic that's just fine as long as the poltician can't prove that he doesn't.
No court, judge, or lawyer in the world would buy such an argument that flies in the face of page one of an elementary logic book. The more you argue this, the deeper you dig yourself into a quagmire of nonsense. I don't know how you came to conclude that anyone can say anything about anyone as long as it can't be proven that it's not true. Even more baffling, I can't understand how you concluded that Wikipedia condones this kind of editing. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In that quote, I was restating what I cited in the previous comment. Wikipedia's article on defamation says that in many legal systems, the plaintiff has to prove that the statements/claims are false in order for a person to be guilty of defamation. [2]

I could easily prove I am not a "secret" Satan worshiper by showing that I worship Satan openly. However, if the slander against me was that I worship Satan, instead. I could prove that I worship some other god and worshiping Satan would go against worshiping that other god. Or, I could state that I do not worship anything. The proof of that would be based on interference of little bits of information to form the argument that I do not worship Satan, for instance I worship many other gods, a god that is directly opposite of that god, or I do not worship any other things. Again, the argument would be based on inference and the proof of the argument would be inferences/premises.

A politician could also argue by inference, such as that is not part of their character or that they love their wife too much. They could also argue based on inference that the accuser has no way of knowing such information, the politician does not have a history of being a sexual predator, and also also inference of people who know the politician's character not to do such a thing. Again, such a general claim could be argued against by using inference logic/arguments. I am not sure about jury, judges, or any other judgments of inferential arguments.

Specific claims about a specific place, time, and incident could be based on deduction and easier to judge as to what is true or not.

I personally, have some trouble with the absolutely of inferential arguments. The judgments might be bested on who or what is presented as the best argument or arguments. I am not sure about that matter. However again, I said that comments are not defamation unless they can be proven false. That is what wikipedia's article on defamation says. [3] I have also given you ways how something can be proven false based on your examples. They can be proven false through inferential arguments. I think inferential arguments are not as great as deductive arguments because I think they are not necessarily absolute, but they are judged to be the best arguments. Now, talking about inferential arguments in relation to truth in particular is another topic.

You are right that anyone can say anything about anyone, but it does not matter about proof truth or falsity. Freedom of speech is something difficult to stop because it is something that seems to be inherent.

Now, saying certain things has consequences and matters might be brought to court. In court, the plaintiff would have to prove that the claim is false, and they can do this based on inference for general cases like you stated or deduction for specific cases of a certain time, place, and incident. There could be other ways to press charges of defamation.

Now, I am not sure what you are assuming that I think Wikipedia condones. I did not say that Wikipedia condones poorly verified statements/claims, which are what my comments about Lindsay Lohan were. I also did not say that Wikipedia condones defamation, which my statements have not been proven to be by you.

Good bye and good luck. Sp0 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"The proof of that would be based on interference of little bits of information to form the argument that I do not worship Satan, for instance I worship many other gods": Nope, that doesn't do it. I have taught students for 35 years and have never once seen such strained logic. I can counter that you worship Satan secretly despite your outward appearance of worshipping other gods. You have not proven that you do not secretly worship Satan. So go ahead and prove it. Don't give us the "bits" of information about what other gods you may appear to worship. Go ahead and give us the proof that you do not secretly worship Satan. Otherwise I have no choice (with your logic) but to conclude that I am right and you are a secret Satan-worshipper because (again with your logic) if you haven't clearly proven that you don't, then obviously you do.
"You are right that anyone can say anything about anyone, but it does not matter about proof truth or falsity": I cannot believe that you actually think that. Anyone can say anything about anyone else, and it doesn't matter if it's true or false???? Ward3001 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You have never seen arguments based on inference? Arguments based on inference are quite common and are useful for claiming generalizations or disproving hasty generalizations.
You keep on equivocating the wording in your arguments. Here, I was arguing that against the claim that I worship Satan; however, you changed the claim to I worship Satan secretly. Then, you say the claim is that I secretly worship Satan. I am not sure what statement about Satan that you are focusing on. I already told you that I could disprove that I am a secret Satan worshiper by showing that I worship Satan openly. The argument here was not a technical one; it was to point out the availability of inference arguments, which are quite common in the field of logic as well as many other fields. You are right that my wording in that quote is off. Yes, I can claim that I worship some other god or I do not worship any god and included in that claim that worshiping Satan as well would be a contradiction of that worship of another god or nothing. However, you are missing the point because if this were to be a technical argument about something to do with Satan; then, it should be put into more serious study and writing rather than what I thought was about the topic of arguments in general and also about whether defamation is difficult to prove or not. In other words, there are other wordings of arguments that can be used in place of that poorly worded one.
Anyone can say any statement about anyone else. There is probably a misunderstanding here and unclarity. I am talking about falsity and truth does not matter in the ability of saying anything about anyone whereas you might be talking about falsity or truth mattering in consequences from that ability. Yes, and again, anyone can say anything about anyone, and yes they do run the risk that defamation, which, again, has to be proven (by proving the claim is actually libel or false). Sp0 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but most of the two paragraphs immediately above is simply incomprehensible. Just as well, though, because it's pointless for me to try to make a rational case about anything when your logic system allows for justification of anything under any circumstances as long as it's you that's doing it and not someone else. God help us. If other editors operated with your point of view Wikipedia would be an endless stream of unfounded gossip. You can argue from now until doomsday, but my admonition about being blocked for adding defamatory content remains in effect. And I have no doubt that administrators will agree. And this is my final message. Ward3001 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to quit flaming me. Your arguments, assumptions, and assertions are ridiculous. I already told you that I could be blocked for posting poorly verified comments like I did with Lindsay Lohan; therefore, I do not understand why you say Wikipedia would have endless gossip. You refuse to listen to reason even after I tell you to read what Wikipedia's defamation article says. It says that defamation has to be proven; that is, the claims have to be proven to be false. Sp0 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

hi hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopmy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)