User talk:Cognition: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:50, 26 October 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →Heads up ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:31, 19 September 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk \| contribs)Administrators173,483 edits →Restore TPA: Replythanks. Still no response.Tag: Reply
(241 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			]<center><code><small>''Eternal gratitude to a hero, peacemaker, and martyr </code></small></center>
	]
	<center><code><small>''Hero, peacemaker, and martyr</code></small></center>
	------
	]

			]<center><code><small>'' '' Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, "Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me?" If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.' '' -- [https://larouchepac.com/ Lyndon H. LaRouche, economist, philosopher, statesman, scientific thinker</code></small></center>
	== Adam Carr ==

			<center><code><small>MARTIN LUTHER KING AND LYNDON LAROUCHE</code></small></center>
	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?

			{{unblock reviewed \| 1=Now that LaRouche has passed, Misplaced Pages's punitive arbitration rulings against him should be null and void. My account was banned due to disputes stemming from those rulings. Please unblock my account. My first order of business would be helping to improve the Lyndon LaRouche article to give a more balanced accounting of his legacy. ] (]) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC) \| decline = You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions" but haven't really addressed most of that. Note that you are also banned, not blocked, so any unban discussion would have to go to the community. Please keep that in mind; your unblock request will be copied over to an admin noticeboard for community discussion, so needs to fully address the reasons for your block. For future reviewers, note that this is mostly a procedural decline. I'm declining on the basis this is a ban, not a block, and there's not enough justification for unbanning here, to consider copying it over to an admin noticeboard. It's not a ruling on the merits of unbanning. ] (]) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)}}
	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.

			*And I seriously doubt that Mr. LaRouche's death will have a salutary effect on your editing and interactions. On the contrary, the subtext is that you now feel it grants you a ''carte blanche'' because you believe BLP and your sanctions no longer apply. I might consider an unblock w/ a ] on LaRouche in particular and post-1932 US politics in general. You also in no way have given any meaningful assurance that problems will not recur and you have not described what constructive edits you might make. ] ] 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
	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.

			{{unblock reviewed \|1=I sincerely apologise for all the disruption I've caused, and those usernames that were reported as confirmed in 2009 were all operated by me. I've been struggling with stress and mental health issues which impaired my judgment. It has been a long time since I last edited here. I promise to stick to this and one account only, and my focus will be on adding information and copy-editing, and staying away from contentious areas, including LaRouche and politics. ] (]) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC) \|decline = We will not consider an unblock request from a sockpuppet. Please sign in with your original account, or make a request on your own talk page. I will go block your account in a moment. ] (]) 15:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	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.

			== please post your arguments ==
	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". ] 6 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

			for unbanning below so they may be carried over to ]. ] ] 16:42, 15 February 2019 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rules and say something like "F--- you, bozo" or something like that. ] 6 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
			:I pledge to follow all Misplaced Pages policies. My arguments consist of my pledge, plus the fact that Mr. LaRouche has passed away, and that more than a decade has passed since my ban. I have learned my lesson after nearly 13 years. ] (]) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (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 ]. ] 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|yamla}} Would you care to carry the request to ]. I'm just plain out of time. ] ] 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			:::Cognition, there's zero chance the community will sanction an unblock given the above statement. It's nowhere near sufficient and doesn't come close to addressing your violations. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to use for your unban appeal? I'm afraid if I copy this across, I'll be sanctioned for wasting people's time. --] (]) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			::::What do you suggest? I'm not sure how to address my violations other than to acknowledge and apologize. Yes, I used to relish in antagonizing Mr. LaRouche's political opponents on this site. Misplaced Pages is not the proper arena for that; and, again, yes, I do understand that for moving forward. Despite that, I did make a number of useful contributions, of which I am quite proud, especially my contributions on the Martin Luther King article. ] (]) 11:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			:::::You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". You need to address '''all''' of those points. You also need to address the concerns that, just because Mr. LaRouche has passed away, we don't believe this will meaningfully change your edits. Finally, are you willing to abide by a topic ban on Mr. LaRouche and on post-1932 US politics? --] (]) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, I will meaningfully change my edits, especially being careful to avoid BLP violations on public figures I oppose. I would like to return to editing topics related to Mr. LaRouche and contemporary U.S. politics, but understand I may have to go through a period where I prove myself before editing any potentially contentious subject matter. ] (]) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			:::::::That's nowhere near close to addressing your problematic edits and I'm unwilling to copy that request to the admin noticeboard because of ]. You are welcome to step back, think through your previous behaviour, and write a new paragraph addressing each of the points in turn. --] (]) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			::::::::Okay, will do. ] (]) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
			:::::::::Here is my point by point response to everything cited in the ban.
			:::::::::*I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to ] impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.

	:: Yes. I realize people try to bait me, so I stick to rules like the ]. 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 Misplaced Pages is only one of the Wiki encyclopedias I use.

			:::::::::*Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
	::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.
			:::::::::*Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Misplaced Pages to promote their POV. Misplaced Pages is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
			:::::::::*Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Misplaced Pages's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
			:::::::::*Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.
			:::::::::In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! ] (]) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
			::::@] I don't know if there was a discussion at AN about this yet. But I have to mention that not giving someone a second chance after 13 YEARS sounds completely unreasonable to me. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
			Thanks, I am not available to work on this till Tuesday. If no one beats me to it, I'll work on it then. ] ] 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
			:Sigh. Have you edited while not logged in over the last 6 months? If so, you might wish to try again in 6 months (without editing while logged out or socking in the interim). ] ] 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

	::Six arbitrators have proposed that "] is admonished to avoid discourtesy and personal attacks" (]), 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 Misplaced Pages, one of the reasons I try out other wiki encyclopedias, although Misplaced Pages is the most popular one.

			==Unblock request==
	::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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

			{{unblock reviewed \|1=I just found out that the admin who unilaterally blocked me is ]. No one notified me the entire time. May God spare her soul. With that said, it's now past due to reconsider the ban against me. My ban was previously rendered irrelevant by the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, who tragically left us back in 2019. While I was an editor, the arbitration committee sanctioned the use of sources from any scientific, journalistic, and scholarly organizations to which Mr. LaRouche contributed. Though my edits to LaRouche-related articles were minimal, I was targeted by the admin in question because I posted one or two comments on my userpage favorable to Mr. LaRouche , amid a plethora of other content. Yes, I made some mistakes (for which I have already apologized publicly), but I am ready to resume my outstanding contributions, such as my work on the Martin Luther King article. While long overdue, now that Mr. LaRouche and the blocking admin in question are gone, I ask the community to move on and lift the ban against me. Please lift my ban. Respectfully, ] (]) 17:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC) \|decline = As per {{Diff\|\|diff=1147990916}}, your unban request was declined unanimously and with ]. I'm sorry to say, this is the end of the line for you on en.wikipedia. ] (]) 12:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)}}
	==From HK==
			You still need to address the specific points of the block; it appears you tried to do so above. Is this the statement you would like copied to ](perhaps combined with your point-by-point comments above)? ] (]) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
			:Yes, please and thank you for your assistance with this request. I am eager to get back, finally. ] (]) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
			::I have transferred it. ] (]) 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

			{{unblock reviewed \|1=Hello all, I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Buy it has been almost a year; and I'd like to try again. This time I would like to make clear that I do not intend to resume the same tactics that triggered my ban nearly two decades ago. Please lift the ban so that I can get back to work making Misplaced Pages a better site for all involved. ] (]) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) \|decline = Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to ] if you wish. ] (]) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	Hey, thanks for the barnstar (I moved it to my talk page.) I am finished with Misplaced Pages, but I'm glad that someone appreciates my labors, retroactively. --] 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. ] 9 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

			Can you let it go to a vote? That was almost a year ago; and I said I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. ] (]) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	== Your linking on the CP ==
			:No. It was closed with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your request. --] (]) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
			::But now that I think about it, reading over the request I wrote last year, maybe I didn't help my cause brining up SlimVirgin, which might have triggered a sympathy vote against me. This time I won't mention her. Why after 18 years I'm still not given another chance is beyond me. ] (]) 21:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::Your avenue of appeal is to go to ArbCom. ] (]) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::(ec) The community decided, on your last request, that this was the end of the line for community discussion around your block. That's why that venue is not open to you now. Only ] is open to you now. --] (]) 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::How do I do that? I can only edit this page. 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Email them according to the directions given at ]. ArbCom, if you are reading this, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on CU data. --] (]) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Cognition, @], and @] Arbcom only hear CBAN appeals for when "there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (]); as far as I can tell there are no serious or raised concerns about the ban's validity, so an appeal is out of our scope. ]] 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I understand, though the user seems to feel that way(regardless of their accuracy). If ArbCom had determined there is nothing for them to resolve, this is the end of the line. ] (]) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Thanks for clarifying, Moneytrees. I concur with 331dot. Cognition, this is the end of the line. You have no further options. --] (]) 10:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

			{{unblock reviewed\|decline=Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you wish. Talk page access revoked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)\|1=no reason provided}} In light of the recent presidential debate here in America, which has led many to question their blind adherence to false mainstream media nostrum once considered unquestionable, I appeal once again to reverse my nearly two decade old block. It will just take one admin with the guts and courage. Please lift my block! The encyclopedia will be better for it. ] (]) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
	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 ] 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 ] 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. --] July 9, 2005 08:46 (UTC)
			<div class="user-block blocked-talk-revoked" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">
	: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. ] 9 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
			] '''Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an ] has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.'''
	::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 ], and then take another look at your user page. I don't see how you can hope to help with an ] 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. --] 20:14, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
			<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:88%;">( • • • • ]<span class="sysop-show"> • ]</span> • • <span class="sysop-show"> • ] • </span><span class="checkuser-show"> • ], unblock request}}}} checkuser] ()</span>) </span>
	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. ] 22:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
			{{clear}}
			----
			If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the ], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the '']''. <br><small>Please note that there could be appeals to the ] that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.</small><p></p></div><!-- Template:Blocked talk-revoked-notice -->
			_________
			{{user Platonist Wikipedians}}
			{{User:Xoloz/UBX/Template User Drug-free}}

	== ~~THANKS~~ TO ~~YOU~~ ==		== "CBAN with prejudice" ==

			] (]) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
	Thank you brother, I looked to your user page, it is wonderful, thank you for your support about the decision against propaganda on Misplaced Pages, best wishes for you and thanks much , HUMANITY WILL PREVAIL! --]

	==~~Danby~~==		== Restore TPA ==

			{{ping\|Jpgordon }} User wants me to carry latest UTRS to AN to request unbanning. Did not realize you removed talk page access in July. Thoughts? ] (]) 23:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
	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 Misplaced Pages and yourself to legal action. You have now been warned, so will not be able to plead ignorance if you repeat this posting. ] 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. ] 06:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

			:I don't imagine much better response to any request than than the one you linked to above. "With prejudice" generally means STFU. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:41, 6 September 2024 (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. ] 06:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
			::DFO and I had a little discussion on IRC a few days ago about this and when El C's name popped up on my watchlist I thought it worth asking about his intent with the close, not having realized this conversation existed. Anyhow here's a ] but the bottomline of El C as closer wasn't to forbid any future appeals ever. I will also repeat, as I did there, that the last appeal I saw from this year did not inspire confidence or make me want to see them unblocked but as a matter of fairness (and precedent) want to be clear on what the intent of that close was. ] (]) 22:24, 6 September 2024 (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. ] 06:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
			:::A sincere thanks, Barkeep49, for following up to clarify that statement. --] (]) 22:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

			::::Will likely carry their appeal over today. {{ping\|Yamla\|jpgordon}} ] (]) 16:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
	==]==
			:::::per <span class="plainlinks"></span>, restoring talk page access in anticipation of carrying unblock request to the community and to request affirmation that the person at utrs is cognition. ] (]) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
	You have been reported for a ] 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
			::::::Will need a check user once the appeal gets going ] (]) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

			:::::::Awaiting response here or at UTRS. ] (]) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Drug free Wikipedians ==
			::::::::Appellant unresponsive awaiting response here. Utrs ticket marked expired ] (]) 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

			:::::::::Happy to do a CU to (hopefully) confirm no recent block evasion, if the user prepares their unban request. If another CU beats me to it, that's fine as well of course. --] (]) 22:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
	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 ], as you saw. I'm not sure you're helping your cause by linking to it from other similiar places. ] 17:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
			::::::::::thanks. Still no response. ] (]) 22:31, 19 September 2024 (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 ] to the encyclopedia does not reflect well on your judgement. ] 18:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

	==Neocon cult==
	] ] 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. --] \| ] 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 ] page. --] \| ] 16:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

	Adam Carr can discuss his conversation with the administrators on the ] 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. ] 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

	== Please be aware of POV ==

	Please read ]. Your edits on ] were pretty blatant, despite your edit summary assertions to the contrary. I can see others are complaining of similiar issues on other articles. ] 16:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
	:Please read ]. 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. ] 16:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

	==Wikimediation==

	I've just started a new page at ] 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. ] 20:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

	== unfree image ==

	==]==
	<!-- Please note that if it says "Editing Template:Idw-pui (section)" at the top then you are editing the master copy of this template. You might want to cancel this edit and use the "edit this page" tab on your user talk page instead. -->
	{\| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 2px solid #FF5500; background-color: #F1F1DE"
	\|-
	\| '''Image deletion warning'''
	\| The image ] has been listed at ]. 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 ] to provide the necessary information.
	\|} -] 00:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

	== Craig Isherwood, Adam Carr and 3RR ==

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

	] has claimed he is taking a break from Misplaced Pages. It's possible he will be gone for a few days, but he usually comes back after throwing a temper tantrum. Anyhow, remember the ] 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages justice grinding though. ] 10:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

	==no personal blogs==

	I told you before, you can't use a Misplaced Pages 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, ]. ] 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". ] 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, ], and leave acceptable user pages alone. ] 04:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	== User page reverts ==

	See ]. Here's a relevant bit:

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

	* A weblog relating your non-Misplaced Pages activities
	* Extensive discussion not related to Misplaced Pages
	* Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)
	* Opinion pieces not related to Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 04:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	:: Apparently I was mistaken. ] 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	Here's another bit from ]. 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. ] 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)
	] 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 ], it's apparently normal for the community to edit the page of a user who disregards complaints about its content. ] 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. ] 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." --] 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. -] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

	:I disagree. --] 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. ] 00:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

	If you check the history there have already been edit wars not involving Cognition over these photos, ] 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... - ] 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. ] 07:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

	'''Cognition:''' In case you were not aware, there is a discussion of this issue going on at ]. Thanks, ] 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. --] 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, ] 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. ] 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, ] 22:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

	:See ], ] 17:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

	== ] violation on ] ==

	You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule, which you acknowledged via edit summary, on the article {{article\|Kim John-il}}. 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. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 02:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

	== Eminem ==

	Not sure what you intended by . Please be aware of ] and ]. ] ] 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 ], as this is a Rastafarian idea, probably realised during a herb filled grounation, ie reasoning session. My congratulations, ] 21:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

	== Vandalism ==

	You've been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism and ] at ]. If you feel this block is mistaken or unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me via the link on my user page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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), ] 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)



	== GFDL ==

	I removed the GFDL tag from some images which you uploaded. ], ], ], and ]. 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. -] 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, -] 03:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
	::It goes without saying. They are all old and being freely reproduced by other websites. ] 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. -] 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. ] 04:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

	== Richard III ==

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

	Cheers,

	] ] 09:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

	:If I may, see this interpretation of history from Lyndon LaRouche,
	:*''...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, -] 10:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

	In this case the Misplaced Pages 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, ], 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 Misplaced Pages would probably disagree with me; and, I suppose, they are entitled to do so. ] 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

	:There may also be some at Misplaced Pages, 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. --] 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
	::I understand the point in your reassurances. is being made public now that there will be little room for them to hide and deny. ] 01:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

	Such as the evil cannabis baron Queen Elizabeth? ] 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. ] 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, ] 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 ]ian. Those ideas have been discredited time and time again-- they just keep on reaping their ugly head in new form all the time. ] 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? ] 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 ], 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, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
	:Point taken. ] 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
	:::I have a non-LaRouche source. The source is from the Lebedev Physical Institute. Read the article on ]; 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. ] 03:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
	::::Please supply a credible third-party source (not LaRouche, not Misplaced Pages) on the talk page of the article, so I can read what it says. The sources in the article don't mention LaRouche. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
	:::::This is the only source on the page, and it says nothing about LaRouche. So what source are you talking about? Please link to it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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 ] and ], 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
	:::::::::See 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? ] 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

	== No personal attacks ==

	You have been warned previously about placing attacks on Misplaced Pages editors on your user page. It is not acceptable behavior. ]. I have removed them. -] 11:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

	:It seems to me that this is an incorrect and perhaps somewhat self-serving interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages draws a distinction, in those rare cases where a public figure is also an editor, between the public figure and his Misplaced Pages incarnation. ] 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 ]. --] 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

	==]==

	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 Misplaced Pages operates in theory, but rather the way in which it operates in practice (see ]).

	What I would recommend that you do, without a great deal of optimism, is post a concise report at ]. Note that SlimVirgin has violated Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages regulations when it suits their POV agenda, and ignore them when it doesn't. --] 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

	==Kim Jong Il==
	there is now a poll at ] 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.] 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

	==Heads up==

	Hi, there, Cognition. I can't participate in , but you can. --] 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 Misplaced Pages, following the arbcom ruling.

	The articles on the LaRouche template are regarded as "closely related." Many thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:31, 19 September 2024

Eternal gratitude to a hero, peacemaker, and martyr

  Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, "Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me?" If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.'  -- [https://larouchepac.com/ Lyndon H. LaRouche, economist, philosopher, statesman, scientific thinker

MARTIN LUTHER KING AND LYNDON LAROUCHE

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Now that LaRouche has passed, Misplaced Pages's punitive arbitration rulings against him should be null and void. My account was banned due to disputes stemming from those rulings. Please unblock my account. My first order of business would be helping to improve the Lyndon LaRouche article to give a more balanced accounting of his legacy. Cognition (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions" but haven't really addressed most of that. Note that you are also banned, not blocked, so any unban discussion would have to go to the community. Please keep that in mind; your unblock request will be copied over to an admin noticeboard for community discussion, so needs to fully address the reasons for your block. For future reviewers, note that this is mostly a procedural decline. I'm declining on the basis this is a ban, not a block, and there's not enough justification for unbanning here, to consider copying it over to an admin noticeboard. It's not a ruling on the merits of unbanning. Yamla (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And I seriously doubt that Mr. LaRouche's death will have a salutary effect on your editing and interactions. On the contrary, the subtext is that you now feel it grants you a carte blanche because you believe BLP and your sanctions no longer apply. I might consider an unblock w/ a TBAN on LaRouche in particular and post-1932 US politics in general. You also in no way have given any meaningful assurance that problems will not recur and you have not described what constructive edits you might make. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I sincerely apologise for all the disruption I've caused, and those usernames that were reported as confirmed in 2009 were all operated by me. I've been struggling with stress and mental health issues which impaired my judgment. It has been a long time since I last edited here. I promise to stick to this and one account only, and my focus will be on adding information and copy-editing, and staying away from contentious areas, including LaRouche and politics. Cognition (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We will not consider an unblock request from a sockpuppet. Please sign in with your original account, or make a request on your own talk page. I will go block your account in a moment. Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

please post your arguments

for unbanning below so they may be carried over to WP:AN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I pledge to follow all Misplaced Pages policies. My arguments consist of my pledge, plus the fact that Mr. LaRouche has passed away, and that more than a decade has passed since my ban. I have learned my lesson after nearly 13 years. Cognition (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla: Would you care to carry the request to WP:AN. I'm just plain out of time. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Cognition, there's zero chance the community will sanction an unblock given the above statement. It's nowhere near sufficient and doesn't come close to addressing your violations. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to use for your unban appeal? I'm afraid if I copy this across, I'll be sanctioned for wasting people's time. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I'm not sure how to address my violations other than to acknowledge and apologize. Yes, I used to relish in antagonizing Mr. LaRouche's political opponents on this site. Misplaced Pages is not the proper arena for that; and, again, yes, I do understand that for moving forward. Despite that, I did make a number of useful contributions, of which I am quite proud, especially my contributions on the Martin Luther King article. Cognition (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". You need to address all of those points. You also need to address the concerns that, just because Mr. LaRouche has passed away, we don't believe this will meaningfully change your edits. Finally, are you willing to abide by a topic ban on Mr. LaRouche and on post-1932 US politics? --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will meaningfully change my edits, especially being careful to avoid BLP violations on public figures I oppose. I would like to return to editing topics related to Mr. LaRouche and contemporary U.S. politics, but understand I may have to go through a period where I prove myself before editing any potentially contentious subject matter. Cognition (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That's nowhere near close to addressing your problematic edits and I'm unwilling to copy that request to the admin noticeboard because of WP:SNOW. You are welcome to step back, think through your previous behaviour, and write a new paragraph addressing each of the points in turn. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Cognition (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is my point by point response to everything cited in the ban.

I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.

Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Misplaced Pages to promote their POV. Misplaced Pages is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Misplaced Pages's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.

In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! Cognition (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla I don't know if there was a discussion at AN about this yet. But I have to mention that not giving someone a second chance after 13 YEARS sounds completely unreasonable to me. Thinker78 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not available to work on this till Tuesday. If no one beats me to it, I'll work on it then. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Have you edited while not logged in over the last 6 months? If so, you might wish to try again in 6 months (without editing while logged out or socking in the interim). Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

I just found out that the admin who unilaterally blocked me is no longer active on Misplaced Pages. No one notified me the entire time. May God spare her soul. With that said, it's now past due to reconsider the ban against me. My ban was previously rendered irrelevant by the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, who tragically left us back in 2019. While I was an editor, the arbitration committee sanctioned the use of sources from any scientific, journalistic, and scholarly organizations to which Mr. LaRouche contributed. Though my edits to LaRouche-related articles were minimal, I was targeted by the admin in question because I posted one or two comments on my userpage favorable to Mr. LaRouche , amid a plethora of other content. Yes, I made some mistakes (for which I have already apologized publicly), but I am ready to resume my outstanding contributions, such as my work on the Martin Luther King article. While long overdue, now that Mr. LaRouche and the blocking admin in question are gone, I ask the community to move on and lift the ban against me. Please lift my ban. Respectfully, Cognition (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per , your unban request was declined unanimously and with prejudice. I'm sorry to say, this is the end of the line for you on en.wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You still need to address the specific points of the block; it appears you tried to do so above. Is this the statement you would like copied to WP:AN(perhaps combined with your point-by-point comments above)? 331dot (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please and thank you for your assistance with this request. I am eager to get back, finally. Cognition (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have transferred it. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Hello all, I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Buy it has been almost a year; and I'd like to try again. This time I would like to make clear that I do not intend to resume the same tactics that triggered my ban nearly two decades ago. Please lift the ban so that I can get back to work making Misplaced Pages a better site for all involved. Cognition (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you wish. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you let it go to a vote? That was almost a year ago; and I said I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Cognition (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It was closed with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your request. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

But now that I think about it, reading over the request I wrote last year, maybe I didn't help my cause brining up SlimVirgin, which might have triggered a sympathy vote against me. This time I won't mention her. Why after 18 years I'm still not given another chance is beyond me. Cognition (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your avenue of appeal is to go to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(ec) The community decided, on your last request, that this was the end of the line for community discussion around your block. That's why that venue is not open to you now. Only WP:ARBCOM is open to you now. --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I do that? I can only edit this page. 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Cognition (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Email them according to the directions given at WP:ARBCOM. ArbCom, if you are reading this, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on CU data. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Cognition, @Yamla, and @331dot Arbcom only hear CBAN appeals for when "there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (WP:UNBAN); as far as I can tell there are no serious or raised concerns about the ban's validity, so an appeal is out of our scope. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand, though the user seems to feel that way(regardless of their accuracy). If ArbCom had determined there is nothing for them to resolve, this is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Moneytrees. I concur with 331dot. Cognition, this is the end of the line. You have no further options. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

no reason provided

Decline reason:

In light of the recent presidential debate here in America, which has led many to question their blind adherence to false mainstream media nostrum once considered unquestionable, I appeal once again to reverse my nearly two decade old block. It will just take one admin with the guts and courage. Please lift my block! The encyclopedia will be better for it. Cognition (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

_________

This user is a Platonist.

This user is drug-free.

"CBAN with prejudice"

Permalink to discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Restore TPA

@Jpgordon: User wants me to carry latest UTRS to AN to request unbanning. Did not realize you removed talk page access in July. Thoughts? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't imagine much better response to any request than than the one you linked to above. "With prejudice" generally means STFU. --jpgordon 00:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

DFO and I had a little discussion on IRC a few days ago about this and when El C's name popped up on my watchlist I thought it worth asking about his intent with the close, not having realized this conversation existed. Anyhow here's a link to that conversation but the bottomline of El C as closer wasn't to forbid any future appeals ever. I will also repeat, as I did there, that the last appeal I saw from this year did not inspire confidence or make me want to see them unblocked but as a matter of fairness (and precedent) want to be clear on what the intent of that close was. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A sincere thanks, Barkeep49, for following up to clarify that statement. --Yamla (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Will likely carry their appeal over today. @Yamla and Jpgordon: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

per UTRS appeal #92922 , restoring talk page access in anticipation of carrying unblock request to the community and to request affirmation that the person at utrs is cognition. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Will need a check user once the appeal gets going -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Awaiting response here or at UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Appellant unresponsive awaiting response here. Utrs ticket marked expired -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to do a CU to (hopefully) confirm no recent block evasion, if the user prepares their unban request. If another CU beats me to it, that's fine as well of course. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks. Still no response. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)