Simple two minute check from DMOZ profiles: aquarius - categories in french mainly about judo and martial arts, profile in french pointing to his site (all about judo including a forum he administers) where he claims to be living in Poitiers pvgool - categories equally in dutch and english with a strong interest in genealogy and North-Brabant profile in English pointing to his site on genealogy - (including his family tree) - note his name. is P.v.Gool. I conclude pvgool is real and is pvgool. Now given that aquarius has a strong interest in judo, one might have thought that if he were multi-lingual with the same ability as pvgool in english and dutch (to be able to edit in those languages) then his personal forum/site would be multilingual to attract more visitors. This is not the case. I conclude aquarius is real and not the same person as pvgool.
I agreee, I'd find it extremely hard to believe they are the same person in ODP. I'd bet it was an unfortunate choice of user names after he locked himself out of his pagode account here. I know other editors who have quit this forum in the same way pagode did so that they couldn't come back. Knowing how DMOZ works, I'm sure those accounts have been checked already and both are still editors... sooo... IMO pvgool is a good editor and he's quite prolific...he's been an editor since 2000 and has added well over 15,000 sites to the directory. It would be extrememly foolish for him to risk his DMOZ account (with his advanced permissions) to get a low level second account. At the very least pvgool deserves to have it checked out just to clear his name of the suspicion at this point. He's a good guy who made a mistake, we really do need more like him.
I am still puzzled by that story. So I hope he will be able to explain, why he deemed it necessary to show up in this way, creating this damage to his name, whether pagode or pvgool.
I don't know why, others have quit that way. As aquarius he never denied he was formerly pagode. He is both pagode and pvgool, the same way that you are both vulcano and matri. Some of us use our editor name in forums to avoid confusion, some of us don't.
True, but here he showed up like a shadow hunter. I agree that we are not at a gay street parade and it should be up to any individual poster/editor, outing himself. Without discussing this further, I still consider this case different, as there was also "the third man" aquarius envolved.
It's really quite simple vulcano... Editor pvgool was pagode here on DP. He then stopped using pagode here and started using aquarius. It's not confusing or sinister. The only debate was whether he was also the editor aquarius. I find that extremely unlikely - and I'm sure it was looked into by people that would know what was what.
1. If pagode is pvgool (and not also aquarius), then did he not break a DMOZ rule (as well as a DP rule) by creating an account as another DMOZ editor? I'm still not convinced he's not aquarius trhe editor as well as aquarius the DP) member - Dutch and French and English? Those are not even particularly dissimilar languages. 2. If he wanted to come back as pagode, all he had to do was email Shawn or a moderator and ask for his password and/or email change. Let's face it: he came back because he made a dramatic stage exit and couldn't come back as pagode without being embarrassed. 3. Who the hell is IamwhoIam?
I'm an aquarius (I haven't asked what pagode's birthday is, but that was my first thought when I saw the name) - if I was thinking of a new name to use in a forum, I wouldn't have thought about checking to see if whatever name I might have wanted to use was already in use by an editor. I don't think it's a sinister act - unless there's a guideline I haven't seen that says something like "Thou shalt not break any forum's TOS"
Then again, lmocr, you haven't exhibited any real interest in the past in what the rules are or whether they're broken, have you? Is IamwhoIam another incarnation of pagode?
Really? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I have a very strong interest in what the rules are - otherwise I wouldn't respond when someone obviously misinterprets one. Because certain posters don't know how to interpret rules and laws - this means I'm not interested in the rules? Give me a break - if I didn't know what rules are and how to interpret them - I wouldn't be where I am today (and I'm not talking about being an editor ).
Your sentence structure implies an overlay of thought that it would be a simple matter to learn a third language for the purpose. Possible but very low probability - the linguistic differences between Dutch and French cannot be dismissed so lightly. This combination would be unusual outside a certain geographical area which is, however, conveniently placed for a hypothetical ‘root’ personality that could give rise to both pvgool and aquarius. Hence the need to look at the available information. When I do so, I believe the probability that these people are the same becomes vanishingly small. (Though the analyses were exploratory rather than fully rigorous - semantic analysis was discounted). Given your doubts, I have looked again and see nothing to merit deeper analysis. Obviously you have the expertise in this field – I would be interested in the points that leads you to your doubts in particular the evidence supporting the personas that does not ring true to you. ROFL
Back to the issue... I still haven't gotten a response to this request. Vulcano has not agreed to let me edit that cat in peace and he hasn't requested access to do it himself. So that leaves us exactly where we were, with no progress being made. I'm sorry, but I can't help but question Vulcano's motives. Faced with the unacceptable fact that progress in this category has come to a stop, I've made a bold move. I have removed "On Boys and Boylovers - A scholarly article by Benjamin Jarod regarding the phenomenon of boy love. The paper attempts to refute commonly held beliefs and explore alternative aspects of man-boy relations. (January 1, 1997)" for reasons that should be obvious to any editor, but have nothing to do with Vulcano's arguments. I was hoping he'd do his homework and discover the valid reason to remove it rather than the emotional reason. He didn't. If Vulcano leaves me alone, I will resume work in that category in a few days. It's up to him.
Forgive me if I've now reached the point that I have no trust whatsoever for DMOZ editors until they have proven they merit trust. Let's just say that the track record of many of those editors here and elsewhere doesn't inspire confidence. Fortunately, there are a few notable exceptions. IamwhoIam isn't one of them. Where do you think I said I believed anyone had learned a third language "for the purpose"? Many people are fluent in multiple languages. My suggestion was that there are very likely some DMOZ editors among them. Why do find that possibility so incredible? I'm not suggesting they are the same language. I'm suggesting that knowing one of them would make it fairly easy to learn the other. maybe the individual was raised in a home where both languages were spoken - what difference does it make? This makes no sense whatsoever. Individuals learn additional languages for a variety of reasons. It has nothing to do necessarily with geographical location. And once again, you seem to be assuming that I am trying to claim the editor learned a second language for the specific purpose of being able to assume a second DMOZ identity - that is absolute nonsense and I have never said that. You invented that little straw dog entirely on your own. You will forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it. As I said earlier, i have no idea who you are. In fact, let me ask it again: Who the hell are you? While I'm asking questions, would you mind explaining why this part was in your original (unedited) post?
All the Best, I am more than happy to leave you alone. Whoever should be interested how this whole thing developed, is invited to read the respective threads. From your last postings, I am sorry, but in the meantime I don't care what your answer to your question about my motives might be. What is it, that you are trying to demonstrate?
I'm not sure that it matters why it was removed, vulcano (except I guess to you and compostannie). The important thing is that it WAS removed. I hope the two of you can put aside your differences and continue working to remove these scurrilous listings from DMOZ.
Read the editor notes on the URL and it will be clear to you. Then go make your categories perfect, even the listings that were already there when you started, and then feel free to come help out. You need a better understanding of what we can and cannot do, with a little practice I would welcome your help in pedophilia. I just can't do the reviewing and argue about every little thing at the same time. Looking at those sites in such depth makes me sick and drains me emotionally. I have nothng against you personally. It's just the constant criticism. Thanks for understanding. (added) That's my feeling too. It's important for vulcano to understand the reasons so he can become a better editor. He certainly has the passion and the drive.
I think personally that it is very difficult to post in a language other than your first language and that not be picked up by other native speakers. If you were going to create a second account then it is likely you would do so in your first language to prevent the possibility of getting caught out in that way. As to whether it is credible pagode would create a second account - there is really no point. When it comes to sticklers for the guidelines, pagode I would rate as a first class stickler. And whilst some of the posts as aquarius have come across as strangely naive for such an experienced editor, pagode was the editor responsible for outing the pedophile affirmative views category and in doing so has done everyone a big favour - he could have washed his hands of it and not dug into the claims, he could have found the categories and kept quiet, or found them and just notified a meta or admin and walked away. But he had the courage to deal with it head on, and that deserves some credit, it has resulted in a change of guidelines to prevent this happening again and, when Annie and any other brave souls have done their bit, hopefully it will close a shameful chapter. I would, I did. As I said earlier I wouldn't want anyone blaming another editor for my views and opinions. It's discourteous at the least - I wouldn't be happy if another editor started posting on external boards as oneeye. I used a different name as I saw the hatred for RZ expounded here and as a former regular there I didn't want that association to be a factor in how people considered what I said here. But it was never a secret; how many truly longwinded editors are there?
As far as pagode by another name vs. aquarius the editors, I doubt they are the same. Pagode has editall priviledges. There would be no need for another editor account and why take the chance when you already have editall+. He can edit anywhere. I doubt this also. I could be way off track here, but he/she will know if I am correct. And possibly one or two editors might know. IamwhoIam? Who's got the rock?