User talk:Iago Dali
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WARNING- please read:
Please see these admin pages, as they can verify I was impersonated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:V._Molotov
I have reported the appearance of an imposter Iago Dali to them and on a help page. As far as I know there is only one. There may be more. I believe because some of my edits have ruffled feathers that one or more persons who disliked them have attempted to besmirch my name. Thus, I will have to waste a few weeks looking to check up on many old edits. If you have a complaint against something be warned I am in not the best of moods. I am tired of accusations that are baseless! I see this as just a ploy by some who have their own agendas to push on certain pages to keep me from applying some serious editing to them.
I am simply trying to improve articles. I have trimmed what I feel is POV writing, flowery melodrama, and many other non-factual things. I am not the puppet of any specific group pushing an agenda. I am not the puppet of this or that admin. I do not know any of you Wikipedians on a personal basis, and given the lengths some of you (or one) have gone to try and frame me for bad edits, I am glad for that fact. I am a single editor, whose goal is to improve articles. Please do not slander me, impersonate me, or lump me in with some group--be it Right Wing or Left Wing, this or that. We may disgree, and obviously I can be easily outnumbered, but if you ask for respect it should be returned. I will reciprocate. But I will also not be bowed by such threats, accusations, or criminal impersonation. So, if you leave a comment, be mindful of the above. Thank you. Iago Dali 20:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE
This link contains the most information, to the best of my knowledge as to who and why I and other editors have been targeted by both smears and impostures. This is childish, sickening, and violates almost all of Wikiquette! Iago Dali 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Report of Spamming, Harassment, and Fuck You viruses
Also posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Report_of_Spamming.2C_Harassment.2C_and_Fuck_You_viruses
Tony,
I just got my pc back today after it spent several days in the repair shop due to some viruses and bots that attacked it when I last tried to log in to Wiki on Friday, not to mention having my email spammed by hundreds of emails to clog that up as well, all in reference to harassing me for my work on Wikipedia. I find this disgraceful. I spent several hundred dollars in repairs, all because certain editors are out to get me, for whatever reasons. This is disgraceful and disgusting, and worst off it is silently tolerated by you, other admins, and Wikipedia. After I did my Shakespeare edit, several editors emailed me to congratulate me on having the guts to do so, as well stating they hoped I followed through and trimmed that unprofessional entry on novels. However, they warned me that editing such a high profile entry as Shakespeare would make me a target of small-minded, petty, and deceitful editors with agendas because they had experienced the same thing—harassment, threats, reversions of good work, deceit, and lies told about them. Despite all the bravado and claims to the contrary Wikipedia is a far too conservative (informationally, not politically) institution, and editors that want to actually improve it to a professional level beyond being merely another lowest common denominator Internet thing like all the porno sites and spam and Nigerian ripoff scams are doomed. There is actually a good portion of editors that like the poor quality and undermine excellence at every turn.
In the last two weeks I have been wrongly banned, I have been the victim of an impersonation (at least one—maybe more), I have had my work undone, redone, plagiarized, reverted, I have been harassed, spammed, sent viruses and bots that screwed up my pc, and prevented log in to Wiki, and now I even see that there are further claims against my name. All of this is rubbish, and the work of spiteful editors who would rather harass those who seek change than actually effectuate it.
Last Friday I believe it had to be that Viriditas guy, who else?, who planted bots or spyware on my user home page, so that when I went to log in, where you usually see that yellow 'You have messages' stripe I got a message that said FUCK YOU. I did not click on it, but my log in failed. Then I froze up, and my paltry systems for firewalls and the like was screwed. All weekend I was helpless, so on Monday I brought my pc in to the shop, and today they told me that I had bots and spyware and viruses galore, all from that login attempt. I have since gotten better protection systems. Nonetheless, this F.U. executable file was deliberately planted so that it would infect my pc at login. Despite whatever edit wars may occur, or whatever arguments or claims people have against each other, this sort of act is wholly beyond the bounds. It is unconscionable. The bots would not let me log in, nor even move beyond the Wiki home page. Along with this virus or bot that got my computer I had hundreds of spam emails with attachments I did not open, but deleted immediately. Again, they said simply F.U.
Now, I see that Viriditas had amazingly ‘found’ some old conversation where Red Darwin and I have chatted, and tries to use this as ‘proof’, although I find it amazing that he finds this the same day that viruses appear in my account, just as it amazingly happens that the same day, last week, that I uncovered his initial plotting I mysteriously was impersonated by a fake Iago Dali. As he himself says, Occam’s Razor clearly points to him as the person behind the impersonations, the viruses, and I suspect the phony records of some attempts by Red Darwin to log in as ‘me’. After my pc was attacked I called several people I knew, some who had been Wikipedians but gave up after similar harassment, as well as a friend of my son’s who works with computer programming. They all agreed that the faking of records is something that has occurred before, along with impersonations, and they are standard tools of harassment. Imagine, two times in less than a week- what a coincidence, eh? My son’s friend also told me that of computer languages, like XML or HTML, and the like, Wiki language is by far the easiest to manipulate, fake, or delete. I was told both by him and the technician at the shop that any low level computer programmer can easily manipulate HTML and other languages, such as those on blogs, and Wiki language is child’s play. Again, isn’t it amazing? It would not shock me if Red Darwin and Viriditas were working together or that they were the same person, in some elaborate plot to discredit me. After going to the lengths of sending viruses, nothing would surprise me now!
What I suspect is that I, the real Iago Dali, was the real target of the impersonations. Note that all the users had Ls in their names: Cool Cat, Alabamaboy, Iago Dali, etc. But, the user Red Darwin didn’t. The other users were targeted by Viriditas merely to make it seem random, but I discovered the impersonator too quickly, before real damage could be done, and also uncovered Viriditas’s plot. So, without being able to make a fake Darwin account to set him up (assuming he and Viriditas are separate entities and not working against me) he did the next best thing, and tried to alter evidence that made Darwin look like me trying to be me! Also, note, that Darwin is targeted and accused of being or working with me, and then this ‘evidence’ turns up—and who knows what more with a week’s head start and me out of commission, and before that the Shakespeare bunch accused me and Alabamaboy of collusion, and look who was targeted- me and him! One does not have to be a genius to see the implications of who was behind it all.
Whether the impersonations and viruses were all the work of Viriditas, or just separate cabals is really irrelevant, though, for the point is he is one of dozens if not hundreds of editors with the agenda and skill to thwart real positive change in the project. As I stated, active, positive change is thwarted by underhanded, dirty tactics, even though the Wiki guidelines encourage editors to BE BOLD! What BS! Furthermore, as I showed last week, most editors do not even understand basic copyright law or infringement, and probably many other “guidelines” are similarly not understood, and used as tools or weapons of intimidation. I’m sure these other misconstruals also lead to ignorance and the dumbing down of entries. Aside from just poor grammar, there is the constant insertion of unproven facts, blatant wrong facts in science, history, and the like, conspiracy theories (big shock they are popular at Wiki, right?), pet projects, actual and blatant copyright and trademark violations with the appearance of movie posters and CD covers, as well as blatant violation of Wiki’s own NPOV policies—and coming from admins as well as editors. And what’s worse is the utter cowardice of most editors, not only in not standing up to and tolerating harassers like Viriditas, but even worse in not fixing entries they know are bad. I had several editors from the Shakespeare entry email me privately congratulating me on trimming it, that they wish they had the guts to do so, and urging me on, even as they warned me of the lies and harassment to come. Bad things happen when good people (or editors) do nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is filled with a bunch of idiots and phonies and cowards and children and hypocrites, but I have not the time, nor money to waste continuing this, especially if that Viriditas ass really sends something even nastier next time. The timing of all this was just far too coincidental- the fake Dali, the spamming, the FU viruses or bots, the altered Wiki texts to tie me and Darwin. But, these viruses were the final proof that Wiki's no better than Right Wing hate blogs. I’ve tried my best, but I’m just one editor against many who have agendas and far greater pc skills to harass me into silence. Unfortunately, some friends of mine- also ex-Wikipedians, warned me of this. Too bad they were right. The few messages in the last week since I was last able to log in is only further proof that people do not want to improve.
If you really care about Wikipedia, and not for my sake, but its, I would look into people like Viriditas, and other users whose sole purpose seems to be to intimidate others for hidden agandas. Despite our initial differences you seem to care. Many other admins never reply, but the use of viruses, bots, altering information, and impersonating people has got to end. Why was it people warned me I would be targeted after the Shakespeare edits? Because they knew this crap existed long before my first edit, and long after my last. It is sad, and indicates Wikipedia will have a long road to travel before it can be taken seriously intellectually. I hope you look into these things so that future editors will not be harassed, nor have their pcs attacked , as mine, and these folk who warned me have. Good luck and goodbye. PS- I even noticed I could not sign my name with 4 tildes as on any page save my own I am not registered- is this more work by Viriditas or others? What nonsense.
[edit] Barnstar
For your work on Wikipedia. Molotov (talk) 
23:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversial edits
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I have seen your edits in Anton Chekhov and William Shakespeare; however I urge caution when you are changing the style and structure of other Wikipedians. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia and does not cater to any one person personal writing preference. To me your extra "lite" writing style is more suitable for Simple English version than Wikipedia proper, and sometimes severly devalue what earlier Wikipedians have done. When doing any such changes, it is common courtesy to warn Wikipedians beforehand in the talk page before embarking on wholesale changes, after which a discussion will ensue. Any adequate additions, corrections of spelling and grammatical errors however are welcome though without discussion. Please don't be bold without consideration. Thank you. Mandel 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia style
I appreciate you nominating me and I've enjoyed working with you on the Shakespeare article. On Talk:William Shakespeare, the issue was raised about the large number of edits you make on some pages. Wikipedia practice is a combination of striving to be bold (i.e., go ahead and make the edits you want) and reaching consensus on the article's talk page. I'd recommend you read Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:The perfect article to see how the ideal article is supposed to look. The lead should summarize the entire article and the article should be "such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles." Best, --Alabamaboy 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The 10 Random Pages Test
Iago,
After reading your comments on the Shakespeare discussion page, I thought this might amuse you:
User:Ambi/The 10 Random Pages Test
Enjoy! The Singing Badger 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dali
Dali, you can consider me a friend and I'm here to help you in what ever I can. Yes, I will ban that impersonator indefinately. I've seen cases like these before where selfish people try to drive out good editors such as yousekf from Wiki. Ypu sray strong and hang on there. Tony the Marine 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Iago, it looks like Tony can take care of the problem. Thanks Tony. If either of you need any assistance, let me know.--Alabamaboy 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry Dali I'm there for you. Did you notice all of misspellings above, it's because my grandaughter (9 ms old) is sleeping on my shoulder (smile). Like I said before, you stick it out. Don't let anybody get to you. Try to keep away from agruements the best you can, if an agreement cannot be reached in a civilized manner call in an administrator to mediate. Oh, just in case you may want to drop the complaint against me, (smile) it's a thing of the past. Your friend Tony the Marine 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just go to the page were the compliant is originally posted. Edit and delete the compliant. You can write in the tag that you no longer desire to pursue the issue. Your Friend Tony the Marine 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- (after edit conflict) Hi, just informing you that you've been imitated by the Doppelganger vandal at User:Iago DaIi (note the i in place of L). For further reference, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#"DoppeIganger". Don Diego(Talk) 20:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is the page to drop the compliant: Administrators, I will continue to help you with the impostors as soon as I return home. Tony the Marine 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Just "Edit the page" and "delete" your compliant. "save" and "tag" that you no longer want to pursue. Tony the Marine 21:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Warning about imposter
I see that your name was listed as a person who was imperonated. It may have been part of a campaign of intimidation by some editors that have targeted a handful of users whose edits they do not like. FYI- you may want to read this link:
Iago Dali 13:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I am an infrequent target of imperonation actualy. Last wave of user:SuperTroll attacks involved me tho. :) Thanks for the heads up. --Cool Cat Talk 16:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mel Etitis
Well, I think that Mel's a good editor, and that he tries real hard to help, but he has a knack for getting into arguments all the time, especially when his opponents are newbies or songwriters. The sad thing is, he doesn't accept criticism, even when he needs it - in fact, he tried to spread rumors (via comment) that I was one of those poor editors who he attacked and hated him for it (see [1]). Anyway, he does jump to conclusions quickly, perhaps too quickly, and is wont to mistake new users for old and angry editors. It's a paranoid thing. You wouldn't understand it. Anyway, it's possible that Mel is the one impersonating you, but if he were, I would think he was above that sort of thing. If you have a lead, let us know. I'd like to see some evidence, if you have some. If you think you have enough proof and would like to file a complaint, follow this link and inform the admins over there. Only if you have proof. Anyway, cheers. If you've got trouble, we'll find out soon enough who's causing it and put a stop to it. (And btw, it was Mr Tan, not me, who put the unflattering comments about Mel on my talk page) ;) Cheers - Don Diego(Talk) 19:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Friendly Chat
Dali, I believe that the imposter is a joker who is trying very hard to make the lives of many Wikipedians miserable and that it is nothing personal against you or Alabamaboy. I was doing some investigations and it seems that this F'er gets his/her kicks out of impersonating Users whose names include "I" or "L" and then he/she creates an identical User name except that they either substitute those letters with either a capital or minor version of the letter. The person/persons has attacked many users including some highly respected administrators.
I also checked the history pages of some of the articles which you and Alabamaboy worked on (William Shakespeare) to see if either of you had a common enemy with the others who had have been impersonated and I couldn't find any. I crossed checked some of the people who disagreed with you and Alabamaboy with those who may have disagreed with the other users affected and came to the conclusion that there is a SOB lose somewhere who enjoys making things difficult for everyone. Since the person or persons are doing this at random it may be difficult to pin point him.
Don't let this affect your work, those things are going to happen. Let it go, I'm sure that Micheal Snow and Angela who are in the top echelon of Wikipedia and who were also affected will handle it. Thank you for dropping the compliant and remember you have a Wiki friend in me Tony the Marine 04:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I will crosspost this at these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marine_69-71 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iago_Dali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas
Wow! Leave for a few days and WW3 breaks out. First, let me address my concerns:
Tony: We have never interacted before but I see you are an admin. I am concerned about all this business of imposters. Have I been impersonated? If so, what recourse do I have? Apparently, I am embroiled in a dispute between these two other users and some other peripheral people.
Iago: It seems that I have been tied to you by the user below, who seesm a bit overeager regarding copyrights. First off. Thank you for posting that link on Copyright Law. I looked it over as well as the Wiki link and I say that you seem to know your stuff. I think I may put a link to it on my page for future reference. I admit I was a bit "clueless" as you said. However, it seems my edit style has sent Viriditas into a frenzy. That is because I am guilty of aping your style. I had come across some of your edits a while back and liked how concise you made many of the entries. I agreed with the contents boxes being too long, and liked your basic "template", I would call it, of making an entry with a life, career, bibliography, and links section. I thought it made things far more readable, and after comparing before and after edits I decided to "steal" your style. I did not feel this was wrong, and I admit editorial plagiarism, however, it was not my intention to get you into hot water. I also mimicked your summaries. The truth is that I have stolen some techniques from other editors--such as sentence structures, rhetorical flourishes, etc. I am a career writer and have been trying to hone my editorial skills in hopes of an upcoming career opportunity. That said, I did not realize this could be deemed "suspicious". Hopefully, I have masqued my other editorial plagiarism better. I am sorry if my faux pas or indiscretion has somehow caused a party or parties to target you or me. However, after looking over the laws you cited I have to agree that Viriditas has gone overboard. I don't know if he's been sued over such matters, but clearly he is wrong on that score, as well as his attempts to link us. As for my plagiarism, please take it in the imitation is the highest form of flattery vein. I simply think you've done very well at trimming many articles full of rumors and innuendo, as well as unprovable facts. However, I have not your stomach for conflict, nor your ferocity.
Viriditas: Thank you for your concern, and I hope Iago is wrong about you. I can state that you are wrong about me. Whether you believe this is your business. However, I would urge that in the future, before you undo the edits of others you actually be informed of what you speak of. Clearly, erasing additional information serves no purpose. If you have concerns I would state you rephrase the edits, not wipe them out entirely. Also, a bit less paranoia would work- on both yours and Iago's parts. A little common sense can go a long way. Other than my editorial plagiarism it seems to me your imagination is on overdrive, and has been long before this "incident".
To all: I actually, before this all began, was proud of my first entry that I made, on storySouth magazine. I was actually getting restless just editing anyway, and wanted to do some entries on underrepresented and minority literary magazines, writers, artists, and even some environmental entries. Tony, I see that some of this might be up your alley, so I hope you may help me in the future. That said, I fear I may have erred with my first entry, above. It does not come up in the search function when I type it in. Need I register it somewhere? Did I err? Could you please see what I did wrong so that it does not come up? Any help that can be rendered I would appreciate, however, I suggest Iago and Viriditas chill out, and please keep me out of your wars. Again, if my editorial plagiarism seemed suspicious, it was inadvertant on my part, and the blame is mine, not Iago's. I will try to limit my "plagiarism" in the future, and stick with making some articles for a while. I'm sure that we all had the best of intentions and all share some blame. For my part, again, I apologize. But, please, Tony, let me know of this serial imposter- this concerns me far more than yet another edit war! Cheers, Red Darwin 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dali
How you doing? Seeing the number of users involved in this dispute I asked User: Michael Snow to look into the case and the issues involved. Michael is a very respected member of the community and can deal with the issues involved better then I can. Your friend Tony the Marine 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad to have met you. I agree with you, just do not pay anymore attention to the situation and continue with your contributions. I just wonder sometimes if someone conceived an elaborate plan to get a large number of members into a huge dispute. Take care Tony the Marine 23:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Please stop removing attention tags
Please stop removing attention tags - they are there for a reason, and they are not the same as cleanup tags. Cleanup tags can be removed after a editorial cleanup, attention tag only after someone has substantially contributed to the article. Mandel 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, please stop hacking away details. "Wit" is not the same as "sardonic wit" (Kubrick), the photo you remove on Charles Dickens is necessary and no one gives you a right to remove it without discussion. Doing such things without seeking consensus incenses lots of people. Unless you are thinking you are over and aboveboard and that your edits must be the best, which is POV, you have no right to do this. Mandel 01:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Yet another message about hacking literary articles, moved here from userpage
- 'The following message from homanid was placed on the user page on Oct 30, obviouosly by mistake for this talk page, so I've moved it here. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why you completely removed the "Worldview" section and content from the Wallace Stevens page. The current, reduced page does not summarize or provide a substitute for the information found in that section.
To my mind, removing the worldview section of the page does a great disservice to Stevens's poetry, since most people do not have the time, inclination or energy to do the work necessary to enjoy his poetry. Although once a person does understand Stevens's worldview, they have a way into his poems and into a rich and rewarding experience.
I do not see how an editor would justify removing the section. It seems capricious to me. Rewrite it if you want. That's OK. But the information deserves to be there.
If you feel that the section does not deserve a place on the page, I'm open to arguments to the contrary. Convince me. Otherwise I'm going assume that the arguments I have made are solid and I will revert the section to the way it was.
I don't really read my own home page very often, so it would be unfair for me to expect anything like that of you. It's October 29th now. So, on December 1st I'll come back here and take a look. That's plenty of time to have seen this message. I'll revert it back on December 1st if you haven't responded.
Again, I am open to being convinced that the info doesn't belong. But from my pov right now, it seems like you made an effort in good faith that trimmed a bit too much from the page.
homanid
[edit] Donne Undone
Your edits to John Donne have been severe. In them, you have cut out an enormous amount of information. While you introduced section breaks, you also cut out legitimate connections and background. Please explain why. Geogre 14:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Culling comments
Salve, Iago Dali!
I noticed you deleted older posts, including mine about Dana Gioia. There are many in Wikipedia who see such deletions as efforts to hide something, but it appears to me you haven't yet come across the page Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. PedanticallySpeaking 17:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for supporting my RfA
I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to the John Keats Page
Dali -
I'd like to know why the pictures of the Keats Tree and Wentworth Place were removed by you from the John Keats entry in Wikipedia. As a scholar of Keats, surely you know the importance of that building to the relationship between Keats and Brawne? I don't see how you can have a discussion about Fanny Brawne without having a photo of the house which lead to their meeting and falling in love, no?
I hardly think it's a matter of "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" and more about knowing the history of topics which you report. Furthermore, if you don't think the bucolic surroundings of Hampstead Heath had anything to do with the writing of the great Odes - since you are, after all, so concerned with the article being about the poetry - then I strongly advise you to consult some other Keats historians and scholars. His whole philosophy of "negative capability" was driven by the impact of nature on his writing. It seems that seeing the tree under which he wrote "Nightingale" or the home where he came to love Fanny would, therefore, be somewhat important, no?
I was generous to offer then to the community. Clearly, however, you speak for the community in saying they have no importance. Sadly, however, I know the overwhelming majority of Keats fans and scholars would disagree. As such, I hope you'll reconsider.
- Ted
[edit] Wallace Stevens
Because you have edited the article, you are invited to participate in an Editors Poll on the Wallace Stevens discussion page. --Halcatalyst 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
