User talk:Cognition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hero, peacemaker, and martyr

User talk:Cognition/Archive 1

Contents

Adam Carr

Hi. I notice Adam Carr is calling you names and so forth. He does this often. You are (according to him) a "LaRouchie" who is "propagandising" and "misleading" in "a typical piece of LaRouchy dishonesty". Then he says you're in a "cult" and "programmed" and so on and so forth.

This is just what Adam Carr tried to do. He knows he can not win in a debate about *facts*, so he loads up his bucket of mud and starts slinging. He does not want people to know Lyndon LaRouche is an economist, because he says LaRouche is a "crack-pot". The real economists are the oned who say that US industry going downhill. Anyone else is not a real economist, and is just a crack-pot, right?

For some reason, he does not want people to know LaRouche once met Reagan. Anyhow, as I said, Adam Carr does not debate facts, or use logic and whatnot, he just throws mud at people, calls them fanatics, cultists who are propagandizing/misleading and whatnot. He is pretty good at getting people to believe him too.

For myself, I sometimes read the New Federalist and while I do not always agree with everything said in it, I do not see why when Lyndon LaRouche comes into the picture, his enemies stop talking about the facts, and start attacking him, anyone who reads his articles, and starts a lynch mob.

I have been trying to note that in 1975, a fellow named Norodom Sihanouk led a government called GRUNK, and a political coalition called FUNK. So obviously Adam Carr sits down and we discuss the history and the facts, right? Of course not. He says I am a "vandal" who is "determined to impose his lies and distortions on this article (and others)". He also said I was a "crazed communist" (I'm neither crazed, nor a communist). Actually, he said he used to be a communist, which is why he probably goes around accusing everyone else of being one.

Anyhow, I will work to make sure the Lyndon LaRouche article is fair, even if Adam Carr accuses me of being a LaRouche cult member or whatever. I bought a copy of the New Federalist in April so I guess having read that makes me "programmed" in the "cult". Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

I should also note - one thing Adam Carr tries to do is to bait you and try to get you angry. So he will insult you and he hopes you will insult him, or someone else, then he will try to get you in trouble for breaking a Wikipedia rule of insulting him (even though he insulted you as well). So try not to take the bait, take the high road - if he is being insulting, tell him, "please, I don't want to get in the gutter with you, I am here to discuss thinks logically and scientifically, not make crude, ad hominem attacks". He is goading you because he wants you to break the Wikipedia rules and say something like "F--- you, bozo" or something like that. Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your council. I find it very encouraging that at least one other person knows what's going on here. I will take your advice and take the high road, even though that Australian neocon (who-know-who) strikes me as a perfect example of one particular archetype that comes to my mind. Cognition 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
Yes. I realize people try to bait me, so I stick to rules like the Wikipedia:three revert rule. I feel there are two types of justice here, there is a user currently in arbitration, who I won't name because I want to avoid getting entangled with him, but anyhow I feel his case is dragging on forever, and he has been violating the 3RR left and right. Months have gone by and the Arbs still have not agreed on a decision, although truth be told, no one is getting paid to do this, right? But while people like this user have to go way over the top to get the wheels grinding, and months go by for anything to be done, someone who pops up his head and says he thinks Lyndon LaRouche is interesting is "dealt with" immediately. Even quoting AP sources calling him an economist is called "vandalism" and "trolling". It's a ridiculous double standard. Which is why Wikipedia is only one of the Wiki encyclopedias I use.
Anyhow, the current situation is "favored" users do seem to get dealt with - but it takes forever. Someone who thinks LaRouche has interesting ideas on economics is "unfavored", and dealt with swiftly and mercilessly. And heavens help them if they were unaware of the three-revert rule and violate it, or are unaware of rules which say not to insult people and so forth.
Six arbitrators have proposed that "User:Adam Carr is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring/Proposed_decision#Adam_Carr_admonished), which means it's all but a sure thing that in a few weeks/months, the proposed admonishment will become an actual admonishment. The arbitrators are aware he is discourteous and makes personal attacks, and Jimbo Wales has said he is "difficult". While it seems like it takes forever to happen, these things build up and eventually, if Adam Carr continues his behavior, it will be dealt with - eventually. It can seem like it takes forever though. And of course, you or I would be punished immediately if we acted like that. But that's how it is on Wikipedia, one of the reasons I try out other wiki encyclopedias, although Wikipedia is the most popular one.
Anyhow, El_C talked me into not fighting over whether LaRouche is an economist or not, so I gave up even though the AP did call him one. I've given up on lots of fights like that. You have to pick your fights. Just keep to the 3RR, and read the Wikipedia rules about insults and so forth. I mean, when someone insults me, of course I feel baited into insulting them back. But nowadays if Adam Carr says something, I will not call him a name, but will just say things that are true. Like "You call me an idiot - well, people reading this should know that six arbitrators have admonished him for his behavior and asked him 'to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks' - something he is not doing here". This way I take the high road, and he looks bad. OK, sometimes I get mad and say something, but I usually try to stick to true things instead of using insulting words like idiot. Like I will say Jimbo Wales made his millions selling pornography - which is true. But I try not to use words like bozo, idiot etc. to describe people. Not that you have - Adam Carr has, and he tries to bait people to get into the mud with him so they will be admonished by arbitrators like he was. Also be aware of the Wikipedia:three revert rule which means you can't revert a page more than three times in 24 hours. It's easy to do accidentally, although I'm careful - no one has ever successfully accused me of doing a 3RR, because I'm very careful about sticking to the rule. It's too bad people like Adam Carr, or people who replace King's photo with strange stuff and other people are so numerous here, and people making edits like us are attacked, but that's the way it is. There's no point in getting frustrated - just follow the rules and realize this is how Wikipedia is - the only solution is to also edit on other wiki's where you don't encounter these types of problems as much. I do. Ruy Lopez 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

From HK

Hey, thanks for the barnstar (I moved it to my talk page.) I am finished with Wikipedia, but I'm glad that someone appreciates my labors, retroactively. --HK 8 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I am quite honored that you have found it and restored it to your userpage. Cognition 9 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Your linking on the CP

I don't mean you any ill-will (don't know you well enough to know if I should) but you're trying my patience. What I meant was not necessarily that your list was controversial, but that the addition of the link to the Community Portal was. So when I say ask first, I mean, ask on the Wikipedia talk:Community Portal to see if others think it's okay. Especially since you were reverted the first time, meaning someone thought it didn't belong. The proper action was not no begin a revert war while refusing to talk it out first. See WP:3RR which you seem to have violated. (That's blockable). I really don't care that much about this, but discuss first. Now I'm going to bed and I'd appreciate if I didn't wake up to see the same revert war on my watchlist. Good night. --Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

On a technical note, I did not violate the 3RR since the forth edit was an attempted compromise, not a revert. Anyhow, I dispute the notion that it is controversial. By virtue of the fact that similar voluntary community associations are listed in that very section, the listing of drug free Wikipedias is firmly within the established precedent on that page. Good night to you too. Cognition 9 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
3RR does not specifically allow 3 reverts, read it again. In any case, you did violate it in that the real controversy was adding your link, and you still did not (have not) discussed it. Also, you may want to take a look at WP:NPA, and then take another look at your user page. I don't see how you can hope to help with an NPOV encyclopedia when that's what you're advertising. Anyway, I think I'll go try to make an encyclopedia, instead of revert warring and POV-pushing, so see ya 'round. --Dmcdevit 20:14, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Just a concerned editor here. I hadn't really looked at the Community Portal much, I only noticed it because of this controversy. However to me it sure looks like the links in that section of the CP were about being a Wikipedian, not about pushing politics. Cognition should have known better, especially after it was removed a time or two. As to whether it was a 3RR violation, to me it looks like yes, but it's not for me to decide. Cognition did eventually stop though, and that's more than you can say for some users. Friday 22:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

THANKS TO YOU

Thank you brother, I looked to your user page, it is wonderful, thank you for your support about the decision against propaganda on Wikipedia, best wishes for you and thanks much , HUMANITY WILL PREVAIL! --aozan

Danby

The material you added to the Danby article has already been the subject of legal action, resulting in a retraction and apology. These allegations have been found by a court to be false and defamatory, and if you repeat them you expose Wikipedia and yourself to legal action. You have now been warned, so will not be able to plead ignorance if you repeat this posting. Adam 06:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I was aware of that and remain unimpressed. The allegations were still made, and are worth reporting, even if the journalist making them had to "retract" them when Danby came after him with his high-powered lawyers. Cognition 06:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you speak to a lawyer before you make such stupid statements. Knowingly publishing a statement which has been found to be a libel, particularly out of no other motive than political malice, is a serious offence. News Ltd has much more high-powered lawers than Danby, and they conceded that the allegations were baseless. Adam 06:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the same for you. You seem to insist that Ruy Lopez is a member of a "maoist-stalinist group like the PLP or the RCC," while he isists that he is an anarchist instead. It's just too bad that Ruy Lopez probably doesn't have the money to blow on a libel suit. Cognition 06:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal

You have been reported for a 3RR violation and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this block is unfair, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Drug free Wikipedians

Obviously, this is going to be controversial, although I don't think many would try to argue that you can't make a voluntary association to your own tastes. I can't really tell whether you mean this as a real association or just an attempt be inflammatory. Many, however, took issue with you posting it on the Community Portal, as you saw. I'm not sure you're helping your cause by linking to it from other similiar places. Friday 17:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. You might want to be careful pushing the LaRouchie POV. When you obviously hold views far outside the mainstream, people are going to be highly skeptical of your ability to be neutral. If I were you, I would either not edit articles on which you hold strong non-mainstream views, or be extra extra careful about how you do it. Adding of LaRouchecruft like Beast-man to the encyclopedia does not reflect well on your judgement. Friday 18:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Neocon cult

Image:AbuGhraibAbuse05.jpg
Humanity, victim of the neocon cult

Cognition 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Craig Isherwood

I have a better idea: why don't we discuss your reverting four times in less than twenty-four hours? I find that to be a much more interesting topic. --Calton | Talk 15:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why discuss? I said what I was going to say in the Edit summary. Enjoy your conversation with the administrators on the WP:AN/3RR page. --Calton | Talk 16:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Adam Carr can discuss his conversation with the administrators on the WP:AN/3RR page too. In the meantime, you have the burden of responding to the explantion for the removal of the attempt to spoil the well against Isherwood on talk, like any civil editor. Cognition 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware of POV

Please read WP:NPOV. Your edits on Johann Sebastian Bach were pretty blatant, despite your edit summary assertions to the contrary. I can see others are complaining of similiar issues on other articles. Friday 16:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Is there anyone who says otherwise about Bach? I doubt it, so there's no research representing the other POV to report. So it's not just my opinion, but the statement of all research on Bach. Cognition 16:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimediation

I've just started a new page at Wikipedia:Wikimediation that I think will add a much less hostile step to the dispute resolution process - something we increasingly need. I've started a few trial pages, and you were one of the people who struck me as a good candidate. Essentially, the process is a non-adversarial request for comments - an occasion for editors to give constructive criticism (or outright support) regarding other users. I encourage you to have a look at the page, and at the subpage for you that I've created there. Snowspinner 20:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

unfree image

Image:Authenticleaders.JPG

Image deletion warning The image Image:Authenticleaders.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

-Willmcw 00:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Craig Isherwood, Adam Carr and 3RR

I reverted the Craig Isherwood article back to your version. I mentioned that in addition to your comments on relevancy, the accusations are unattributed.

User:Adam Carr has claimed he is taking a break from Wikipedia. It's possible he will be gone for a few days, but he usually comes back after throwing a temper tantrum. Anyhow, remember the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule when you're getting into a revert war with him, or whoever. He tries to goad people into breaking it by reverting them, and then doing it is used against you to block you for a day, or as something to be used against you if an arbitration case comes up against you. So keep that in mind. If Adam Carr makes unfair pages, other users will often make a full (or partial) revert. For example, Adam Carr reverted you on Andrew Landeryou, then someone reverted it back to your version, then Willmcw changed it to a version which included some (but not all) of your changes. NoPuzzleStranger did a full revert for your article. Adam Carr is reverting what most people realize are perfectly acceptable edits just because he has you pegged as in a "LaRouche cult". He looks bad doing that. If you follow the 3RR, and he is reverting good edits for no reason, in the end he looks bad. It takes a long time to get the wheels of Wikipedia justice grinding though. Ruy Lopez 10:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

no personal blogs

I told you before, you can't use a Wikipedia user page as a personal blog. If you must keep some reminders for yourself, stash them in a subpage - as I have done for you.

If you disagree with this policy, please bring it up through proper channels. (If you're not sure what those channels are, ask for help. Uncle Ed 13:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ed that it looks like a blog. It's more a statement of personal views regarding history, politics, and philosophy: an admission of bias, of sorts, which I think is perfectly legit (it's nice to know where someone's coming from, after all, and many Wikipedians make their views known on their user pages). WP practice has long been that virtually anything beyond the most blatant excess (extreme personal attacks on users, profane or obscene material, and occasionally long-winded commercial/promotion use) is tolerated on user pages. So I'm not quite sure where Ed's coming from about this. I suspect it may have more to do with your particular views than with the idea that it's a "blog". Everyking 04:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
You've to be kidding me. As Everyking says, this does not look like a blog, or anything like one. And I find it incredible you'd find it within your purview to go around reverting a user's web page like that. And I can't help but feel you're being selective - if their is a 1 to 10 scale for lack of orthodoxy of web pages, there are plenty of 10's, 9's, 8's out there, while Cognition's falls below that threshold. So why start with him? Incredible. You should stick with reverting people "defaming" the page of your religious leader, Sun Myung Moon, and leave acceptable user pages alone. Ruy Lopez 04:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User page reverts

See Wikipedia:User pages. Here's a relevant bit:

Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Examples include:

   * A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities
   * Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
   * Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)
   * Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material

There are other relevant bits too. Since Cognition has proven himself a difficult user, it's understandable why people are less tolerant. I think we can all agree his user page was non-encylopedic and an opinion piece. If he had a more positive edit history, perhaps folks would be more lenient. Friday 04:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, lest I be accused of edit warring, my edits were only to restore what the page owner had done. I think it's good Wikicitizenship of him to create a less controversial user page while this is being hashed out. Friday 04:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Apparently I was mistaken. Friday 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's another bit from Wikipedia:User pages. Hopefully this will help you understand why some people have been editing your user page:

"If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.

If you do not co-operate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)."

I think you'll easily see why people feel your user page is a detriment to the community. When you've already had action taken against you for pushing your POV, further pushing of that POV on your homepage is probably unwise. I've put your page back to your last version; I would see it as a personal favor if you'd keep the more inflammatory content off of it. I prefer consensus to edit warring. Friday 14:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


while i agree that putting names like aristotle and nietzche next to names like hitler, and claiming they are of te same ilk, it is free speach that allows people to sayh such things, and as long as those opinuions ( without poroo f as they are) remain strictly omn the user page, i see no problem with them ( if thety wqeere to spread beyond, i would have a problem, but as it stands, whats the problem? it just offends peoples point of view, and thus is at least an interesting experiment. ( please tell me if i am not making sense)

Gabrielsimon 14:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The only problem, as I see it, is that Cognition thinks it's inappropriate for other people to edit his page. He seems to see it as some kind of persecution. However, based on my understanding of Wikipedia:User pages, it's apparently normal for the community to edit the page of a user who disregards complaints about its content. Friday 15:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not the community doing it. The community here in fact involves a handful of users, who seem about evenly split on whether this user should be allowed to have broad freedom to write on his user page like other users do. Everyking 09:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Error on LaRouche Political Views page

Howdy. I am banned from editing LaRouche pages, but I would suggest that you clean up a recent mis-edit, which asserts that LaRouche was imprisoned for mail fraud and tax evasion, when in fact he was imprisoned for "conspiracy to commit mail fraud" and "conspiracy to mislead the IRS." --HK 17:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only you- your sockpuppets are banned as well. As for the criminal charges against LaRouche- those are distinctions without much difference. -Willmcw 22:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

User Page Libel

The captions on your user page referring to living people are libellous. You are therefore exposing the Wikipedia to the risk of being sued. Consequently I want you to remove those captions immediately and not to replace them.

If you do not do so within 24 hours I will remove them myself. David Newton 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. --Golbez 22:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree, and if the removal is not done willingly by Cognition and no one else, then I will revert it back to his preferred version. Everyking 00:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If you check the history there have already been edit wars not involving Cognition over these photos, SqueakBox 00:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you really believe those things or is this a work of satire? My humour-radar is on the blink today... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if these are a work of satire. What matters is that these statements damage the reputations of these figures and they are untrue. This is one of the most prima facia cases of libel I've ever seen. Whilst I don't agree about the statements about dead figures they are not covered by libel laws. By definition a dead person cannot sue for libel. Living people of the prominence of those libelled on that user page are a different matter. It's simply the libels about living people that I want removed. David Newton 07:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think, as a LaRouchite he really believes, SqueakBox 23:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cognition: In case you were not aware, there is a discussion of this issue going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Thatdog 00:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Cognition, I would say that recent vandalism of your user page by Slimvirgin and the other guy is grounds by some sort of complaint. In the case of Snowspinner, he was merely gloating over the vandalism in an adolescent fashion, but the fact that he made a point of not reverting it (and he is an administrator!) is also reprehensible. --HK 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Drug free wikipedians

What are you doing removing my name from the list of drug free wikipedians? Calling people drug addicts is a personal attack. Desist. If you imply I am a drug addict again I will take further action. An apology would be best. The page is not in your user space; stop treating it as if it was, SqueakBox 21:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Are you genuinely drug-free or not? You have made several pro-marijuana posts in the group, so I have good reason to be skeptical. If you use marijuana, or another dangerous drug such as cocaine or heroin, please do not falsely add yourself to this member list of drug-free wikipedians. Cognition 21:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I made my statement on the page. I am a pro marijuana believer (very anti coke, which we see a lot of here, and anti heroin, which we don't see any of). I live in a country where marijuana use is highly illegal. I absolutely assert that I am law abiding citizen of this country, and of the UK, where I work. Just because I believe in something doesn't make me go out and break the law. Please don't even try asserting otherwise, as I could construe it as a legal threat. If you want others to voluntarily remove their names please dialogue with them individually, but right now it is not a page for those who believe drugs are wrong, SqueakBox 22:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of drug-free Wikipedians, SqueakBox 17:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation on Kim Jong-il

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule, which you acknowledged via edit summary, on the article Kim John-il (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). If you have any questions about this block, please contact another administrator via email, or alternatively, mail the WikiEn-I mailing list. Please refrain from edit wars when you return. Thank you. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Eminem

Not sure what you intended by this edit. Please be aware of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Friday (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Queen

I see you have called Queen Elizabeth the Whore of Babylon. I take it this means you have converted to Rastafari, as this is a Rastafarian idea, probably realised during a herb filled grounation, ie reasoning session. My congratulations, SqueakBox 21:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

You've been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism and WP:POINT at Lyndon LaRouche. If you feel this block is mistaken or unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me via the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed my user history, and found the particular edits you are referring to. They do indeed constitute vandalism. However, I personally did not make them. Apparently someone hijacked my account, which would have been easy to do because my password was blank. Someone was able to log into my account by just typing in my user name and clicking on "log in." To prevent such instances in the future and to secure my account, I am changing my password. Cognition 15:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What you are saying seems entirely credible as Lyndon LaRouche is a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division to ruin the youth. isn't you at all, not unless you really converted to Rastafari (as opposed to pinching their Queen Elizabeth is the Whore of Babylon theory), SqueakBox 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


GFDL

I removed the GFDL tag from some images which you uploaded. Image:Goebbels.jpg, Image:MartinLutherKdream-1963.jpg, Image:Lyn-MLK.jpg, and Image:Adornoless.jpg. We need to have some proof that the copyright holders of the images (or sub-images) have agreed to license those pictures under the GFDL before we apply that tag. -Willmcw 03:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide your reason for applying the GFDL tag to images which you clearly are not the copyright holder of before you re-apply the GFDL tag. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It goes without saying. They are all old and being freely reproduced by other websites. Cognition 04:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
If they are old enough then they are in the public domain, and should be labeled as such. (The Freeman picture was only four years old, which isn't even old in dog years.) Merely being widely copied does not make them GFDL. -Willmcw 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You know these policies better than I do, it seems. You can agree that these are important pictures, right? That Adorno and Friedman are important enough for an encyclopedia to need pictures of them, right? So please fix them yourself. Cognition 04:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Richard III

Out of curiousity, why's Richard III in your gallery of shame? He seems like such an unnotable monarch...aside from the play which bears his name.

Cheers,

Yossarian 09:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may, see this interpretation of history from Lyndon LaRouche, LAROUCHE DURING SILVIA PANEL, ICLC CONFERENCE
  • ...Richmond, one of the contending Tudor heirs to the English monarchy... overthrew the evil Richard III, who was the satanic embodiment of everything that the medieval period of Venetian Norman tyranny called ultramontanism, had represented.
I prefer the way that Shakespeare summarized Richard. Anyway, perhaps Cognition can shed more light on the matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In this case the Wikipedia article can shed more light on the matter. Richard III is notable for many acts of torture and murder that established the political culture of England that would one day lead England to become humanity's biggest rapist and plunderer of people, wealth, and land since the days of the Roman tyrants. He led by example and his examples included:

  • the murder of Henry VI
  • the "private execution" of his brother George, Duke of Clarence
  • the murder of his wife's first husband, Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales
  • the murder of William, Lord Hastings
  • forcing his wife to marry him against her will
  • planning an incestuous marriage to his niece (and killing his wife so he could)
  • accusing his own mother of adultery and his late brother the king of being illegitimate
  • accusing innocents of witchcraft
  • many more acts of torture and murder

I consider this notable-- and evil and bestial. But some at of people on Wikipedia would probably disagree with me; and, I suppose, they are entitled to do so. Cognition 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There may also be some at Wikipedia, who, accustomed to badgering and bullying their opponents, will simply feign disagreement to start an argument.
Regarding your message, yes, I am editing intermittently, and yes, your point is well taken -- that the times are such, that the proponents of fascism cannot be quite as surreptitious as they are normally wont to be. The good news is that a number of those personalities who appear in your gallery of beastmen are about to get their comeuppance. --HK 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand the point in your reassurances. So much crime and sleaze is being made public now that there will be little room for them to hide and deny. Cognition 01:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Such as the evil cannabis baron Queen Elizabeth? SqueakBox 21:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I sense the sarcasm in your tone. I suspect that you're under the impression that I am some sort of conspiracy theorist incapable of engaging in informed discourse on the subject. But do some deeper research and you will find a wealth of surprising evidence. The Queen is not just some benign figurehead with no real power and influence. There is a pernicious side to the supposed "philanthropic" activities of her and her familiy. Prince Philip once said, "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." When you look at his considerable influence in the Third World, it will start to be clear that he and his wife are indeed cut from the same cloth as Richard III. Cognition 01:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am a British republican and agree thet the Queen holds too much influence, though I wouldn't go so far as to label her the whore of Babylon, and wasn't it dope dealer you called her before? But if what you say about Richard III is true he was a far worse character than the Queen and Prince Philip, though there are really nasty people like that undoubtedly in the world. Philip was expressing his despair at the way the human race is overpopulating the planet. I agree with you that our mental processes distinguish us from the beasts, and therefore can fully relate to desires to lower the human population rates through natural methods rather than see us wipe ourselves out because there are far too many of us, with educational access to a high level lagging behind population growth rates. Bill Gates saves millions of lives through vaccinations and none of these extra kids will have access to a computer. Access to computers for all children would be a more noble goal don't you think, along with other encouragements for the population to stop expanding, because there are too many of us already as a human race if we are to actualise fully distinguishing ourselves cognitively from the beasts, SqueakBox 01:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I sense that you are a well meaning guy and very glad to hear that you are a British republican. Keep fighting the good fight. But your thought on economics is very outdated. The fears over overpopulation are Malthusian. Those ideas have been discredited time and time again-- they just keep on reaping their ugly head in new form all the time. Cognition 02:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think Prince Philip and the Queen are also well meaning people. I certainly don't oppose the monarchy because they are evil, though I do think they are wrong to continue on with it. Again I am sure that many of the evil figures of history on your page were actually well meaning people themselves, such as Aristotle, Galileo and Isaac Newton. It is hard to see exactly where you are coming from with your good and evil idealisations, and I am intellectually curious as to your reasoning behind the creation of your comments on said page. Why Locke, Smith and Kant? SqueakBox 01:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying

Cognition, when you wikify, could you make sure in future that you use the correct article title? For example at The New School, you list Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Freud, Benjamin, Wittgenstein, Foucault, and Derrida as though these are the article titles, which they're not. With most it simply means a redirect (which is nonetheless best avoided), but with Benjamin, the reader is taken to the wrong page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Cognition 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
You've been told before that the arbcom ruling prohibits any editor from revert warring to include material from Lyndon LaRouche. If you want to include his name in Physical economics, please produce non-LaRouche sources on the talk page saying what you're saying in the article, then we can link to them after your edits. Without those sources, your edits can't stay, and there's no point in continuing to revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a non-LaRouche source. The source is from the Lebedev Physical Institute. Read the article on Lebedev Physical Institute; it is just as much of a non-LaRouche source and just as authoritative of a souce as something coming from MIT. Futher, you might want to deal with some of the issues of your own arbitration case before informing me of ones that in this case do not apply. Cognition 03:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Please supply a credible third-party source (not LaRouche, not Wikipedia) on the talk page of the article, so I can read what it says. The sources in the article don't mention LaRouche. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This [1] is the only source on the page, and it says nothing about LaRouche. So what source are you talking about? Please link to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
That's just the abstract. You need to download the PDF article. If you can't do it, I'll download it for you and upload it myself. Cognition 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It requires a paid subscription, I think, so please do upload it, or just copy and paste it to a subpage long enough for other editors to read it. In the meantime, I've protected Physical economics and Abba P. Lerner, because these aren't LaRouche-related articles, and the arbcom has ruled that LaRouche-related material may not be inserted into these unless there's a reputable source unconnected to LaRouche making the link. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
See [2] Now you will be able to verify the quotation on the talk page of the article. Then, when you see that I am correct, will you reverse your use of page protection for your personal edit war, so that I don't have to make a fuss about administrative abuse? Cognition 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks

You have been warned previously about placing attacks on Wikipedia editors on your user page. It is not acceptable behavior. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have removed them. -Willmcw 11:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an incorrect and perhaps somewhat self-serving interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia draws a distinction, in those rare cases where a public figure is also an editor, between the public figure and his Wikipedia incarnation. User:SlimVirgin frequently insists that Berlet is a public figure of some stature. Despite my own personal doubts about that, it would seem to me that, consequently, any critical reference to Chip Berlet the public figure would fall under the rubric of fair comment. --HK 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Physical economics

Cognition, I regret to inform you that I am useless to you as an ally in this matter. Due to ArbCom decisions against me, if I engage in any dispute with Willmcw or SlimVirgin, I automatically lose, and either of them will simply use the dispute as an excuse to further ban me. Note that this has nothing to do with the way in which Wikipedia operates in theory, but rather the way in which it operates in practice (see my user page).

What I would recommend that you do, without a great deal of optimism, is post a concise report at Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard. Note that SlimVirgin has violated Wikipedia policy by protecting a page in which she is party to an ongoing dispute, which is an abuse of admin powers. There is a possibility that another, more scrupulous admin may intervene. I don't think it would hurt to make a separate report on the badgering you are getting from Willmcw about your user page (see above). Both SlimVirgin and Willmcw habitually invoke Wikipedia regulations when it suits their POV agenda, and ignore them when it doesn't. --HK 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il

there is now a poll at Talk:Kim Jong-il on "leader"/"ruler" for the Kim Jong Il article. maybe this will finally put the silly, protracted debate to rest. thanks in advance for taking the time. whatever your view, i think the article just needs a bit more attention of outside parties.Appleby 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, there, Cognition. I can't participate in this, but you can. --HK 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom decision

Hi Cognition, regarding your insertion of LaRouche material into articles that are not "closely related" to him, from now on I intend to enforce the arbcom ruling by blocking you, rather than by protecting the page. The arbcom was clear that editors (any editors, not just the ones the case was brought against) who revert to retain such material will be in violation of the ruling. In other words, if you revert to a version that includes LaRouche material that another editor has removed, on a page not "closely related" to LaRouche, I will block you without further warning.

"Closely related" should not be interpreted to refer to a page that the LaRouche organization is alone in regarding as "closely related," because LaRouche publications do not count as credible sources for Wikipedia, following the arbcom ruling.

The articles on the LaRouche template are regarded as "closely related." Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

request for adminship

You need to fix your RFA to conform to the standard template. THanks. Guettarda 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And find a decent candidate to stand for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Not sure what you're hoping to accomplish with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cognition. I encourage you to withdraw your nomination, to save time and avoid possible ill feelings. Friday (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the nomination for making personal attacks on other users. Your options are: 1) to submit a civil nomination, 2) not to submit a nomination at all, or 3) to be blocked for disruptive behavior. --Michael Snow 18:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerns

Cognition, I've been watching your edits as of late, and your latest actions have caused me to become a bit concerned. You are obviously an enthusiastic editor, but you are way, way too strong in your language, especially towards other editors. Please tone it down and read Wikipedia:No personal attacks as well as WP:NPOV. I will watch your contributions for a few days. If you need help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask me for help. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush

That's because neither Danby nor I are in fact "neo-cons" or supporters of Bush or Cheney - this is a figment of LaRouchie paranoid anti-Semitism. We are both moderate social democrats. In US terms that makes us mainstream Democrats. Danby's favourite US politicians are Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Adam 23:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, right. "Moderate social democrats" who pal around with Michael Ledeen. --HK 22:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. You say here that you are a "moderate," yet you in the past have publicly advocated an invasion of North Korea, which is among the most extreme, dangerous policies I can imagine. And you agree with me that Bush is a disaster, yet remain firmly in support of his most disastrous policy, the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, a scheme dreamed up by the neocon cult in the 1990s. And, as I'm sure you know, Lieberman is closely aligned to Bush on foreign policy issues. Did you see Bush's televised kiss on Joe's cheek prior to the 2005 State of the Union Address? Or read about the speculation that Lieberman is Bush's top pick to replace Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, should Rumsfeld resign from his post? In the United States, Lieberman is despised by the Democratic Party's base and is widely perceived as a Neoconservative. Cognition 18:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Disruption

You uploaded an image of Chip Berlet, Image:Cberlet.jpg, which, in addition to being a copyright violation, had been distorted in a way that made him appear obese. That was a fraudulent edit. Do not make any more like it, please, as they disrupt Wikipedia. -Willmcw 06:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated this image for speedy deletion. The image was stolen from website without permission, not properly credited, and used under false claim of fair use.--Cberlet 14:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from HK

Hiya, Cognition. Would you be so kind as to drop me a line here? Give me a way that I can reach you privately. Muchisimas gracias, HK 22:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

CfD

Your vote is need at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This originated with Mr. Cberlet at [3]. Thank you. nobs 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration filed naming you

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming you. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UT)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Tiberius

Why are you complaining about Tiberius? Even if he were the "murderer of Jesus Christ," wouldn't this be a good thing for you? After all, it would have only been through his actions that Jesus' death would even mean anything to you (or to Christianity as a whole). If you're going to dislike Tiberius, do so for his incompetent stewardship of the Roman state. -Bill Lee.

Heads up

I thought you should know that National Caucus of Labor Committees has been subjected to grotesquely POV edits with no documentation by an anonymous user, and with the apparent blessing of Willmcw. --HK 09:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this. The blessing by Willmcw is now overt. Could the anon have been his sockpuppet? --HK 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Drug-free

Hi there Cognition, Im SWD316. I saw your name to the list of drug-free Wikipedians. I created a template and category for it at Template:Drug-free. Hope you use it! SWD316 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Next time you alter my comments you will be reported. I strongly advise you to never alter my comments like that again. Who do you think you are to decide what I say or do not say in this project? Desist and do so now, SqueakBox 18:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Slur and invocation

I note you described me as a Rastafarian to another user. Perhaps you would care to source your claim. What a load of rubbish, but i don't appreciate your spreading lies and poison about me on wikipedia. So please stop. Okay?

I found your attempt to invoke the vandalsim policy here to defend your extreme pot POV very funny but it simply will not work as NPOV is far more important than wikipedia defending your petty beliefs. If that is how you think wikipedia operates, and that is what we are all about you either haven't read the policies or you are not being very cognitively aware in your dealings with this open source project, SqueakBox 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there Cognition, it's SWD316. I saw the edits to my talk page. You make a good point about SqueakBox being "Pro Pot". On a side note you shouldn't make edits to other contributors edits though. Im not taking a side here, I think it is something you two need to fix between yourself and SqueakBox. Thanks to coming to me though! Cheers! SWD316 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Antidope.JPG

You must add a license. You midified a PD photo. Under what license do you release it? gren グレン 01:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image problems

The following images you use on your userpage are problematic.

  • Image:Lyn-MLK.jpg is marked as no source. You seem to intend to release it under the GFDL, but since it clearly does not come from you, I'm uncertain how you intend to release it as such. Please provide a source, or it will be deleted.
    • Please explain what fair use grounds you think apply for using this image on your userpage.
  • Image:MartinLutherKdream-1963.jpg does not appear to be under any usable source - since you uploaded it, please provide the source, or it will be deleted.
  • Image:Fronpage lhl 10thPic.jpg is listed as fair use, presumably to illustrate LaRouche, but is not suitable for use on userpages, where it has no educational value defenses. Please remove it from your userpage, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:Goebbels.jpg was uploaded by you, and lacks source information. Please provide a source, or it will be deleted.
  • Image:Heidegger.jpeg is only cleared for fair use to illustrate the subject, and thus is not appropriate for userpages. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:Russell2.jpg is being used under fair use, and is thus inappropriate for userpages. Please remove it, as it is a copyvio. Image now deleted
  • Image:Adornoless.jpg was uploaded by you and lacks adequate source information. Please provide a source, or it will be deleted.
  • Image:Arendt.jpg does not have any notes on its copyright status. Please provide this information, or it will be deleted.
  • Image:AbbeyRoad.jpg is only fair use to illustrate the album, and is thus unsuitable for userpages. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:Hankportrait.jpg is being used as fair use, and is unlikely to be fair use to illustrate a userpage. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:Brzezinski.jpg is being used as fair use, and is unlikely to be fair use to illustrate a userpage. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:FRIEDMAN.JPG lacks copyright status. Please provide this information, or the image will be deleted.
  • Image:GeorgeSoros.jpg is fair use, which does not generally cover userpages. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:E II R in Uniform.JPG is fair use, which does not generally cover userpages. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.
  • Image:Blairjsmithfuneral.jpg is fair use, which does not generally cover userpages. Please remove it, as it is copyvio.

Thank you for your attention. Phil Sandifer 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know whether Mr. Sandifer has expressed any similar concerns about photos displayed on other user pages. If not, Sandifer's animus toward Cognition is a matter of record, and this looks like Wikipedia:Harassment. --HK 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. As for these images, Cognitoin has an entire gallery on his user page, with captions that draw attention. Further, almost every single image that Cognition has ever uploaded has one problem or another. You can see on this page that Cognition has been told of these and other pronblems with his page for months, with little reaction from him. User:Snowspinner is being polite and proper to give Cognition another reminder that these problems need to be resolved. -Willmcw 18:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
"...I'd be all about blocking Cognition." -- Snowspinner 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[4]
I'm trying hard to assume good faith. --HK 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
That's from an entirely different context (vis. the attacks that Cognition made on other editors as part of his self-nomination). No one is talking about blocking Cognition for violating our policies on images. And blocking someone does not mean that there is a campaign against an editor. I've blocked editors I like for 3RR violations, etc. Rather than accusing other editors of having motives, let's get these image problems fixed. Cognition hasn't even bothered to respond. -Willmcw 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the images are an issue at all. Snowspinner's agenda against Cognition is the issue; the images thing is just an excuse, and there's no sense in rallying behind it, as if there's any good faith in it. Everyking 05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil "I'd be all about blocking Cognition" Sandifer has only one motive in mind-- getting me to leave Wikipedia. That said, I'll still put looking into all the copyright issues on my list of priorities, along with ensuring that every single article on Wikipedia is NPOV. Hopefully I will be able to accomplish all my goals! Cognition 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that include the 1500+ new articles appearing on wikipedia every day. You are going to have your work cut out, SqueakBox 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hum, then it may take me a while to get to Mr. Spinner's chores. I'll do my best. Cognition 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope you have time by Friday when any unsourced images you have will be deletable. Phil Sandifer 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That's a fine example of "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" by misusing your administrator powers, Mr. Spinner. I'll be able to find new images to refill the holes on my user page. Meanwhile, you will be responsible for leaving many important articles without images-- which hurts Wikipedia readers attempting to use the site as a source for information more than it hurts me. Cognition 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain how enforcing the image copyright policies is a violation of WP:POINT. Phil Sandifer 21:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
So it's just a coincidence that my userpage-- the user page of someone you wanted to get banned from day one-- happened to be the one that got your attention, while thousands of similar problems in articles go unnoticed. What a coincidence! Cognition 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Whether it is coincidence or not is immaterial. Phil Sandifer 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes it is-- don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (i.e. don't be responsible for leaving many important articles without images because you have an axe to grind agaist one user). Cognition 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The images are unsourced and need to be deleted. What caused me to notice this is not relevent to that point. Phil Sandifer 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You mean your habit of only paying attention to people you have an axe to grind against because of their POV without actually bothering to write articles? Cognition 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That is not what I was referring to. Phil Sandifer 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say it's relevant to the claim of harassment. Everyking 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Check out the Main Page today. The feature article is exceptional. --Ballchef 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yuck! Cognition 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Dear diary, Lyndon LaRouche's political angst bullshit has a body count..

Why do you call the Queen of England the whore of babylon? (well I do know why LaRouche hates the British royal family for no reason whatsoever) Personally though I find the fact that you call that great lady the whore of babylon disgusting. Also, I know for a fact that Richard III was a good king who tried to help to poor of England, it's the Tutors that slandered him.

By the way "cognition," John Locke was great man without whom we wouldn't have United States today.--207.200.116.12 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget: Dear diary, Lyndon LaRouche's political angst bullshit has a body count..

What a pleasure to be greeted on my talk page by a profanity-spewing anonymous vandal! I unfortunately have many enemies on this site, and I'm not sure whose sock-puppet you are, sir. However, your points indicate some ignorance on some basic issues that I should clear up for you. The British Empiricist viewpoint, that of Locke and his wicked predecessors, is completely opposite the ideology of America's founding fathers. Let's take Locke's notion of property, for instance, which ended up being raised to metaphysical status in the constitution of the Confederate States of America (a pawn of Britain), while in the U.S. Constitution we have the explicitly anti-Lockean thesis of Leibniz, "pursuit of happiness." I see no reason why you have so much fondness for this cretin.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "Lyndon LaRouche's political angst (profanity) has a body count"... you should be aware that the LaRouche Movement is perhaps the only one in the world today offering positive solutions for the most serious problems humanity is facing. LaRouche and those who follow his philosophy recognize the evil we're up against and are plain-spoken in their denunciations of it, but are also very optimistic about the uncrushable human spirit. We're still fighting, we're not giving up! The LaRouche Movement is based on optimism, not angst. The role that's been played in thwarting Gov. Schwarzenegger's referenda and in stopping Cheney's drive to dictatorship should give all freedom-lovers reason to cheer.

I should mention also, that Anglo-Dutch Liberalism "has a body count" (the explicit British Imperialism of the past and the neo-colonialism of "free trade" today have resulted in genocide)... the Angst of the existentialists and pessimists (from Nietzsche to Malthus, schemes of genocide being waged out of racial hatred or phony concerns by the Club of Rome) "has a body count" ... these forces, the ones LaRouche is fighting against, have to their credit, as blood on their hands, a body count high in the millions. Cognition 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I created username (That was me above), I have some serious issues with Lyndon LaRouche, whom I view as a latter-day cult figure...that quote above comes from the film Heathers, in which the main character states "Dear diary, my teen angst bullshit now has a body count..," you see I think of him everytime I see that film because (if you read about the film) he would lead the United States into disaster if he ever gains power (like the fictional veronica in the film lead her high school into disaster)...I disagree with free-trade on priciple but however I think LaRouche is worse because he represents a cult figure for me...nevertheless feel free to email me and we'll talk more about this

Thank You--P.D.S 08:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image reinsertion

Please note that repeated reinsertion of material that violates copyright is vandalism, and that you will be blocked for it. Phil Sandifer 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beast-man outbursts constitute harassment too, right? Cognition 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Calling it harassment does not exempt you from the rules. Nor does making personal attacks. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The prohibition on using "fair use" images on user talk pages applies to every editor. -Willmcw
Out of interest, when did this policy come into effect? It means that I violated it at one point! (copying to Willmcw's page). - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is wildly out of line for Snowspinner to be doing this, when he has said that he wants Cognition blocked anyway (regardless of the copyright question) and does not believe people with his POV should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Cognition, don't let this bullying drive you away. Everyking 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy says
  • The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates ... or on user pages. [emphasis in the original]
I believe the theory is that we can only invoke fair use when we are commenting on copyrighted msterial as part of an article. -Willmcw 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Now we have a second admin, with a long history of POV quarrels with Cognition, piously invoking the letter of the law. It would be much easier to take this seriously if there were a neutral party complaining. --HK 12:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
HK, are you saying that there's no violation, or that Cognition doesn't need to folow Wikipedia policies and guidelines? -Willmcw 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How conveniently circular. And, of course, once a neutral admin steps in, they contaminate themselves in subsequent issues, thus making bad behavior harder and harder to prevent, right? I've a much better idea - don't break the rules. Phil Sandifer 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
If the two of you are taking the position that you are merely sticklers for the rules, and that personalities and POV play no role whatsoever in your judgement, then I look forward to seeing your prompt endorsement of Rangerdude's position at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2; the evidence that SlimVirgin broke the rules is incontrovertible. --HK 03:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
So no rule can be enforced unless all rules are enforced? No, life doesn't work that way. SlimVirgin's activities are reviewed and critiqued by dozens of editors, so that is a separate and unrelated issue. -Willmcw 07:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I rest my case. This business with Cognition's user page is not about the rules at all. --HK 15:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Amelia bloody-sun.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image that you uploaded, Image:Amelia bloody-sun.jpg, has been listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion because it lacks source or license information, and has been tagged as lacing this information for at elast 7 days. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media (criterion I4) Please add source and copyright information to this image promptly, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

DES (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

If memory serves me correctly you also encountered abuse of thepage protection policy by SlimVirgin. This happened again at the Daniel Brandt article yesterday I'm currently seeking community input on it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin2. Rangerdude 19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Synarchist agent

Stop adding potentially libellous characterizations of article subjects. The idea that William S. Burroughs, Dr. Dre, and 50 Cent are "synarchist agents" is clearly a LaRouche concept. -Willmcw 18:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. In fact, I recall asking you previously to stop doing the exact same thing. If I see it again, I will consider it disruption. Friday (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - I will block for this in the future. Phil Sandifer 19:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tampa meetup

I see relatively little to discuss here. The images were illegal to use in that way. This is not some subtle POV dispute - you were breaking the law and exposing Wikipedia to legal trouble, and the policy is to not do that. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others case. Raul654 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"restore to proper English"

Re: Kurt Cobain

According to proper punctuation rules, commas only go inside a quote if the quotation is in the form of a sentence, where the comma replaces the period. For phrases and song titles, the comma goes outside the quote.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), in particular the Punctuation note at the bottom. -- ChrisB 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from HK

Happy Hanukkah, Cognition. --HK 16:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Politics

What is it about my politics with which you do not agree? Sam Spade 09:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the list of people you provide as "inspirations." Martin Luther, for starters, was a pawn in a game run by the Venetian oligarchs, who molded both the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to increase their own temporal power, and paved the way for the truly wicked John Calvin. Theodore Roosevelt was an imperialist. Adam Smith was a vile Beast-man whose corrupt influence on politics, economics, and thought are still causing problems for us today. Cognition 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ludwig van Beethoven, composer of the theme for mass freedom movements <do you mean Beethoven's 9th Symphony?

Also personally I find HG Wells to be a Hero because his great science fiction works and because he was able to predict the future, also I disagree with you with John Calvin without cacalvinist protestism we wouldn't have Democratizaion (see Max Weber--P.D.S 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You should be careful not to trust the likes of HG Wells. His "predictions of the future" were only able to come true because of the evil Synarchist network he was involved with that took his dastardly plans as gospel to be enacted through front organizations such as the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Wildlife Fund. I do not understand what you were trying to say later in the post. I believe you are interested in a better future, P.D.S., but unfortunately have some naive views that could be cleared up through further study of the historical record. I think a good place to start learning about Synarchism would be this essay: "How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man" http://www.schillerinstitute.org//fid_91-96/943a_russell_lhl.html Cognition 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose calvinism. Whats wrong w Imperialism? And whats this beast man stuff? Have you read smith? He simply articulates common sense in scientific terms, whats not to like there? The division of labour is rather important... Sam Spade 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to meet you at that WikiMeetup today. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel the meeting was very productive and I was glad that the atmosphere was so friendly. Cognition 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Schopenhauer and Hinduism

I think you should try to add Arthur to the list of Beast-men for two very special reasons:

  • Though there was always allot of pessimism and subsequent nihilism all over the world, Arthur Schopenhauer, similar to the Gnostics (and their progeny within the Mideival Roman Catholic Church), codified it into an acual philosophy, whereing life was a hopeless exercize in desire until eventual death (this is also the general feeling of Buddhism, however differs in a very fundamental way which I will get into later). But what makes Schopenhauer so insideus is the way he perverts Platonism. For a Platonist, Schopenhauer, like Jung, would seem very seductive because he talks about aesthetics (which, for a Platonist, is a very important field of study, since it can be utilized to express various Forms, Memes, Monads, and so forth), and seems a little more practical (since he agknowleges the fact that life is hard), however, one must note that he does not believe the forms to be REAL. He believes that universals are dependant upon matter. This then, makes his statesments on aesthetics (often, as based on the senses rather then on intellectual symetry) simple daydreaming with not merrit whatsoever (and, one can alternately interperate his Aesthetics as mere hedonism, with little intent to have any message behind it).
  • The end result of his overall philosophy is similar in attitude to that held by John Locke (anarchist) and especially David Hume (who believed humanity to be so naturally depraved that dictatorship was the only viable option). It is little wonder that it was HE that influenced Nietzche (a total nihilist, who believes that the only hope for an nindividual is to beat down as many of his fellows as possible and lose himself in the thrill of it). He praised Napoleon on similar basis, seeing him as a man who made a name for himself (no care for how he did it, since to him that is irrelevant anyway), he also was a misogynist who believed women as inherantly evil anyway so reforming them is a waste of time (time that may be better utilized in using those women anyway).

Of course, what is interesting is that the best example of all of this is where Schopie got allot of his philosphy. India, for centuries, has been in shambles since the time the Brahmans came in and set up the cast system. From what we can see, the cast system was a form of racial segragation, and to justify it, the Brahmans created a religion to complement this (and in so doing, created the sum total of all paganism). hinduism is a misanthropic religion in which the man is just another part of the forces of nature (part of the scenery), just as Aristotle held. It's gods where representations of different elements within nature, it's pantheon constructed around a scientific taxonimy, and at it's core, is the sum of that whole pantheon, an uncaring, amoral being who is wholly at once good and evil, for it, there is no difference (similarly, one should look at Calvinism, which says similar things, and do note that Aleister Crowley was raised in a Scottish Puritan community, I wrote about this on the Crowley board entitles [Crowley: A Hyper-Calvinist?]). One can see the result of centuries of Hindu control of the South-Asian region, where the beliefe in reincarnation is utilized and the philosophy of Karma is abused, so as to justify neglect to society and infrastructure. People are born, toil for a while, and die, and if they fulfilled their duties to the Brahman state, then they may someday come back as Brahmans themselves (and htey have utilized this in modern times for a whole slew of things, very notible is the Hari Krishna cults and their justifying abuse victems). There where two very great opponents of Hinduism however, they where Zoroaster (Mazda is the embodiment of all truth/perfection, and thus cannot be evil, and opposed evil in the form of the Hindu Devas, many say that Zoroaster inspired the great religions, it is true that it is very, very similar, Plato himself even mentions him as an influence) and Siddhartha (Known popularly as Buddha, Siddhartha woke up and saw that the Hinduism had nothing to do with karma or natural dharma, but rather was merely the caste-system put to mythological language). Please note, Hindu ideas had a great influence during 1800's Britan, when the Anglos replaced the Slavic Brahmans.

This was a very long and rambling message I just gave you, I just would like you to do some work on these two things (Schopenhauer and Hinduism). I want to know if you are indeed affiliated with LaRouche, I have many things to descuss with you (and subsequently, Lyn). I support your (plural) rite to exist as an organized group, and I believe in your cause (though, not always with the methods used to reach the end, thus I am not affiliated). -- IdeArchos 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Governator

Isn't that libellous? WP may not be being improved by its presence, and surely you could express disapproval of - whatever it is - in less contentious terms? Coriolise 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

You've been temporarily blocked from editing because of a pro-LaRouche revert at Synarchism. As you know, Nobs01 and others extended the rulings and remedies in LaRouche 2 to you. I advise you to read them carefully and to abide by both the spirit and letter, because the next block will be for longer. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been increased for this. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll also be increasing it for this edit, which is a violation of LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Inserting LaRouche ideas, or conversely, removing ideas which clash with LaRouche's, violates ArbCom decisions that apply to you. If you do so again you may be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 23:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Block 2

You've been temporarily blocked from editing for this edit, because that article is one of the LaRouche-related articles you're prohibited from editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dennis King article is not covered by the arbcom rulings. I am banned from editing Chip Berlet. The Nobs case made no mention of Dennis King. My edit was not LaRouche-related. I inserted Category:Drug Culutre in the article because King had been a writer for High Times, not because of his long career of defaming Lyndon LaRouche. Cognition 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Modify_Lyndon_LaRouch_2. Even if it hadn't been, it's up to the admin to decide what is LaRouche-related. Please stop trying to find loopholes. You have to stay away from the LaRouche-related articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed the attacks on public figures and the promotion of LaRouche from your user page. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for your personal views. Please abide strictly by the terms of LaRouche 2 from now on. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Continuing in that vein, operating under the understanding that Larouche 2 applies to user pages, I have further removed some of the more blatantly Larouchian praises of public figures. JoshuaZ 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. I am one of thoudands of people who expresses his or her POV on a user page. I am not stating my opinions about other Wikipedia users, so I am not violating policies like civility or any arbcom ruling. Besides, isn't in the interests of you people-- those interested in repressing my POV-- that my opinions be fully disclosed on my talk pages? You people probably gain more than I do by vandalizing my user page. Cognition 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The Arb Com clarified that user pages were included. I have therefore reverted back to the earlier version. Please do not revert again. JoshuaZ 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No it didn't. James F. made a snide remark to Everyking, but that's about it. You know my user page has nothing to do with anything. Read WP:DICK. Cognition 01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
James F. made it clear what the Arb Com's opinion was. Nevertheless, I shall refrain from further reversions, and will instead bring the matter up at WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 02:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of being "snide". (Amongst other things, umm, what? Where?) Personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia.
James F. (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

In regard to this dif: Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy edits.. JoshuaZ 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

Please do not attack or harass other editors. In particular, you seem to be harassing user:Adam Carr. That is not appropriate. -Will Beback 09:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm harassing Adam Carr? Do you want me to list all the ugly personal attacks he has made against me? Cognition 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

I was blocked for making "LaRouche edits." This is false. I ask to be unblocked before I start an RFC on admin abuse. Cognition 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock denied, those edits are not appropiate -- 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above anon editor does not have the authority to "deny" my request. I ask that I be unblocked, with an investigation of the admin abuse triggering block. I did not edit any "LaRouche-related" articles. The only reason for my block, as far as I am concerned, was retailiation for my involvment in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr. Cognition 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As an admin, I deny your request. You're not getting unblocked. Have a lovely day. Phil Sandifer 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of your recent edits appear to be too heavily POV; I think you can see that. If you'll promise to more strictly adhere to NPOV in the future, I'll go ahead and unblock you early. Everyking 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I will restore the block if you do. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on a second. I thought admins were not ever supposed to overturn another admin's action. Didn't you say that? Everyking 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not without prior discussion. And here I am discussing it prior to doing it. Remember that you're not allowed to comment on another admin's actions except on his or her talk page, so your response on this page violates the arbcom ruling. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not comment again on Cognition's talk page on either Phil's or my (or anyone else's) actual or proposed admin actions. Take note that I will block you if you continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice cream. I tend to drink Coke more often than Pepsi but I also enjoy Pepsi. Everyking 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyking correctly states that Cognition's recent edits have been too heavily POV. However a review of that editor's contributions shows that he has always made heavily POV edits. In fact, every edit he has ever made to Wikipedia has expressed a POV of the LaRouche movement. I am afraid that neither promises to adhere more strictly to the NPOV nor week-long blocks will change his behavior. -Will Beback 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I looked at your contributions, and you are right: You did not do any edits on"La Rouche."

Your block involves three of the same users who around mine a week ago. I assumed the issue behind my block(s) was a miscommunication over sockpuppets, but now I'm not so sure. --I was blocked soon after signing that Adam Carr RFC as well. It is really sometimes odd how far people can go when they are convinced they are in the right. Try not to take it personally, hope you can make some positive contributions when you return! Myciconia 08:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's be explicit here

Attacking Carl Schmitt[5] as a nazi is classic Larouche. Calling Arnold Schwarzenegger[6] a nazi is also something Larouche enjoys, and this is blatantly Larouchian. JoshuaZ 03:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing is pretty typical. He's done it many times, and been asked to stop many times. Personally, I plan to apply blocks liberally if I see this sort of thing happening again, and I'd encourage others to do the same. Friday (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked this account indefinitely. Cognition has been blocked 13 times by six admins since July for disruption, personal attacks, harassment, and violation of arbcom rulings. He edits very little in between blocks, so most of his activity on Wikipedia involves returning from a block, making some edits that directly or indirectly violate one of the arbcom rulings against him, having his edits reverted, and being blocked again. Because the arbcom has recently explicitly enjoined him to LaRouche 2, he's taken to harassing Adam Carr instead. Cognition has been warned that he might be blocked indefinitely if the disruptive editing continues. I've just looked through his contribs and can't find any useful edits, so I feel enough is enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • As a fellow admin, I support this decision. It shouldn't be reversed under any circumstances really, as the user has only ever engaged in warring. Harro5 07:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I endorse this decision. Cognition has added an unusual dimension to Wikipedia, but he has not made useful contributions. Instead he has made personal attacks and campaigned against editors. We're not here to play games. -Will Beback 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I fully support this, considering that Cognition has explicitly said he wants to use Wikipedia to POV push. Phil Sandifer 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • At the risk of piling on, this surely looks like an appropriate ban to me too, for all the reasons given above. Friday (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/g/User_talk%7ECognition_34bf.html"