User talk:24.168.66.27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style for tips on writing and editing here. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I have been on here a long time. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with SURREALISM, your contributions to SURREALISM and REVOLUTION are much needed Infrogmation. Surrealism wants you.24.168.66.27 20:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Infrogmation

I changed the letter size of the Factual Information in good faith to prove that I do co-operate in good faith! However,I will stand by this factual information!24.168.66.27 21:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Identity

(this text moved here from Talk:Surrealism, where it was offtopic.)

Sigg3, really that is your point of view. Keith is a surrealist and even though you find him to be far from interesting when discussing surrealism, it appears that the public recognized him to be a surrealist, considering the activity that he has been involved in with Surrealism 2003 and NowSurreal UK and The Hammond Gallery and his recognition as a surrealist by other surrealists and other artists as well. You need to do your research more extensively which you do not from what you wrote above. Also, it is not mandatory to have a user name and to log in, until that becomes a rule, then I will. The signature with four octets will suffice in good faith.24.168.66.27 20:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as how there are a sizable number of different IP addresses who contribute to surrealism-related articles, which have long been suspected of being the same person (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.168.92.117, which doesn't even include your latest 24.168 address, above), it would make matters much easier if you could make one account and stick with it. Your ambiguous use of different IP addresses constitute wikipedia:sock puppets in my opinion, and I ask you to please stop. Will you please confirm or deny that you are all of the other IP addresses listed on that old RfC? If you really are not (unlikely imho) then thats all the more reason to make an account. What are your reasons for not wanting to log in? ~leif 22:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This is Leif's exact words

"Your ambiguous use of different IP addresses constitute wikipedia:sock puppets in my opinion, and I ask you to please stop."

Leif, please apologize. You are already violating my rights here on Wikipedia by your false allegations and name calling. I only post from this IP,24.168.66.27 22:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC), and I ask that you please refrain from the above attacks. You are violating my rights of due process here on Wikipedia by writing the above statement. Leif, please apologize.24.168.66.27 22:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that I then said Will you please confirm or deny that you are all of the other IP addresses listed on that old RfC? If you really are not (unlikely imho) then thats all the more reason to make an account.
Thanks for at least denying it finally. If you truly are not the same person as those other addresses, something of which I am not convinced, then I apologize.
Regardless of that, I do not believe I have violated your rights in any way. I asked if you were the same as the other users who have made simmilar reverts from the same IP range as you. This is a reasonable question. ~leif 22:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anon, no one is violating your rights. If you have a personal conflict with Leif, please take it to Leif's talk page. Let's keep this discussion about the article. Gamaliel 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, thank you, I have no conflict with the good gentlemen Leif. I thank you for your sincere and kind input. I would kindly ask of the good gentlemen Leif, to please be more respectful of those who post here on Wikipedia's surrealism article and also Keith Wigdor. He did admit in his own words to having bias against the surrealist Keith Wigdor. Thank You Gamaliel for your input and concern.24.168.66.27 23:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of Inconsistencies

24.168.66.27, You said here that you "only post from this IP,24.168.66.27" and said that I was "violating your rights" to suggest that you might be the same person as these other IP addresses.

Here you make reference to "past administrator JRosenweig (sic) success at successful agreement with the article"; I assume you mean Jwrosenzweig, who reverted wigdor-promotion posted by 24.168.92.117 before compromising on a version that did include Wigdor.

If you are not 24.168.92.117, and you just know about Jwrosenzweig's edits (from June) from reading the page history as I did, and it's just a coincidence that wikipedia editors in the 24.168 range all happen to be serious Wigdor fans, then I apologize again. However, I really do not believe that is the case.

Your IP, 24.168.66.27, first edited wikipedia on September 29, 2004, not long after the last post by 24.168.91.84 (Sep 26). Likewise, that IP first posted on Aug 13, not long after the last post by 24.168.95.76 (Aug 11). Likewise, that IP first posted on July 14, not long after the last post by 24.168.92.117 (July 5). Many people's cable or DSL modems hold DHCP leases for weeks at a time, which results in the appearance of semi-static IP addresses. Especially when one takes into account the content of the edits of these IP addresses, it seems quite likely that they are all the same person, and that said person's IP address changes periodically (either beyond their control, or when they intentionally get a new address by resetting their modem or router).

So, my question is, when you said that you "only post from this IP,24.168.66.27", were you being truthful (posting in "good faith" as you said you were earlier)? Do you expect us to accept all of the above as mere coincidences? I'm just trying to clear up some of the unnecesary confusion caused by your refusal to use a logged-in account. ~leif 10:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Leif, you are confusing me. Do you mean IP address or IP host address or do you mean that all four octets are consistent and change? You are really confusing me here with the computer detective work, but I know that you are really being sincere in your investigation into this matter. Who do you refer to when you state above, "Do you expect us to accept all of the above as mere coincidences"? Are you conducting an investigation for the wikipedia administrators and sysops? If so, are you doing this for the benefit of the information on the surrealism article and any information you can research on surrealism? Leif, it is not mandatory to create a logged in account. Leif, when I asked you if you read Andre Thirion's, "Revolution without Revolutionaries" why did you not answer? I would love to get your feedback on this matter and anything that you can find out that I do not know and then add it to the article. Leif, are you as aggressive in your investigations into Ip's as you are into surrealism? Leif, can you find some new information on Tropiques? or how about the Time magazine interview that Yves Tanguy gave in 1951, saying that, "Surrealism had ceased to exist in 1939"? Leif, can you find any info on Aime Cesaire and add it to the surrealism article?

When you say that you only post from 24.168.66.27, I assume you mean that you always post from the same always-connected computer. I believe that Leif is asserting that those two statements aren't necessarily equivalent, because your IP address can (evidently) change anyway. Maybe you could look at the edits that Leif is talking about and see if some of the edits from other IP addresses might actually be yours. Then, I believe, the whole issue of who is who would be settled. By the way, why do you post from an IP instead of a username? I'm just curious (not critical), 'cause I find it easier this way. Tim McCormack 02:36, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)


Hello Tim. Thank you for your kind and generous input. I choose not to have a username because I find it easier this way. Please respect my decision to do so and I do thank you for your input. Tim, are you speaking for Leif when you state, "I believe that Leif is asserting that those two statements aren't necessarily equivalent, because your IP address can (evidently) change anyway."? Tim, can you please help with any information on the surrealist, Aime Cesaire? I can only find limited information and I want to add Cesaire's, "Poetry and Cognition" to the surrealism article. Tim, can you help?24.168.66.27 02:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for Leif; I'm just saying that he appears to know more about always-on connections than I do, so I'm assuming that what he said specifically about DSL and IPs is true. I'm not actually siding with anyone, because I don't like being locked-in with a viewpoint that I may come to disagree with later! What I'm saying is, this argument is not necessarily zero-sum -- you might both be right. (I.e., you could have always used the same computer but been using different IP addresses without knowing it). Tim McCormack 18:32, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC) P.S. I don't know anything about surrealism besides that I like some pieces and don't like others :-)


Dear Tim, thank you for the clarification. I myself get confused over Ip's. I cannot tell the difference between what an Ip address is, as compared to an Ip host address. I guess that they do mean the same thing, I do not know. Tim, again, thank you for clarifying your input.24.168.66.27 02:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Your use of the word "vandalism" in your recent edit summaries on Surrealism is inaccurate. It is not vandalism for me to remove text that has been voted for removal.

You admitted in your own words that it was your opinion!24.168.66.27 22:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is only one of the five current votes to not include Keith Wigdor in the article. ~leif 23:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you need a more "official" poll, I told you, you're welcome to create one and I will vote in it. Until then the 5-1 vote to not mention Keith Wigdor in the article will stand. You have been reverting the Surrealism article to promote Wigdor for many months, and I think you should probably be hard-blocked if you continue. Please stop. ~leif 22:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No Leif! You stop! These are your exact violations against Wikipedia policy!

Here is what you violated, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Do not make personal attacks on the Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy. Consult widely - make a special effort to engage potential critics of the new policy, engage them and get them to help find the middle ground early. Do not rush - you will get there faster if you give the process the time it needs. People may oppose an idea simply because they feel it has not had adequate discussion, and especially if the feel a policy is being pushed through to circumvent discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy#How_are_policies_decided.3F Key policies You don't need to read every Wikipedia policy before you contribute! However, the following policies are key to a productive Wikipedia experience, and the sooner you get to grips with them, the better. 1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Use the criteria at Wikipedia:Survey guidelines to develop the survey (some parties may dispute the validity of the survey if this is not done properly). The survey should be carefully designed to present all sides of the dispute fairly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines The following is a page outlining the guidelines that may be followed when using surveys on the Wikipedia. These are not binding in any way. 1. Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most. 2. Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. You will need to resolve the following issues: Leif, stop harrassing me and my posts!24.168.66.27 22:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Always with the copy+pasting! (The above text was posted on Talk:Surrealism previously.)
Your allegations are ridiculous. "How to create policy"? We're not creating policy here, we're talking about you not spamming the article with your favorite artist. "Personal attacks?" Only that I suggested you have been using multiple IPs (and I was right..). As to the survey guidelines, they are just that, guidelines; if you want to take all the steps to have a by-the-book poll you are welcome to start one. My simple poll's consensus should stand until such a time that something else credible supersedes it. You have reverted three times already today. Do not revert the article again. ~leif 23:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leif just made the following admission

From Archive 2

“The fact that you blatantly misspell a name that is right in front of you really doesn't help with people's suspicions that you are just a troll.” from ~leif @ 18:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

“I did not say that Wigdor shouldn't be included in the article!” from ~leif 04:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in September, I had not yet said that Wigdor shouldn't be included. In the weeks since then, I read the revision history of the Surrealism article, and I researched Keith Wigdor (on and offline), and came to the conclusion that he is not notable enough to be included in the article. I saw in the history of the Surrealism article that you had been reverting your Wigdor promotion against several other editors since June, so I decided to see if there was a consensus to not mention him. There is. ~leif 00:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

from Archive 3

“Why don't you spend your time elsewhere?” from ~leif 21:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

False Allegations: “For the record, I still suspect that "SHR" is the same person as 24.168.66.27 and 63.169.104.2 et al (I brought this up before and they did not deny it, though they go on "supporting" one another here). from ~leif 19:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

“We're not creating policy here, we're talking about you not spamming the article with your favorite artist. "Personal attacks?" Only that I suggested you have been using multiple IPs (and I was right..)”

Leif, you just made a false statement from the accusation you made above, read your words!

Maybe "SHR" isn't you, but the five+ other IPs are. There is no way for other people to be absolutely certain who you are and aren't; only that you definitely revert against consensus and definitely do use multiple IPs. ~leif 00:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also from today,

“My simple poll's consensus should stand until such a time that something else credible supersedes it.”

Leif, you just made a public admission that your poll was not credible.24.168.66.27 23:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what statements I have made. I did not say that the poll was not credible.
There are credible ways that you could challenge the consensus apparent in the current poll, and your current tactic is not one of them (credible). ~leif 00:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leif's exact words

"but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you."

This goes to show you all what this person is really about. Leif, please leave me alone and stop reverting the article! And please, no more insults like the above!24.168.66.27 23:13, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stop reverting, you are in violation of 3-revert policy

Having been here for months, surely you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Why did you revert the Surrealism four times today? ~leif 00:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy

(copied from Talk:Surrealism where it rapidly became offtopic)

Wikipedia Policy does stipulate that a consensus is not binding.24.168.66.27 00:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please link to the policy you are referring to. Of course, the 6/1 consensus in the informal poll could always be overridden by a larger consensus in another poll (and I have encouraged you to start a new poll if you are not satisfied with the old one), but until such a time that there is a consensus apparent here that differs from the one on Talk:Surrealism/Archive 04 promotion of Keith Wigdor should not be re-inserted in this article. Please do not revert on this issue again. ~leif (talk)[[]] 03:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sir, you appear to be very intent on refusing my right to edit. The Wikipedia Policy regarding consensus can be found here on Wikipedia. Why don't you know about it?24.168.66.27 03:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(I forked the thread to the User_talk namespace at this point ~leif)
I support your right to edit until you have been banned through an appropriate process. I do not support your right to continue to make edits which go against the consensus. I have read a number of Wikipedia policy pages regarding consensus, but I haven't seen one that says "consensus is not binding". Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus certainly don't. You have been adding Wigdor to the Surrealism article and other people have been reverting it for nearly six months now. The edit history of the article (and the number of different people who have reverted your exact same edit) is evidence enough of a clear consensus to me, but the 6-1 poll raised on Talk:Surrealism made it even more clear. In the interest of full disclosure I will note that I am about to edit Wikipedia:Consensus, which is not an official policy page. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Why are you trying to get me banned? What have I ever done to you?24.168.66.27 19:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You have never met or been photographed with Keith Wigdor.

Whoever you are, I am asking you to not interfere with the article about Keith Wigdor. You have no resources or connections to him (unless you are somehow being deceptive), so really you are not any sort of expert on this artist. --Bleedy 20:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Short block

Due to many reverts and edit war over the Keith Wigdor article, I have put a short term block on both you and User:Bleedy. When the block expires I hope you will edit responsibly according to Wikipedia standards and attempt to disucss any problems with articles on the article talk page rather than getting into a multiple revert war. Thank you. -- Infrogmation 07:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Messages

Please calm down with your comments on my talk page. If User:Bleedy's snide comments on Talk:Keith Wigdor page were intended to drive you into hysterics, it looks from your latest comment on my talk page that they have succeeded. I would prefer that you don't give him the satisfaction of reacting so, or if that isn't possible, please leave me out of it. I don't see much point in ranting on my talk page because you think someone might commit major vandalism in the future. Know that I am taking a look in on the Keith Wigdor article every so often. If there is major vandalism it will be dealt with. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 21:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary block

I have just put a 48 hour block on both User:Bleedy and User:24.168.66.27, in response to Bleedy's personal attacks and 24.168.66.27's deleting discussion from talk pages. Both users have repeatedly been warned to follow Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia:Civility and have previously been blocked for edit/revert wars. -- Infrogmation 18:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please get in touch

24.168.66.27. Would you please drop me an email to establish contact. I am Christian De Boeck of the Fantastic Art Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. email: fantasticart@msbx.net. I hope I am posting this in the right place. I am new to the Wikipedia, which I find absolutely amazing, and most certainly don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers - at least not yet...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.168.66.27.html"