Hello all
I have contributed to articles and discussion pages as “unsigned” in the past, but have decided to create an account in so I can put a user name on my casual but firm stand to battle intellectual revisionism.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to
Dan Seals (Illinois politician). Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Ironholds (
talk) 16:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is your final warning; please stop removing content from the Dan Seals (Illinois politician) page. If you feel there is an issue with the article's content discuss it on the talk page before making such large changes. Ironholds ( talk) 16:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted, that the outcome of the discussion above, was that my revisions were indeed correct, and NOT vandalism Cosand ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As a person of mixed race myself I have to tell you I find your post at the Obama talk page odious in the extreme. There's already quite enough real, foul racism in the world without cynical opportunists exploiting the word merely as a means to insult a group of people who are trying, in good faith and without any prejudice, to arrive at a form of words appropriate to an encyclopedia that's a global resource. Our discussion contains nothing that even remotely jusifies your personal attack on the participants as racist bigots. Please read WP:NPA. Kindly remove your repellant and personally offensive remarks or I shall post a block request at AP:ANI. — Writegeist ( talk) 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- As a courtesy, this is to inform you that I have now brought this to the attention of admins at WP:ANI. — Writegeist ( talk) 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, Writegeist must have misunderstood my words Cosand ( talk) 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to know that. I've closed the issue at ANI and posted a reply to your message on my talk page. All the best, Writegeist ( talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Message added 13:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 13:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome talk:RepublicanJacobite|The'FortyFive']] 19:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The above is written off as the passive aggressive posturing that it is
Cosand (
talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Those with agendas should start a blog and get over it
Thanks for adding the section on organized crime. Good stuff. Herostratus ( talk) 18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I asked you to cite primary sources on the Talk:Texas_Revolution page and you have now responded by making the changes you wanted on the article itself and then sourcing blogs-- which themselves cite no sources. We need to be able to work together to insure our biases do not drive our edits. When a disagreement between editors exists, sources are the determinate.
Calmly and respectfully engaging the discussion is recommended. Ignoring the discussion or escalating to statements such as (to me) "you should start by reading a sixth grade history book" and, if I recall correctly, you entered the discussion by comparing the Texans to Nazis-- these do nothing to elevate your position. --
cregil
(talk) 05:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Misrepresenting my statements and claiming I gave no citations when in fact I did, does nothing elevate your position. I cited TWO (texas based) college sites Cosand ( talk) 03:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, you provided no citations of source-- you cited blogs, fool. Later, you went back and added citations from random sources which did not support the wild claims you had made, and in some cases, did not address the subject at all. The closest you came was finding student book reports on a college instructor's personal pages-- which you didn't read, because if you had, you would have found they explicitly denied the claim you made. But you are so proud that you found something (even book reports that don't agree with you) on a University cite. Goodness, did you think others don't verify sources just because you do not?
- Since then, you have deleted tags, deleted contributions of several team members, renamed headings, defied third party decisions, and resorted to name calling and hate speech in lieu of engaging the discussion on the talk page.
- You are a troll and a vandal-- I mean... This very pages is a running chronology of your trolling vandalism-- and you are not even keeping up with it-- try as you might. You need a hobby. -- cregil (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Anti intellect and historical bias at it's best, thanks for proving my point. Clearly it is yopu who needs a hobby, a simple non complicated one. The Texas revolution was based on a desire to maintain slavery, if you don't know this, I would suggest you avoid historical discussion with educated adults Cosand ( talk) 21:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism and Wiki in general but you do not need to sign your edits. Edits aren't owned by the editor and should only be signed on talk pages, not the article itself. Coinmanj ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
My mistake and my apologies Cosand ( talk) 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MrOllie ( talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to resolve this, and the result is TWO editors claiming their opinion supersedes that of nearly a dozen others who have contributed to the page. Cosand ( talk) 17:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Please act like an adult
Cosand (
talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe he *is* acting like an adult. The complaint at
WP:AN3#User:Cosand reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Warned) has been closed with a warning to you.
Cosand continues to add mentions of sex clubs that are sourced only to their own web sites. He restores these after others remove them. If he continues to revert war, and to add material that has no reliable sources, he may be blocked.
- EdJohnston ( talk) 13:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You are lying by omission, by failing to point out several others have contributed similar material to the same page. I ask again, please act like an adult
There is no edit war, only you and two others who beleive your opinions supersede that of a dozen editors who have contributed to a page, please grow up Cosand ( talk) 17:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note that I have raised this again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - MrOllie ( talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll be restoring the accurate cited information back to the sex club page soon...Wikinazis are pathetic
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, as you did at
User_talk:MrOllie, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please do not make comments like "Grow up wikinazi and get a hobby". And you would be wise not to continue behavior that has already caused you to be previously blocked.
King of Nothing (
talk) 06:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
LOL...it's a WEB site 'King"...one not a SINGLE educated venue accepts as a reference...this discussion I have been having for the past 3 months off and on is and you "Sr Editors" agreeing with my opposition is EXACTLY why...TOO MUCH accurate information is "nonencyclopedic"..really? Dumb down an already dubious source of info...be my guest Cosand ( talk) 06:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding the material about the "Rename Negro Creek Controversy" to the Articles about the Counties of Illinois. It
does not belong in those articles, is
not supported by the sources provided, does not adhere to a
neutral point of view, among other problems. These edits have been
reverted, just as they were reverted earlier today by another User when
you made them while signed out. Please be aware that
making edits while signed out will not prevent others from scrutinizing those edits and knowing who made them. Continue with this behavior and you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
King of Nothing (
talk) 07:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
A page created by people active in the name change is not acceptable?....how about news reports that go back to 2009? with those additions make it acceptable under the (subjective) and selective Wikipedia rules? Cosand ( talk) 19:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is what I posted in thye talk page of Buereau county....please reply in the open talk page....Please stop removing the cited and documented rename negro creek information. It is cited, documents and there are scores of examples across Wikipedia in which local issues are noted on the page of the locality Cosand ( talk) 19:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No, A page created by an advocacy group that are advocating for the name change is not a reliable source of the "Controversy". And it does not belong on every article for each of the counties in Illinois. The material you are repeatedly adding, both through this User Account and your IP Address contains no sources to any reliable or verifiable source to the existent of a controversy and doesn't contain any information as to why it is relevant to those articles. However, proper citation is only just one of the many problems with your recent edits. Even if you don't agree with a Wikipedia policy, and by you comments it appears you don't agree with any of them, does not mean that you are immune to following them. King of Nothing ( talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
So in an effort to comply with ALL of Wikipedia's policies, I will ask you again, if I include citations from no less that 5 newspapers from around the country and well an NPR and PBS stories on the controversy, will that satisfy Wikipedia's requirements? Please let me know, along with any other requirements. I would be happy to confine the contribution to Bureau county, and omit it from the townships...fair enough? PS for the record, me not signing in was NOT an attempt to conceal who I was, it was an over site....and with all due respect, I have no issues with ANY policy, so long as they are uniformly enforced...my issue with Wikipedia is that this is seldom the case..it is constructive criticism, not condemnation (The sex page fiasco was a CLASSIC example of cherry picked rules) Cosand ( talk) 19:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If I get no answer I will try it again with additional citations later on and confine it to Bureau county, apparently it is easier to ask forgiveness than get permission Cosand ( talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The citations are only one of the many issues. First, if you just add it to a bunch of articles (like you did to De Pue, Illinois, Cherry, Illinois, Seatonville, Illinois, Bureau County, Illinois, and Negro Creek), it will be removed as duplicating something everywhere is really bad. But even if you properly sourced it, so that it was verifiable and does not say something that is not said in the sources (as you current content does), and rewrote it up to Wikipedia Standards, you are still going to have 2 major problems: the first is Notability and the second is the fact that the material is inappropriate for those articles. Think about it, out of everything that should be included in that article, why should your content be included? Wikipedia is not just a list of everything that goes on everywhere. If you include this information in any of the articles that you have entered it into so far, then other Editors will delete it. None of us are out to get you, it just doesn't belong in those articles. Even if you can find other Articles that have trivial information that does not belong there under various policies and should be removed, does not mean that people are gonna leave inappropriate material in those articles just because we haven't yet removed it everywhere (It's like: why remove my vandalism, you haven't removed the vandalism form Article X or Y, so why remove mine?). The logic is not: don't remove content that violates policy from one article just because we haven't removed it everywhere. What I suggest is write your own article about this controversy (properly and reliably sourced and properly written and including nothing that isn't explicitly stated in the sources, of course). If you do this other editors will help you expand it and make sure it follows policy. And even if others try to get the Article deleted, their will be a discussion about it and it may either not be deleted or merged into a more appropriate article. Here are some links that will help you in writing the article: Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Starting an article, and Wikipedia:Article development. King of Nothing ( talk) 03:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what bad experiences you had with other editors and I'm going to assume that you are here for the reason any good Editor is: to improve or maintain the encyclopedia. But, if someone removed content you added (especially if several different people do) it is a very bad idea to just re-add it. At that point it is on the person who wants to add the material into the Article to go to the Talk Page and get consensus for it (I know this can be a pain especially if you are in the right in the situation, but even if you "know" you are in the right you still have to go through this process). I'm not trying to annoy you or censor you or anything else. The only thing I'm trying to do is help you to be able to add content that will not just be reverted by other editors. If you take my advise and write your own article based on the content you're trying to add, I'll be happy to help. And in regard to some of your earlier comments: Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be added to Wikipedia: only things that are verifiable, based on reliable sources, and notable under Wikipedia standards can be added. P.S. When sending a message to another editor do so on their Talk Page, not their User Page; as adding to someone else's User Page will be reverted. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing ( talk) 03:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have indeed had "bad experiences" with other editors, namely those who judge content not on accuracy or notability, but on personal bias and brain numbing nit picking over semantics, and those who believe a "consensus' consists of two vocal editors as opposed to the 50 who worked on a page, but arrant at that moment checking on it's status. I could go on about my issues with Wikipedia but that is neither here nor there.(Although I wish there was a forum somewhere to discuss them...IMHO as a researcher, activist and writer....wikipedia, particularly the English langage version, is becoming a clearing house for the LOWEST common denominator for information and content, dumbed down to a standard as to avoid offending the least intelligent among us.I would be happy to discuss this with you some time ) As to my current issue with getting the controversy listed at LEAST on the Bureau county page ( confess putting on every towns page was a bit much) I can NOW,TODAY solve the Notability issue, this has been covered in publications from the NY times to local 3 day a week paper so that is not an issue. One can find HUNDREDS of examples of pages on cities, towns, counties and States where a controversy like this is covered in a wikipedia page. Thus there should be NO issue with"verifiable, reliable sources, and notable" I will ask for a consensus on the talk page and if I may assume silence is acceptance and if you feel a need to correct me, please do. Fair enough I hope Cosand ( talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Since asking for a consensus I have re posted the information with additional citations. ONE editor who clearly has ties to the opposition has objected AFTER the fact so I continue to seek a consensus. Thank you for your help King of Nothing Cosand ( talk) 04:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems the issue has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, thanks to all Cosand ( talk) 05:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good, Cheers. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing ( talk) 05:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
|
The WikiProject Illinois Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is to thank you for completing the difficult but crucial task of making the Rod Blagojevich article into a useful reference. Fishal ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)