User talk:Devalover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Devalover, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Singkong2005 09:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Note: I was the accuser on this one. I'm striking this accusation because I now believe Devalover is not who I thought he was. When this case is resolved, I'll remove it entirely unless Devalover requests otherwise.
My net was wide. Now my tuna has dolphin in it. Damn.
Very sorry about this. — edgarde 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Devalover: I'm sorry to make my first contact with you in such a bad situation, but you may be off this hook pretty soon. I don't have CehckUser privileges, so I'm waiting on feedback from others.

Here's something that would help: can you let me know how you connect to Internet? Specifically I need to know if you use dial-up or some kinda DSL. If you don't have the sort of service I think you have, I'll drop you from the accusation and move it to KyndFellow, who is now a confirmed puppeteer.

The "wrong" answer will not incriminate you, but the right answer will help clear you a bit faster.

You have at this time my provisional apologies for any trouble this brought you or your reputation. — edgarde 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


) Thank you for your provisional appology! :) That's a first.

I bear you no ill-will and myself have definatley dealt with sock-puppets... I basically saw your actions as attempts to ascertain the truth.

I want to say thank you for all of this, because I have reviewed the sock-puppet guidelines and decided to be open and honest about me, please see my user page.

As for my Internet Service, I do have DSL. Devalover 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a user page. Much respect.
I was going with the hypothesis that Mr. Knodel was alternating between dialup and a DSL service to cover his IP tracks. If your IP address doesn't resolve to a modem pool, I'll go on record saying I no longer suspect you, and if you need a reference that says identifying you as a puppetmaster was a big mistake, I'll provide.
I'll also look into the procedure for changing the "Suspected" page and undoing the warning on this page. I don't want to put you in the troublesome position of deleting warnings from your own page.
Sorry to be so bitey. You've handled this with good humor and perspective, which is my biggest clue that you're not who I thought. I hope this incident doesn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia! — edgarde 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Heya Edgarde- no need to undo anything, I don't have any worries about Devalover's reputation, and the suspected sockpuppet on my page is really not a black-mark as far as I am concerned... your suspicions have been a really nice experience for me, connecting me to: compassion for your situation (the issue of dealing with sockpuppets); a desire to be more open and honest; and a chance to practice what for me is the most important skill of life- remaining calm, cool and present no matter what the circumstances. And so, all I can do is thank you peace Devalover 08:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

Develover, the editor named Edgarde on the Sex Tourism page is accusing you of impersonating me in your edits on that page (using a “puppet”). I’ve made a request for arbitration in which a third-party will be asked help resolved the dispute. Would you please add a comment to the request for arbitration?


It is my belief that Edgarde is convinced I am not you that my participation on that page will only make a tense situation more tense.Devalover 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Devalover, I understand why you might want to stay out of it. Im going to forward you the message with links in case you want to add evidence on your behalf.
Here is the message that I got, which also may apply to you, since you are involved in the dispute:
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism/Workshop.
I'm glad we can at least put the impersonation charges behind us at this point.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, thanks for trying

I hope I didn't trigger the latest reversions by commenting on the Talk page.

In the unlikely event you choose to comment in the current arbitration, I would suggest that comments from non-participants are welcome on the Arbitration Talk page. I wouldn't recommend adding to the Project page as doing so makes one into a "participant".

And if you don't want to get involved, I'll certainly understand. — edgarde 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Tourism Ban

Devalover, this is Mr. Knodel and I'm using my account without the signature, because I no longer wish to use my real name on this site. I was recently banned from editing Sex tourism. Editor Edgarde has exploited my absence by not keeping the neutral opening of the article that you provided for us. He has also deleted the references that we were planning to use to make citations for the article content, such as with the locations of sex tourism. Would you please present the references either in the article or so that they are easily accessible for non-biased editors to read and make new supported edits with. Also would you please restore the opening of the article to a neutral description that does not favor Edgarde's point of view. He has not respected the problems that I explained in the Arbitration Specifications.
KyndFellow 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make sure you are aware of the remedies in this arbitration case. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sex_tourism#Puppets, editors who continue the disruptive editing begun by KyndFellow are subject to blocks and bans. I'm not sure about the propriety of collaborating with a banned user. Certainly, you take responsibility for your own edits, and if you carry on KF's battles you earn KF's ban. But if he makes other suggestions, some of which you incorporate in your own edits, which are reasonable and non-disruptive, is that acceptable or not? I've asked for clarification, but in the meantime you should certainly be cautious. Thatcher131 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up both of you.
I certainly consider myself somewhere in between Kyndfellow and Edgarde in terms of my vision for the article. Thus far I have not felt any difficulty finding my own voice and I don't think that will be an issue. Thanks Kyndfellow for the heads up about the intro.Devalover 05:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/v/User_talk%7EDevalover_cfed.html"