Talk:Rob Levin

message: How old was he? -Anonymous 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only see #postgresql as you are in the same channel with him. His main client had the umode i, meaning all channels you do not share with him are hidden. -- RichiH 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Info 

message: : Please insert your condolences here
: Note: The condolences website is up, so I would suggest using http://lilo.freenode.net instead dougk  (Talk ˑ Contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Tim1988 talk 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a note: the freenode news page has an e-mail you can send condolences to, Wikipedia is not for such things. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Condolences

message: http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou060911_ac_bikeauto.8af6ff6f.html is not Rob Levin.
[15:47:55] <Jed_S> Can you crush the http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou060911_ac_bikeauto.8af6ff6f.html rumor in #freenode-announce? 
[15:48:12] <Jed_S> That's not Rob, it's a day too early, obviously. 
[15:48:33] <christel> thank you 
[15:48:37] <Jed_S> No, thank you. 
Christel on Freenode confirms that this link is not Rob Levin. Stop adding it to places. It's a day early (READ the datestamp). --JStalk 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link on death 

message: This poll is to decide whether or not this page about the founder of the freenode network should be forwarded to the nonprofit url.
'oppose=against the redirect.
*Oppose Founding an irc network of significant population passes the notability test. --Buridan 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  So if it's not notable then, why wait? --Neurophyre(talk) 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. because notability depends on context, and it is pretty clear that this article is notable now, read Jimbo's post below.--Buridan 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Replace your comment with "few Wikipedia editors" (action taken per WP:CIVIL, go whine there). Your definition of "everybody who is anybody" is also quite flawed, given that you are relatively WP:HOLE. It might be my distaste for GNU, but I've never heard of you, even in your brief tenure as president of -- in my opinion -- open-source's greatest asset. Google sure loves you, too. --JStalk 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have an issue here where... some people judge notability by 'who they have heard of' instead of actually looking to see 'who else had heard of'... it seems very clear that some people will never hear of anyone that supports GNU and related things.  However, lack of information is not the standard, the standard is notability.--Buridan 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you still haven't told anybody what has changed since January that saves him from failing the guidelines (unless I've missed something now).  jd || talk || 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and i don't need to, because the january incident was a mistake predicated on some false assumptions, as we argued above.  the notability standard was met then, and it is met now. founding an irc network of significant population of users is notable.--Buridan 11:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you do.  Your statement goes by the assumption that the majority of people know what an IRC network is, and that they understand why doing this is noteworthy.  It also doesn't demonstrate that this significant population of users is noteworthy, or how it is significant in comparison to other IRC networks.  You may think it has been discussed, but discussions have pretty much been one-sided.  I'm not going to continue this argument, as it's pretty clear this would just be a repeat of what has happened previously, but there are guidelines and policies, and your statement satisfies none of them.  WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CN, WP:NOR.  jd || talk || 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so... what you are saying is that... the standards of notability don't count, for instance... do the people who buy the books of the author who sells 10k copies understand why doing this is noteworthy?  etc. etc. etc. the parallel arguments are obvious, this is verifiable, it is a fact, it is notable and it maps perfectly well into similar situations of notability where we have clear guidelines.  this meets the guidelines and policies, it meets the first notability standard for people 'The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.' It meets reliable sources, though we could use more.  It even meets common knowledge, at least to a higher degree than say the article on Mereological nihilism does. Finally, it is clearly not original research any more than Sky Mangel. --Buridan 12:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you comparing this to an article I've made only minor edits to?  Doing this doesn't help the fact that you have yet to provide a single link to confirm notability.  Sky Mangel is a fictional character in a television soap; Rob Levin is a real person.  If a person who has an article on Wikipedia had sold 10,000 books, there would at least be a source to back this up.  Just having the figure isn't enough.  Stop comparing this artilce to others you think don't meet standards, and do something about this one so that it does.  The only sources in this article are all used for his death, and as I've said before, if this guy is so notable, finding a single reputable source would not be that difficult; so why don't you do that instead of making assumptions about "everybody who is anybody" knowing who this man is?  jd || talk || 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: the notability factor was already noted.  i don't find any links anywhere that say most people on wikipedia are notable, people know who is notable based on several contextual factors.  two important ones are accomplishments and audience, those are the two that we are recognizing, those are the two that you want citations on. the audience citation is the google numbers, the fact of his founding the network is noted on the page.  everything else in your position ends up to some level of arbitrary judgement about what you want to count.  for instance, if we had an encyclopedia, that would work, but there are key points where some encyclopedia do not work, or are not good evidence.  the question then becomes one of judgement, with the number of google hits, the number of freenode users, and the blunt fact of his having founded the network, we have much more than many articles.  so what is your beef? it seems to be that you have as jimbo describes it a platonic definition of notability where for all times and places if someone is decided as nonnotable, he or she will always be nonnotable.  as i've argued, the notability is clear now, the references are provided as appropriate and the information is widely agreed upon.  there will be more information in the future of course, as it becomes available. --Buridan 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob Levin's notability is clear to you, but it isn't clear to me, so please do something about that.  Jimbo Wales didn't describe anything as "a platonic definiton".  I don't agree with your statement of my believing that somebody who is decided to be non-notable remains non-notable forever, as the majority of people are born non-notable.  From what I've gathered, nothing has changed since January, when non-biased editors decided that Rob Levin was not notable enough for his own article.  Death does not increase a person's notability.  As I've said before, the only sources in this article are about his death.  The whole first paragraph, where all the real information unrelated to his death is, is unsourced, and I am more than able to remove that whole paragraph; but I'm not going to because by doing so I would only be trying to prove a WP:POINT.  And what are we waiting for?  Future information about events that have yet to occur?  Or information about things that have already happened, which should already be there?  jd || talk || 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect Poll

message: I don't think we can consider a post on slashdot reliable, and the other source's website released an article right arterward stating there was no confirmation on Levin's death by any reliable sources. Can anyone find an article on his death from a real news site? VegaDark 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to use the Houston Chronicle and I found no obit posted or even an article about the accident that claimed Rob's life. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: *While this is certainly related to Rob Levin, and the notability of the article has been asserted in two previous AfDs, is the memorial link in good taste with WP:NOT (specifically, "Wikipedia is not a memorial")?  I agree that there's a significance to that link, is it something that should be included in the article?  Honestly, I'm not opposed to it, but it does make me wonder.  What's everyone else's thought on this? However, I will update the relevant sections on this talk page.  dougk  (Talk ˑ Contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty important, as it shows the importance of the individual. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The memorial section in this discussion page is arguably off topic. The link to the memorial site is in 'External Links' and it is just that, an external link. While it does not hold any information in its own, it does show that he was in fact known to quite a few people which you could call as meta information. In any case, as he is demised, the memorial page is the logical end of the article, so to speak. Please note that i am naturally biased, as i am freenode staff and i helped with the site itself. -- 203.153.34.237 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorial Link

message: It is outrageous that the first site on google about Rob Levin is an Encyclopedia Dramatica page slandering Lilo's good reputation. See Google search Rob Levin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunset's Light (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 November 2006
:Unfortunately, this is something beyond our control; in the meantime, we should attempt to make this article, and all others on Wikipedia, the most accurate, comprehensive, and factual as possible. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. When I searched, the first site was not ED; Google ranks vary. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not officially recommending this, but a Googlebomb can knock The Other Wiki out of the Top 10 results. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Insult to Humanity 

message: I have replaced the sentence fragment "and in fact supported himself totally through his status as the sole paid employee of PDPC."  Even if DMack is not aware of it, or even if it doesn't sound like it should be controversial, it is.  Why?  Because it looks very suspicious to create a 501(c)(3) corporation for allegedly charitable purposes, and then proceed to hire yourself as its sole employee, and pay yourself enough to make a full-time living.  This does not, in and of itself, imply any wrongdoing--but it was certainly a controversial move at the time.
Also, I'm new here and I would like to have some idea of what, exactly, constitutes a "reliable source".  DMack is probably right that information potentially harmful to an individual's reputation--even if that individual is dead--should be cited, but I would like to have some idea of what is considered acceptable.  Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why that would look suspicious to some people. We have a couple of documents available describing the kinds of reliable sources that are useful for ensuring that Wikipedia content is verifiable and doesn't look too much like original research or other opinions (no matter how "reasonable" they might be) of Wikipedia's editors. DMacks 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think IRC logs would suffice?  Certainly, I wouldn't dream of using them as a source for saying that Levin did indeed engage in improper behavior; but all the article says is that there was speculation of improper behavior (which is a far cry from stating that he actually did behave improperly), and as much of that speculation took place on IRC I would think IRC logs would be an excellent source.  Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of impropriety 

message: Here's a copy'n'paste from the cited source:
13:29 < lilo> I'm named after a favorite science fiction character, in John
13:29 < lilo>  Varley's THE OPHIUCHI HOTLINE.  I am *not* named after the
13:29 < lilo> LInux LOader, and I didn't write it! :)
13:29 < lilo>                         -- lilo, winter 1993
13:29 < lilo> ;)
13:29 < lilo> hmmm, my latest version is on my other client, it's a bit more complete
13:29 < SNy> ok, you never stop learning, right?
13:30 < lilo> I'm named after a favorite science fiction character, in John Varley's THE OPHIUCHI HOTLINE.  I am *not* named after the LInux LOader, and I didn't write it! :)  -- lilo, winter 1993  ||  Nor am I named after the little girl in the movie, nor the air mattress, nor Last In Last Out. ;)  -- lilo, summer 2003
The "|| Nor…" part is in the same single unified quote of his (at 13:30), not a separate one here. He's quoting two quotes of himself, but here it's all together. Probably could go either way for the wikipedia article (one blockquote or two) since it's two different statements on different topics, but it's the expalanation of this edit is not correct, nor do I see evidence of the character-formatting change that was made there. DMacks 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "lilo" 

message: Poking my head into a really old thread here.  Was the hit-and-run ever solved?  If it was, I presume a local newspaper may have covered it and it would be worth inclusion in the section regargins his death.  On a personal note, I had the honor of chatting with "lilo" quite a bit in the late 90's and even did a video-chat with him and his wife once.  At that time it was a surprise to learn that lilo was actually a male as he had been purposefully ambigious up to that time as he felt it was easier to control the IRC channel and settle disputes using a female online persona.  Clever guy! --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Was it ever solved?

message: Recently, this article has been subject to some fairly vicious vandalism.  I was about to semi-protect it but realized that in a case like this, PC could work just fine, and will still allow anons to make good faith edits to the article.  Under the interim usage policy, we should focus primarily (but not exclusively) on BLPs, but if anyone objects, this is the most likely grounds.  My view is that Mr. Levin's passing is fairly recent, and the kind of vandalism we are seeing here could be quite hurtful to his family and friends, so I am treating this as essentially a BLP-style case.
In order to make sure that I am not doing anything "drastic" I additionally set the protection to expire in one month.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put the article under pending changes