User talk:Qexigator

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lexigator" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

('Welcome' from Jeraphine Gryphon [[1]], retained in History.)

Next step?

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I see

• 1. the notice "The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:
  • 20:35, 21 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked Qexigator (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Block evasion: User:Lexigator)

and

• 2. the following on the page View source for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lexigator [2]:
  • if you 'do not believe you have done anything wrong. We can help if this is the case.' and
  • 'If blocked you can usually appeal on your talk page, which is only blocked if abused.'

For Qexigator's reasons, see Request for review below. Qexigator (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Qexigator advises (12:03, 14 April 2012): Bona fide discussion of edits is one thing, resorting to inciting groundless suspicion of sockpuppetry is another. Qexigator (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Qexigator favours the protection of users and contributors (from novices to top Barnstars) from vandalism and other bad faith. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

---

'Bookability'

Qexigator proposes that (in furtherance of Wikipedia's objectives, and with reference to information and advice on the page 'Wikipedia:About' [[3]]) it would be helpful if editor's could be encouraged to be aware of the following, as one criterion but not necessarily overriding:

• Every edit (new article or insert, deletion, internal link, category etc.) may affect the usefulness of the article if a user who is Creating a book is deciding about including it.
  • Briefly: 'Is this likely to help the article's "bookability"?'. Qexigator (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Memorable edit: "m (lol)"

• comic, concise, correct

at Chakra revision 09:44, 18 April 2012 Jeraphine Gryphon deleting "Bold text" Qexigator (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Clean up (book titles 'Putting Two & Two Together')

Among Lexigator's numerous books of Nov-Dec 2010, one has in its title '(vol.5)'. The full title is 'Civilizing Europe: Triumphal and other monuments ~Putting Two & Two Together (vol.5)'. This was dated 11 Nov 2010 23.08.

Some others also have 'Putting Two & Two Together' in the title or subtitle. One of those (dated 20 Nov 2010 8.20) has the title and subtitle 'The Goetheanum, Dornach ~Putting Two & Two Together (vol.2)'; and another (dated 20 Nov 2010 8.20) has the title and subtitle 'London & Dornach ~Putting Two & Two Together (vol. 3)'.

There seems to have been some duplication of contents and/or incomplete revision (whether due to the block shown on Lexigator's User page, or otherwise). Qexigator has noticed that two Endnotes were included in the vol.2 and 3 titles which may now be more suited for insertion in a Preface using the tab for that which has later become available at the PediaPress page.

Qexigator has not traced any other of Lexigator's titles which have 'Putting Two & Two Together' as a subtitle, but observes that one of the Endnotes quotes Rudolf Steiner: "When he spoke of Novalis, Schroer was often fond of saying--He is a spirit whom one cannot understand with this modern intellectualism which knows only that twice two is four."

On the assumption that Lexigator was using 'vol.5' as an interim title for work in progress, the question may be: should it have been renumbered as vol.1 or 4? Qexigator has opted for vol.1, and has also removed the obsolete attributions, and the Endnotes (which anyone who so chooses could reinsert in a Preface).

The two endnotes were: _____(1) "When he spoke of Novalis, Schroer was often fond of saying--He is a spirit whom one cannot understand with this modern intellectualism which knows only that twice two is four." Rudolf Steiner, lecture given at Dornach, 23 September 1924. (Karl Julius Schröer, b. January 11th 1825 Bratislava, then Empire of Austria , d. December 16th 1900). Qexigator (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

____(2) According to one author (not an architect, Dr Garry Stevens in "The Favored Circle", 1998, MIT [ISBN 10: 0262194082] / [ISBN 0-262-19408-2]) the public standing and repute of [Rudolf Steiner] among architects is made evident by the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects. Dr Stevens, after remarking that not every major architect belongs to a master-pupil chain, continues: "Membership is not an absolute condition of membership. Of the first-order architects in the MEA, those occupying several pages, only Steiner, Marchioni, Holl, Guarini, Fuga, Fathy, and Fanzago have no connections of any kind with other architects. This is seven out of 114, or six per cent." Dr Stevens then adds a curious remark: "Rudolf Steiner's inclusion, let alone the length of his treatment, is a minor mystery. .." Qexigator (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be that attention should also be given in due course to the title

• 'Weimar : "Poetry & Truth" : Goethe & some others ~Placemaking (Dec 2010) Placemaking' [4]

Qexigator (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Edits 10th - 21st April, 2012 [[5]]

First edits: Matthew Digby Wyatt

• 16:07, 11 April (RIBA Hon.Sec.& Gold Medal)
• 16:15, 11 April (Newells)
• 16:21, 11 April 2012 (see also refs)
• 22:38, 11 April 2012 (ref. to link for images of Newells)
  • 18:29, 10 April (paragraph about architect for Newells)
  • 22:32, 11 April (link to images of Newells)
  • 09:50, 20 April (links)

Last edit 21st April (pre-block)

• 19:50, 21 April (User book) Placemaking: The Royal Exchange & The Goetheanum (PoF deleted from section 3 (after putting in s.8))

Qexigator (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Other edits connected with architects

James Gibbs (article) revision 22:53, 11 April 2012 (present owner of Gothic Temple[[6]]

• Stowe House (article) revision 22:53, 11 April 2012 (present owner of Gothic Temple)[[7]]

George Gilbert Scott

• Handcross Park School (article) revision 16:30, 16 April 2012 (architects of school buildings)[[8]]

Rudolf Steiner

• The Goetheanum, Dornach (User book) revision 19:26, 21 April 2012 (obsolete attribution removed (and endnotes))[[9]]

Qexigator (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In rebuttal

1.It should not be too difficult to observe that Qexigator started this account for the purpose of making the connection between the architect Matthew Digby Wyatt and the images of Newells fortuitously available by link from the article Newells Preparatory School(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qexigator).

2.Digby's connection with Newells had been discovered in the first place from other sources, as mentioned in Qexigator's contributions. (A glance at Qexigator's Watchlist discloses an active interest, among others, in notable English architects and their work).

3.Before opening the account, it had been noted that there was an article about Wyatt himself, and that this had a link to the article 'Wyatt family', but that these failed to mention his significant connection with the RIBA. It was further noticed that one of the categories for RIBA was one with about 20 others (including another notable architect: Thomas Graham Jackson) the whole of which had been made available to all comers as a Wikipedia book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Architects_Registration_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Later, Qexigator included that category in Watchlist.

4.The results of a websearch included the following:

User:Lexigator/Books/About UNO vol. 1 (ready reference)

User:Lexigator/Books/"Looking abroad: some architects and styles, 20c. and before" vol. 3

User:Lexigator/Books/"My Architect": Old Waves and New?

User:Lexigator/Books/"Poetry & Truth": Goethe & some others

PediaPress – Wikipedia Book “The practice of ARCHITECTURE”

http://www.aaruk.info/AARU2.htm

Category:Wikipedia books (user books)

That category has also been put on Qexigator's Watchlist.

5.It was apparent that the principal author of most of the other articles in that Wikipedia book had been Lexigator, and when making up a name for the account 'Qexigator' came to mind, and was adopted after a websearch at that time showed that its use elsewhere was nil or negligible. (A websearch today had only two results: 1)User:Qexigator and 2)Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports.)

6.But a review of the Wikipedia information about Lexigator showed that Lexigator had been blocked. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lexigator has now been added to Qexigator's Watchlist for ease of reference.)

7.Following the links from that page discloses an allegation of 'sockpuppetry', and records that a response from Lexigator had begun 'I come a little late into this discussion, but not I hope too late to help restore some goodwill and good sense. There appears to have been a deliberate attempt to sidetrack the only real point at issue....'

It continued: '...given (1) that the content of the Lexigator articles have been treated as good enough in themselves to be appropriated (by a non-contributor who has shown no evidence of any prior knowledge or interest in the topic) for a book, viz. by whoever is behind the strange name "Headbomb"; (2) that Headbomb has done so with questionable and unscholarly alterations, such as the omission of the article on Prof. Budden (perhaps due to a superficial scrutiny of the prior Lexigator bookmaking); (3) that the grouping of the articles as a subcategory is also found to be convenient enough for the purpose (subject to Headbomb's alteration of article title, probably well meant but based essentially on some ignorance of the subject which seems too stubborn to allow intelligent discourse, if not on his part then on Lara's, whose intervention, so far as I know, is unexplained):

then how can it possibly be of any bona fide concern to others whether there is a connection between Lexigator and any other contributor? That is how such material is likely to be created and originated: by those willing to work collaboratively, creatively and usefully, unencumbered by an excess of amour propre. If H. (or is it L.?) will get off this high horse it would still be possible, so far as I am concerned, to reach an amicable agreement about how best to present these articles to whatever readership is likely to want to see them.

Headbomb and Lara cannot fail to be aware that objection was made to alterations which were unnecessary and unhelpful, and their reaction is bound to raise a prima facie suspicion (unproven as far as I am aware) of malice.

Mr Wh-'s comments are wholly correct (I confirm that we are connected only by goodwill in the fellowship of bona fide contributors on a topic of mutual interest); and can it be reasonable to persons of Common Law countries to leave it to some remote person purporting to have some kind of official status to presume to be in a position to judge otherwise, in order to protect persons styling themselves as editors or as of some other status (whose reaction gives every sign that they are simply piqued by an imagined slight to amour propre) when an entirely reasonable and reasoned objection has been made, which they have not yet taken the trouble to justify to the satisfaction of a manifestly better informed party? This is contrary to the declared ethics and ideals of Wikipedia which these quasi-officials profess to be supporting, and is therefore unlikely to be endorsed by Mr Wales.' [6 December 2010 (UTC) ]

8.There was also a separate response from Mr Wh- : 'Perhaps I could direct readers to the point of this page and the accusation of four sockpuppets, no one had proved any involvement of my "sockpuppetry", and any insinuation of "meatpuppetry" is tenuous at best, and totally ignored my first post here about the ARB being in the professional press, some of which can be found online. I would be grateful the the Wikipedia powers-that-be conclude this witch hunt at its earliest convenience.' [8 December 2010 (UTC)]

9.I will now adopt what I see Mr Wh- had written: 'I would be grateful [if] the Wikipedia powers-that-be conclude this witch hunt at its earliest convenience.' Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to reverts

1._Chakra edit 'Reverted to revision 485172856 by Jeraphine Gryphon: Should be in reference section. (TW))'. The reason given for the deletion of this short parargraph appears to be inconsistent with the text in which it had been inserted. Why is that?

2.-'Dichtung und Wahrheit' edit (Reverted to revision 466051893 by Hans Dunkelberg: Wikipedia book??. (TW)). I beg to differ. Any frequent user of Wikipedia (and other works) can be helpful, in effect signposting and listing other articles which another user has carefully selected. Why propose or operate a rule to exclude this? But certainly not all such listings are as useful as others. I propose to revert, subject to persuasive reasoning and criteria to the contrary. At Balfour Declaration of 1926 edit, Michael Bednarek mentions WP:SELFREF, but this fails to take account of a Wikipedia book being, in effect, a set of 'See also' links to relevant Wikipedia articles. After all, no USER is compelled to visit the book or any of its articles, and an editor can remove articles which are too remote from the topics of the main article to be suited to 'See also'. Note that Qexigator has removed from Lexigator's list the then compiler's name, which would have fallen foul of the rule against (quasi-) self-publishing.

3.-History of the United Nations edit (Reverted edits by Qexigator (talk) to last version by 24.150.126.113). ditto.

4.-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe edit (Reverted to revision 486748038 by AnomieBOT: Wikipedia book?. (TW)). ditto.

5.-Newells Preparatory School edit (Reverted edits by Qexigator (talk) to last version by Thokenda). ditto.

Addendum at 20:48 13/04/2012

6.-The page 'Hgilbert - X!'s Edit Counter - X!'s tools' implies an active interest in Anthroposophy, Waldorf Education and Rudolf Steiner. The information about Lexigator's books shows that there is one with the title 'Placemaking: The Royal Exchange & The Goetheanum' [see below] which includes a chapter heading 'Steiner and The Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland' for three articles, viz: Goetheanum, Rudolf Steiner and Philosophy of Freedom. But the contents of the book generally (whatever merits it may have or lack) would be considered, on the whole, to be too remote from those topics for listing in those articles. That is an example of a Wikipedia book which should NOT be referred to for 'See also' purposes.

7.-If Hgilbert has experience of using the 'Create a book' function, or has viewed and ordered a book from PediaPress, s/he will be able to discern the difference between a list of contents on an editor's user page, (which can be adopted and adapted by anyone before downloading as PDF or ordering their own version from PediaPress) and what is commonly known as 'self-publishing'. The contents on the user page is a set of articles, and is no more 'self-publishing' than any of the articles to which editor's have contributed, which Wikipedia makes available to all for Creating a book of their own. A book once 'ordered' from PediaPress is fixed and cannot as such be altered by its editor/compiler, nor by anyone else enabled by the editor to access the page of that book at PediaPress.

8.-I am quite certain that references, such as those deleted, to Lexigator's book user page would be useful to readers of the articles in which those references were inserted (as 'See also-s' and NOT as citations), but on second thoughts I am also certain that the reference should not be made as if the User page list were itself a book. At the present moment, I have not thought how such references could be made in a way which is both helpful and trouble free.

9.-In recent months, and before opening a Wikipedia editing account, I have been making good use of the Create a book function, and regard it as highly commendable. It may be that some editors have been too heavily engaged in the editing work to have tried creating a book for themselves. __[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lexigator/Books/Placemaking:_The_Royal_Exchange_%26_The_Goetheanum]

Edits

(Redirect from Hgilbert:)

1 Wikipedia books

It is not appropriate to mention in articles that works are included in "Wikipedia books", which are first of all not published works, and second of all simply duplicate existing editions. hgilbert (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Where can I (Qexigator) reply to "It is not appropriate to mention in articles that works are included in "Wikipedia books", which are first of all not published works, and second of all simply duplicate existing editions. User:Qexigator
  • You can reply here on your own talk page. hgilbert (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

2 non-Wikipedia books

If you want to alert users to the mere existence of a relevant (non-Wikipedia) book, rather than mentioning that it exists in the text of an article, it would be best to either:

• make reference to some important information the book brought to light, and cite the book as a reference, OR
• add the book to the concluding Bibliography (or comparable section) of the article.

Hoping this is helpful -- hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't alter user pages

Please do not leave comments on or otherwise alter user pages other than your own. Discussion should be on article talk pages or user talk pages, e.g. User talk:Hgilbert. hgilbert (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put messages on the top of a talk page. When you go to a talk page, there is a "+" button at the top of the page to add a new section. Use this.

Good luck. hgilbert (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikis and online reference

Some Wikipedia articles have a list for links to online source books, such as Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England#External_links. Other links for research and online reference can be found at:

• the Catalog of Wikipedia Books at [[10]], such as some titles for online reference among those currently in the Featured Books list:
  • edited 'By Wikipedians'
    • Complexity Theories, Dynamical Systems and Applications to Biology and Sociology
    • Earth science
    • Programming Languages, The theory of programming
  • one edited by 'Wikipedia User'
    • ParadoxWiki, Paradoxes in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Time & Philosophy
  • and one (2012 pages) by 'Pedro Oliveira'
    • The Elements, Periodic Table Reference
• Wikisource, such as:
  • Ancient Law (1861) by Henry Maine [[11]], Its Connection With the Early History of Society, and Its Relation to Modern Ideas
  • Ether, article attributed to Maxwell, James Clerk [[12]] (1878), Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition
  • The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890) by Alfred Thayer Mahan [[13]].
• user books Category pages, listed alphabetically, such as:
  • Network and Graph Theory
  • Quiet chaos
  • Origins of Secession Theory, Background and Precedents
  • The Supreme Court of The United States: Important Cases Throughout History [[14]].

Qexigator (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Five Dore' Images

Charon [[15]]: Gustave Doré's illustration to Dante's Inferno. Plate IX: Canto III: Arrival of Charon.

• "And lo! towards us coming in a boat / An old man, hoary with the hair of eld, / Crying: 'Woe unto you, ye souls depraved!'" (Longfellow's translation)
• "And, lo! toward us in a bark / Comes an old man, hoary white with eld, / Crying "Woe to you, wicked spirits!" (Cary's translation)__'Dante's Inferno translated by The Rev. Henry Francis Cary, MA from the original of Dante Alighieri and illustrated with the designs of M. Gustave Doré. New Edition With Critical and Explanatory notes, Life of Dante, and Chronology. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. New York, London and Paris',printed c. 1890 in America. [[16]]

Dante [[17]]: The caption reads 'In the midway of this our mortal life, I found me in a gloomy wood, astray' Canto 1 lines 1,2.' [[18]]

Don Quixote [[19]]: Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination" '. The History of Don Quixote, by Cervantes. The Text edited by J. W. Clark, M.A. (Sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge) and a Biographical Notice of Cervantes by T. Teignmouth Shore, M.A. Illustrated by Gustave Doré. In Two Parts. Part I. Cassell & Company, Limited, London, Paris, New York & Melbourne. Originally published 1863; This edition 1906. [[20]]

Jonah [[21]]: "Jonah Cast Forth By the Whale" [[22]] [[23]]

Landscape [[24]]: Landscape in Scotland. Source Walters Art Museum [[25]]. Date ca. 1878[[26]] Qexigator (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)...Qexigator(talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Request for review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Qexigator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I see no good reason for keeping this account unblocked, provided you stick to keeping it as a one-user account, since shared use was the only reason the other account was blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Qexigator's reasons

Qexigator's reasons

On the Investigation Case Open page I asked whether it was being claimed that the information I had disclosed was against Wikipedia requirements for some good reason of which I was unaware.

If what has happened is correctly deemed to be what is called 'block evasion', that has not been the intention. I have never opened a Wikipedia log-on account before this one (ie Qexigator). My understanding was that since the Lexigator log name and password had been made inoperable by the block, it was in order to originate an account in another name and password, and with no intention of practising sockpuppetry. Admin. can be in no doubt about the use of the IP, which, as it happens, has been constant. All my edits have been bona fide.

Before opening the Qexigator account my understanding of the rule was that if a person opens an account another person should not use it, and a second account should not be opened by the same person. And, of course I have not done that and have no such intention. (I have never knowingly practised 'sockpuppetry' as puppet or puppeteer.)

Going forward, I would prefer not to use the log name Lexigator (of an account which had been opened and used by another person as has been previously explained). But, if the requirement is that I must first start from there in order to change the name to Qexigator, then please advise. Or would it be necessary to go on using Lexigator instead? Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• If I understand you rightly, you are saying that both you and one or more other users used the Lexigator account (which is why that account was blocked) but that only you will use this account. If that is correct, then it seems to deal with the problem, and I see no obvious reason not to unblock this account. However, it is not entirely clear to me whether that is what you are saying, so can you please confirm or deny that that is it? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Qexigator's reply: Broadly, you have summarised what happened. Before the Lexigator account was opened, I had prepared a factually informative piece with the intention that it be used for a new Wp article. Someone I had known for many years and who I knew to have already been using a Wp account, agreed to do it for me. He is a quick learner for this kind of thing and had already got used to making edits.

My skills were limited to making use of Wp for looking for information on a wide range of topics, and copious use of the internal and external links and references which Wp makes available. [ I concur with you: 'Wikipedia gets an enormous amount of use. This is not only because there is a lot of stuff here, but also because on the whole most of it is of a fairly good quality. Wikipedia would not have the amount of success it has unless most of its material was of a reasonably high quality.']

We agreed that if I would email the text to him he would do the necessary for converting it into the Wp article. But his name is widely known in the profession, and it would have been wrong to let it be supposed that he originated the article (and we were sensitive to appearing to be in some way 'passing off'). The understanding was that the log-in name was to be used exclusively for material from me (in that and later articles) of which he was amanuensis, and he would use his own name for edits of his own; and so it went.

By 2010, the Lexigator material for articles on the topic was considered complete (in that the topic was adequately covered in various aspects, for the information of those likely to need it), and the other party's friendly service as amanuensis had come to an end. But in October 2010 I became aware of the Create a book function which Wp by then had introduced, and, after I had proposed that the Lexigator articles, with some others of its category, could readily be converted to book form, it was agreed that I would proceed with using the bookmaking function (which has been expertly designed for amateurs with no more than low level skills such as I was able to use). It was then that we seem to have inadvertently exposed the Lexigator account to sockpuppet accusations, by reason of my use of it for creating books, but the other party ceased to use it and his service as amanuensis had come to an end.

After the block on the Lexigator account, it remained possible to use the bookmaking function like anyone else, and there was no further need for it. Qexigator (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)