Pestophagous
Welcome!
editHello, Pestophagous, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to The Garden Party (short story). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! creffett (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2021
edit
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes.
OMG, it's the infamous, unusable, "cite" to the anonymous, now private, message board post again, with a random guy once again misrepresented as "scholars" of the Lakota language [1] as previously posted by disruptive IP 89.176.230.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) here. At User Talk for the IP and at ANI, you were advised by multiple people to read, and take very seriously, WP:LOUTSOCK. Now here the same patterns are with a new, named account. Using multiple accounts to avoid accountability is a blockable offense.
Same link, same goals, same phrasing to misrepresent link (calling random poster on private message board, "scholars"). Anything you want to tell us? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the suspicion, User:CorbieVreccan. I'm not sure what I could do to prove that I am not the same editor as the person from October, but I'm not that person. I only re-watched Dances With Wolves last night (after seeing it over a decade ago), and I ended up doing some reading about this morning. I discovered that someone else had made a similar edit to mine after I made my change. I'm not very proficient in Wikipedia usage, but I use Git a lot, so I know about viewing differences between revisions. I went looking through revisions to see when the (to me, misogynistic) claim by Russell Means had been added. I was initially encouraged to find that someone else had felt as I did, but then I felt disheartened that you disagree. But I do respect your rationale (although I don't respect your view that I am fraudulently posing as 2 people).
After learning of the past edit and its reversal, I did resign myself to the fact that you would render the same verdict. However, my own familiarity with translation-related issues and the stickiness of urban legends about foreign languages made me feel morally compelled to act as I did.
I do respect your service to Wikipedia.
- You mean you read the talk page discussion, and the edit summaries in the article, before editing the article, but you did not see that the reason the link to the message board was removed had zero to do with misogyny, zero to do with Russell Means, and everything to do with Wikipedia's policies of what does and does not constitue a reliable source? What about neutral point of view? That link is not available in an online search. It is on a private message board. Where are you saying you found it, then? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
User:CorbieVreccan I found the defense of Doris Leader Charge's work by a plain old Google search. I see why there is added confusion and cause for suspicion, but the strange fact is that Google has indeed somehow indexed the forum thread despite the forum's login requirement. I was not a member of the forum. My Google search phrase was: "dances with wolves" gender translation error. Using that search, the forum content was displayed by Google in the first page of results. When I clicked to read more, I was prompted by the forum to create an account, which I then did. That's how I found it. I only saw the prior edits and prior disputes/discussion and rationale after I submitted my change. As I said, at that point I pretty much felt resigned to the fact that such a fate also awaited me. I respect your rationale. Your rationale is not misogynist. Russell Means' claim that a woman translator would translate all dialogue in a woman's voice is ludicrous, and the fact that he claims to have had a good laugh over it is disrespectful to Doris Leader Charge. I can hold that opinion and still agree with your verdict on what to keep in Wikipedia. I bear you no ill will.
- Hello, Pestophagous. I am the editor who you were wrongfully accused of impersonating. (Naturally, I need no proof that you are innocent of impersonating me - I know that already.) It was more than just accusations; a whole sockpuppetry investigation case had been launched against you and 8 other accounts and IPs, but after review by other administrators, it was closed without any action.
- I believe an apology is due, on behalf of all Wikipedia editors who believe that respectful treatment and assumption of good faith is a core principle here on Wikipedia. That one edit of yours may have been unsuitable for the article, but I understand your motivations; there was no ill intent on your side, and you should never have been dealt with in such abusive and unprofessional manner, especially not by a user with elevated privileges. It is my sincere hope that this was an isolated incident that you will not be subjected to again.
- Please know that your edits are welcome here on Wikipedia, and do not worry about getting things wrong sometimes - other editors are here to fix any oversights you might inadvertently make. You have already helped improve Wikipedia by correcting The Garden Party article, and I appreciate your contribution - it is voluntary editors like you that make this project possible. Thank you, please feel encouraged to edit again, and have a wonderful year 2022 and beyond. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)