我强烈不同意中国政府和互联网的审查它法西斯主义的实践从它自己的人民。为那些您在中国之后伟大的防火墙，您能访问由中国的防火墙当前阻拦) 的boingboing.net (通过这个链接这里:

链接被翻译从英语到汉语

I strongly disagree with the Chinese govt. and its fascist practice of censorship of the internet from its own people. For those of you behind the great firewall of China, you can access boingboing.net (which is currently blocked by China's firewall) through this link here:

http://markchristian.org/projects/dbb/random.php

Thursday, April 20, 2006
Google in China: The Big Disconnect
Snip from an extensive feature by Clive Thompson in the NYT:

The small rooms were full of eager young Chinese men in hip sweatshirts clustered around enormous flat-panel monitors, debugging code for new Google projects. "The ideals that we uphold here are really just so important and noble," Lee told me. "How to build stuff that users like, and figure out how to make money later. And 'Don't Do Evil' " — he was referring to Google's bold motto, "Don't Be Evil" — "all of those things. I think I've always been an idealist in my heart."

Yet Google's conduct in China has in recent months seemed considerably less than idealistic. In January, a few months after Lee opened the Beijing office, the company announced it would be introducing a new version of its search engine for the Chinese market. To obey China's censorship laws, Google's representatives explained, the company had agreed to purge its search results of any Web sites disapproved of by the Chinese government, including Web sites promoting Falun Gong, a government-banned spiritual movement; sites promoting free speech in China; or any mention of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. If you search for "Tibet" or "Falun Gong" most anywhere in the world on google.com, you'll find thousands of blog entries, news items and chat rooms on Chinese repression. Do the same search inside China on google.cn, and most, if not all, of these links will be gone. Google will have erased them completely.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/20/google_in_china_the_.html

4/20/06 Heckler disrupts Chinese President Hu's speech on south lawn at White House: 'President Bush, stop him from killing'... 'Stop persecuting the Falun Gong,' she yelled... She also shouted in Chinese, 'President Hu, your days are numbered, No more time for China's ruling party'... woman was taken away by uniformed secret service officers... right after Bush urged Hu to allow Chinese to 'speak freely'... She also unfurled a yellow 'Falun Gong' banner... She had a temporary pass with a big 'T' on it...

On China TV: As Hu Jintao was speaking, as yells of protesters became audible, the screen went black. Feed then came back and once again went black when woman was once again audible. During CNN International's post-speech commentary, at mention of south lawn heckler, screen went black again... feed returned when topic was no longer being discussed...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/20/D8H3Q6104.html

Please stop the reverting of people trying to make the Neil Bush article better. It isn't vandalism, it's an attempt to come to some sort of concensus wording. BlazinBuggles 15:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with BlazinBuggles: please try to assume good faith and not refer to those edits with which you simply disagree as vandalism.--67.101.67.197 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Talk Page, have you? It's already been shown that this section belongs within the article according to wikiguidelines. I don't see an effort to make the article better, I see you going in and erasing huge chunks of a section without having consensus, policy, sources or good reasoning on your side. After the 10 millionth time or so this happens it's at that point beyond good faith and I'm going to call a vandal a vandal. Cowicide 15:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the talk page you are of course aware that both BlazinBuggles and I (and others) have made quite an effort to generate a compromise. You should also have noticed I have not made any recent edits to the article itself. I've noticed that some of those that have made edits that you have termed "vandalism" were actually not blind reverts but attempts at refactoring the wording. You may want to take another look.--67.101.67.197 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to "both" of you since you tend to act as one unit. I took another look and continue to see massive "blanking" with very minimal "rewording" of the section as opposed to "refactoring of the wording" and what's that other good one you use...? "consensus wording"...? Hmmm... all that ROTWing and CWing looks strangely enough like blanking (a.k.a. vandalism). Look, you can try to redefine reality all you want through talking points that mean nothing and confuse people, but it won't work on me. You're not smart enough. Later. Cowicide 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly suggest you entertain the possibility that, given that several editors appear to "act as one unit," perhaps there is an alternative viewpoint which should be taken into account in good faith. Although I'll note that if you read talk carefully you will notice that I am perhaps best considered to be inbetween the positions of, on the one hand, BlazinBuggles, Shortcut.Road, Schlotzky, & co., and on the other hand, you, Wikipediatrix, & (I think based on edits, because this user hasn't commented in talk), CharoletteWeb.--67.101.67.197 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the vandalism stops, I have no problem with alternative viewpoints and productive editing. We're never going to all agree on everything, but that's the nature of wikipedia. We need to come to a reasonable compromise instead of the nasty deletions of almost the entire section that's going on right now. Cowicide 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't know me, but your comment about "my occular" was quite hurtful. I do have considerable vision limitations, but my reading and comprehension is still very good. AuntEthel 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please get real, you just created your "account" and the only thing you've been able to "focus" on since is the Neil Bush article and the biased harrassment of those who think the Boris section belongs there. You are very obviously a sockpuppet afraid to show your IP address range. If you have any further issues with me, take it up with an administrator and see if they'll help a sockpuppet. They won't, but you are welcome to try. AuntEthel, I wish you luck with your occular challenges. Cowicide 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered very bad form to remove a POV tag added by another editor (Schlotzman on the Neil Bush article), *especially* when the editor who added it is not yet satisified and is actively participating in discussion. Also, please assume good faith and don't accuse other users (AuntEthel) of being sockpuppets.--67.101.66.89 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no disinterested 3rd party and consensus to add the POV tag so it has been removed until it's inserted properly. The neutrality issue has been resolved as far as I'm concerned. If you don't think that I can remove the POV tag because I'm not a disinterested 3rd party and haven't reached consensus then you must agree that it shouldn't have been added in the first place. You're locked into a catch-22. You have to either admit that an editor embroiled in the dispute without consensus shouldn't add the POV tag in the first place or you have to agree that I can remove it.

And...don't worry, we'll get a checkuser of all you guys and we'll see for sure who is the sockpuppets or not. Also, once again... we need a disinterested 3rd party to add the POV tag, not someone who uses it as a weapon in their "battle". I stand by my removal of the POV tag and will gladly stand by its addition by a DISINTERESTED 3rd party... not suspected sockpuppets and others who have been embroiled in this dispute. Is that civil enough for you/aunty/sockpuppets/whatever? Cowicide 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.101.66.89, BTW... speaking of single-purpose accounts and sock-puppets... I find it interesting that you, like Aunty... just appeared out of "nowhere" on Wikipedia and are suddenly full of insights into the dispute. Wow... you're amazing. How come you haven't used all that insight to edit anything anywhere else? Seems like almost all your small amount of effort at Wikipedia simply goes into one small section of one article's Talk page in regards to one small issue. I'll give you one thing... you're very focused... kind of like a focus group who pushes POV on behalf of others, but that's not you... right? You just so happened... heh... I'll stop here... you get the point. Welp, I'm going to put on my socks, get dressed and head out to work. Have a nice day. Cowicide 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I generally submit to answering this sort of personal attack about once a year, (some advice: normally the best response is to ignore it), but I haven't for 2006, so I'll give you the 2006 answer: I have been editing on wikipedia since 2002. While there are certainly some uses for using a login, I choose to not make one for several reasons, among which are the desire to avoid getting overly addicted. It's been a convenient situation that IPs have been further limited over the years - I don't have to feel obligated to start new articles or create new redirects, for instance. I also have made this choice due to certain beliefs on what the wikipedia community should be like. Among other things, I think day to day editors should have their edits and comments taken on the merits of their comments/edits, rather than what their edit count is, etc. For instance, while I certainly understand the valid opposing arguements, I think it'd be interesting to wipe out the ability for non-admins to see a user's edit history. I have indeed edited more articles than this one, on a wide range of subjects, although mainly trees, geology, and American cities. I will confess to following this article and several related ones (Pierce Bush, Ignite!) closely as I find them interesting and often the subject of occasional odd edit campaigns. I like to make sure I have a new DHCP IP every month or so, but one day I'll run out of new ones on the 67.101 subnet I suppose.--67.101.66.89 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention your other side benefit... no accountability. Cowicide 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are users too, isn't that what you said?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, stalking me on my talk page is not enough, now you are going to interject youself in years old conversations you (apparently) had nothing to do with? Ah, trying to pull my words out of context, are you? Pretty slimey... but it's only a nice try. IPs ARE, indeed, users too... but not when they are sockpuppets. That was the problem in this case. Since you seem to have limitless amounts of free time, you should look into it further and then you might realize what an ass you just made out of yourself. LOL. I wonder... if you were one of the sockspuppets that got burned and this is your revenge? LOL, if so... LOL Cowicide (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an online encyclopedia you edit for a hobby, eh? Chill. JChap2007 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell the hunnybunnies to be cool and everything will be all right. ya dig? Cowicide 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a heads up that you will want to comment here. --67.101.67.107 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Amazon Watch, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://amazonwatch.org/about_us/. As a copyright violation, Amazon Watch appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Amazon Watch has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Amazon Watch. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Amazon Watch, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. BuddingJournalist 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[leaving this here, a you seem more active here]

This is sorta related to the wikinews ticker, so I thought you may be interested. See n:Wikinews:Water_cooler#WikiNews_Widget. Bawolff 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you participated in this discussion on whether the article should be removed. Now we are discussing whether it should be moved. The discussion is mostly me and one other editor, and I think we are hitting deadlock time and again. I am not asking you to informally mediate, but another opion would be nice.

The actor who first played Floyd Lawson was replaced by someone else. Then, the way I read it, they decided to make it more plausible by having the second actor say he was the first Floyd's son instead. Clarityfiend 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have in someways agreed to my comment that I made on the talk page of article Blackwater. It seems like you were joking, but just to make sure. Do you believe in conspiracy theory (I assume you already know what it is)? If so, would you mind joining me? Xia Xia.Amphitere —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Cowicide 11:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking on this in my head since my last edit. What if I just left the section for now, and we worked on moving small sections at a time into the body text, erasing them as they are moved until we are left with something smaller than what we have now?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks! Cowicide (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we were able to work this out peacefully.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 05:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idle note/commet/question. I always try to remain civil, I never take the editing of an article personal, whether I created it(I haven't created anything yet, so that doesn't really matter), or contributed to it.

To the question, when you first got here, would you have reacted the same to what happened here?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand the question. When I first started using Wikipedia you mean? I looked at that link and not sure what reaction you're referring to specifically. I got kinda bored reading through it since I had trouble figuring out who was talking to whom, etc. Either way, yes, I'm think you ended up handling our situation amicably and, once again, thanks. I'll help move stuff or whatever is needed when I get some time soon. Regards,Cowicide (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus, I have a proposition for you. Let's change the name from Trivia, etc. to "Notable Motifs". Observe that section in the Pulp Fiction article here. There you'll see er, "references" found throughout the movie, etc. Everything from a combination code on a suitcase to how the film features scenes of bathrooms and toilets. This section in the Pulp Fiction article is just the tip of the iceberg in references, trivia, etc. found throughout the article.

I am NOT criticizing the Pulp Fiction article, but if you honestly want to make it your mission to clean up Wikipedia movie entries... based on your previous statements, I would think you would focus just as much effort or more deleting sections of the Pulp Fiction article. (Which I think would ruin the article as it has done here)

I have a feeling that due to the massive popularity of Pulp Fiction, you would find a swift and expansive attack against your efforts coming from many directions and you would end up crawling away with your tail between your legs. Unlike Pulp Fiction, Repo Man has a far more esoteric appeal and didn't come anywhere near the mainstream success of Pulp. But, is that how wikipedia works in your eyes? If a film garners more financial mainstream success you can "look the other way" when its article involves itself in tons of references, trivia, etc.? But, a lesser known work such as Repo Man should be ripped of its "Notable Motifs" off-hand?

The funny thing is, you initially launched an unprovoked insult calling me a hypocrite. With that in mind, I'd like to see you launch the same attack on the Pulp Fiction article (delete entire sections, etc. without consensus, etc.). Let's see how that goes, learn from that experience, and THEN come back here and lets apply a far more peer reviewed strategy for "making this article better" based on your "trial by fire" consensus experience at the Pulp Fiction article. That way you can experience a wide variety of opinions on the matter, reach true consensus and apply it just the same here. Good luck with that and don't forget your flame resistant underwear. Cowicide (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, seeing that you say one thing here then do another on the article and its talk page. Please stop cluttering up my talk page here. Any more issues you have should be discussed on the Article's talk page ONLY. Otherwise, I will simply start to copy and paste your words from here to there in order to show others there your two-faced deceptions. I copied my last response to you from this talk page to the article's talk page. Let's cut out the redundant waste of time and focus the discussion at the proper place instead of scattering it between here and there as you have. Cowicide (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not jump to conclusions, if you would bother to read the history of the article, you would see that I blanked the trivia section before I posted to your talk page. So please don't accuse me of lying.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for calling you a hypocrite alright, would you please stop calling me a coward? You aren't exactly being civil yourself.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you won't bother to do that, and I'll make it easy. First diff as you may note, takes place at 4/27/08 16:23. Second diff as you may also note, takes place at 4/27/08 17:29. At least an hour after my blanking of the Repo Man section. So please understand, I mean what I say in my first message on your talk page. Go on, post this one there too.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read your last entry above and I will not read anything you place here in the future. Quit spamming my talk page without READING what I say. If you want me to read what you have to say about the Repo Man article, then bring it up in the Repo Man Talk Page, NOT HERE. You are about to get a request for a ban. Now, AGAIN (this time with fucking emphasis): " ... Please stop cluttering up my talk page here. Any more issues you have should be discussed on the Article's talk page ONLY. Let's cut out the redundant waste of time and focus the discussion at the proper place instead of scattering it between here and there as you have. Cowicide (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reall point in that since I'm not really talking about the article anymore. I don't know why you aren't bothering to read the above, especially since it's an apology and a request for you to do the same. Please read the above, as you jumped to false conclusions. If you read the above, you will see by the evidence that I posted my response more then an hour after I blanked the section. So don't call my attempts at a resolution a 2-faced deception. You're taking this way to far. And to clarify, I have read everything you said.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTFO of my talk page, dick. Cowicide (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL, what is your problem? You're calling me a liar is without base, as shown by the diffs I presented. I even apologized for calling you a hypocrite.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ignoreing my request again and again... How civil is it to continously spam my talk page after I continuously ask you NOT to... DICK? Cowicide (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing this isn't spamming. If you would please read my messages, you would see what I am refering to.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still not reading your spam. Thanks for ignoring my request again and again... Please stop continuously spamming my talk page after I continuously ask you NOT to...ok, DICK? If you have issues with the Repo Man article, bring them up in it's Talk Page. I have nothing to discuss with you here. Cowicide (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your work on the Repo Man (film), I thought I'd alert you to this discussion, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_January_23#File:Repo_Man_CD_cover.jpg. Cheers. --evrik ^(talk) 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowicide. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cowicide, where you may want to participate. -- — Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical. Well, be aware that while you were screwing around with me preparing to waste time with this RFC. I posted more relevant info on the actual article's talk page. You want to make this issue about you and me while I just want to have a better article and not step all over the work of others and encourage contributions to Wikipedia. Is your life truly that devoid of things to do? Sad. And, once again, please quit harassing me on my Talk Page, Dick (<----be sure to spend your time quoting me there too on the RFC instead of actually working on improving the article or wikipedia for that matter) LOL Cowicide (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is a small issue with the article, but the main issue is about you and me, since you keep insulting me, and refuse to see the truth that I posted the comment about us working together on the article a hour after I blanked the section, which makes sense considering my initial comment was along the lines of I've been thinking a bit after my last edit.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still talking about.... "us"? LOL!! Seriously, your behaivor from the get-go helped set the tone and since then I haven't honestly given a fuck about "us". You go ahead and fret over "us" some more, I'll worry about the article. bye. Cowicide (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you set the tone by accusing me of falsities.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been civil this entire time, but you continue to be incivil.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, geez... if you've been so civil this entire time then why on earth did you apologize for how you acted in the first place? You know, the part where you came in like an asshole and deleted everyones work and without any provocation called me a hypocrite to top it off? LOL Get real. OK, now continue to stalk me on my Talk Page despite me asking you repeatedly to leave me alone. DICK, once again, please stop harrassing me on my talk page.(<----be sure to spend your time quoting me there too on the RFC instead of actually working on improving the article or wikipedia for that matter) Cowicide (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, civil. Calling someone a hypocrite, is not an insult, but something meant to call attention to a person not following their own rules. The rules in this case being WP policy. After realizing you took it as an insult, I apologized, but you? No. You continue to call me a dick, and refuse to apologize for calling me a coward, and liar, which, might I add, is completely wrong.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been nothing but incivil since you decided you were right in your assumption that I blanked the section after talking to you, which, as any user can easily check, is wrong.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man you are hilarious! It almost (but not quite) makes it worth it that you are going to try and trash everyone's work on that article! LOL Actually, the first thing you DID when you came in here was blank the section without talking it over with anyone and then sprinkled a nice insult over it to boot. Gawd, you are distorted, bro....

Now here's where you are getting funny as hell....

On the article talk page you say, " ... I already apologized for insulting you once, and when I was using the word, I was not using it as an insult. ..." which is hilarious, because there in the same sentence you say you were sorry for insulting me, but, ah... you didn't insult me. So you apologized for NOT insulting me? You asshole!!! LOL!!!!! :P Now here you are just now saying that calling me a hypocrite (specifically) is not an insult at all. Ok, well then calling you an asshole or dick isn't either, ok? ROTFL!!!!!! As a matter of fact, for now on, whenever I meet people I'll say, "hello there, hypocrite!" as a universal greeting of friendship and understanding.... ROTFL!!!!!! Hahaaha. BTW, I saw your nice comment you interjected into my serveral year old conversation up there, NICE! LOL Cowicide (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized because you took it as an insult, not me. I didn't mean it as an insult, but you obiviously took it as one. You took it as an offensive comment, so I apologize for making that offense. Now, please stop calling me a coward, a liar, and a dick.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not on contributors? That will be fantastic! That's what I've bee asking for quite a while now. Thanks! Hopefully, it will finally be reciprocated as well. Cowicide (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I think it is a good sign that you are willing to refocus on the article. I recommend that you follow that and keep an open mind towards any concerns or comments that appear in the discussion. Your name calling to Daedalus was uncivil as I warned you earlier, so please be careful in your choice of words when replying to other editors. I recommended to Daedalus that you "both stay away from each other until the issue is settled". I recommend that you stay off each other's talk pages (and mine); move on over who didn't or did do whatever; and do what we're all here for: improve articles on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance, Gogo, and I apologize for the name calling. Cowicide (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the invitation to comment, Cowicide, my contributions to the Repo Man article were remarkably minor. Until checking the article's history, I was actually certain that I had not touched the article in question. I appreciate the diverse amount of material available through trivia sections, but I also understand that expounding about trivia detracts from the Wikipedia's overall seriousness and credibility. As the saying goes, "I have no dog in this fight". I hope the two of you reach a satisfactory conclusion. EvilCouch (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Couch, actaully I was just picking editors (of this article) at random so we can hopefully get an unbiased general consensus on what to do next. Hopefully, some more people will come here over time and add solid stances on the issue or "have a dog" one way or another... LOL Cowicide (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I honestly want to start over/continue from where we left off, as in, before you accused me wrongly as being a liar. I never lied to you, and when I made the comment about a resolution to your talk page, that was an hour after I blanked the section.

Here:

Link to diff.

Header of diff:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daedalus969 (Talk | contribs) at 16:23, April 27, 2008. It may differ significantly from the current revision.

Link to diff.

Header of diff:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daedalus969 (Talk | contribs) at 17:29, April 27, 2008. It may differ significantly from the current revision.

As you can clearly see by the information I provided, I posted the new section on your talk page more then an hour after I blanked the section. I have not been trying to bait you, I only want you to see that I was telling the truth when I posted that section.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hadn't read this in a long time and saw where Daedalus969 was still stalking like celery even after I stopped reading anything he had to say. Very sad. Then again, how sad is it I'm gong back and reading my old Talk page right now? Heh... Cowicide (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. I believe that "alleged" has been considered and rejected in the lead of the article, on the grounds that, in fairness, we'd have to list the 1000s of reliable sources which are so alleging.

If my interpretation is correct, you may be blocked by an uninvolved admin with no futher warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unwarranted threat right off the bat. You can go fuck yourself. I never alleged any conspiracies and the link you gave had nothing to do with trying to add the proper wording of "alleged" to the article. Threaten me and requests bans on me all you want, but I just would like to see the article appear more encyclopedic with proper wording. That is all. Later Reuben. Cowicide (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what the above user said, this issue has been discussed repeatedly (1, 2, 3) and rejected. Stop adding it back into the article. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links that contain such brilliant arguments as:

" ... "Allegedly" is not neutral. It is an affirmation of doubt. ... The claim there is a dispute is not neutral. ... "

In other words, even though there IS a dispute (over 36 percent of Americans consider it likely that government officials either allowed the 9/11 attacks to be carried out or perpetrated the attacks) Wikipedia cannot perform as an encyclopedia and must instead bend reality and must use wording that makes it appear that there is no dispute. That's a nice line of bullshit, right there.

Well, I can tell by the hostility (threatened with a ban almost from the start) that this isn't going to go anywhere. So, I'll just join the masses that are coming to believe Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information on topics and is biased towards uncomfortable issues. Cowicide (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for threatening you with a block, but you added the material twice, in clear violation of the ArbCom agreement. I can't find a templated warning with a neutral wording. There certainly should be one, as there are at least four "discretionary admin sanctions" rulings that I can recall, Macedonia, one on German vs. Polish language of border communities, Homeopathy, and 9/11.

I don't think you'll find any measurable fraction of the population that doesn't believe that the 19 al Qaeda hijackers did it; the questions of whether the buildings also had explosives installed or whether they had help are subject to some debate.

As for Wikipedia, It's biased toward uncomfortable issues is right, although it's clearly not what you meant. We have a lot more material that is scientifically impossible than one would expect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please discuss any planned edits on the talk page first before implementing them. You will save yourself and the rest of us quite a bit of grief if you do so. You will also find that your concerns have been discussed repeatidly in the talk page archives. Consensus there has dictated that the edits you made are not warented. If you wish to dispute this, please read the talk page archives first, and then if you have something new, feel free to bring it up in a civil manner. Be warned, use of strong language as you have used here will not be tolerated on that talk page. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the talk page. I've spent the last days overhauling the article and I hope you are more satisfied with the article now. Feel free to contribute yourself. samj (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please not to attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Demon-Haunted World. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-02t10:21z

Just a heads-up if you plan to be editing at the Palin articles - they've been on community probation for quite while. I'd recommend taking a quick glance at the terms at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of some interest...Talk:Public_finance#Preference_revelation --Xerographica (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's an interesting read.Cowicide (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Koch Industries 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. . I haven't actually counted your reverts, but if the "top 10" had been in the article previously, you're at at least 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a template war is developing. I have not looked at who templated who first, but ... – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the receiving end first. And, I should note this warning I received was in error. I've only made 1 revert to bring back my edits after Arzel blanket removed them without discussion. Cowicide (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't know who did what first. Keep in mind that WP:BRD always applies, and always AGF. IOW, please don't think that because someone disagrees with you that vandalism is occurring, much less acuse them of it. One of your remarks to Rubin said "vandalism", and making such an unfounded remark can be very disruptive. (For more on this, see WP:NOTVAND.) It seems you have a certain opinion about Koch Industries. Don't come to WP in order to WP:RGW in this regard. It won't work and it will frustrate you to no end. Be WP:COOL and you will enjoy being a member of this community and project much more. I commend you for your ready willingness to strikeout the edit warning you gave to Rubin. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I received the 3RR warning first. Can't you check the timestamps if you really want to get to the truth of the matter? My remarks about vandalism was meant for Arzel, not Rubin. I only warned Arzel that if there was continued, rampant deletion of my edits without discussion that I would consider it vandalism of the article. In other words, destructive editing. But I apologize if that was speaking out of turn. Also, have you warned Arzel about good faith considering Arzel accused me of activism while deleting many edits without reasoning with me at all? Speaking of "certain opinions" of Koch Industries, have you looked at the others who are fighting fair, notable, truthful, sourced criticism that also make it clear they are libertarians who are "defending" Koch Industires? I have made it clear on the Talk page that I only want to stop the whitewashing and not have the article serve as a "hit piece" or participate in blackwashing. Also, if you look at my edits I have also put in favorable information about Koch Industries and their environmental awards. I also see that my 3RR warning hasn't been striked out. Why is that? Cowicide (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I haven't looked at the time-stamps. But I was concerned about Rubin. He is, in my opinion, an awesome Wikipedian. (And he has given me 3RR warnings.) The more important issue is for you to cool down. Rubin will remain cool 99% of the time. (I do not know about Arzel, but I suspect he will remain cool as well.) Cowicide, you are a relative newbie in the edit-count tally. That may not mean much overall, but edit counts have some validity. (For me, I've been transitioning more to mentoring type activities rather than gnomish article fixes and vandalism fights. At around 50k edits I might go for an administratorship. At 100k edits, I think I'll retire from WP. We will see.) For you, I advise taking some time to look at various WP:Essays. Those regarding civility are most important. They make for interesting reading, and you -- as a Wikipedian -- are free to add to and edit them. Please keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS is the principle way that changes are made on WP. If you build consensus about a particular edit or approach to an article, it will go into the article. But if you think that your edits, and yours alone, are appropriate, you will find consensus building against you. (Again, I am not looking at particular edits.) Whatever your opinion is about Koch et al is, it won't matter overall because someone will come along and "improve" the article even if you do not like the improvements. My advice? Make small, helpful, useful, and well-grounded edits to each article that concerns you. That is the way to go. You must keep an objective view about Koch and company. Purely objective. (Recognizing that everyone has bias.) That is the way to go. "Who did what to whom first!" will not work. Rather, I hope my words to the wise will help. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you work on being less biased in your approach in the future. Calling me a newbie and favoring people with more edits isn't a good start and isn't in the true spirit of Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, we focus on the content, not how many edits a user has (or if you happen to agree with their libertarian leanings). And, when you say, "Who did what to whom first!" will not work", I was only trying to answer what YOU brought up yourself (so please direct that to yourself next time). I see you haven't addressed the others in this fashion, so I guess I'm happy you've shown me your own biases so I know what to look forward to from you in the future. My advice? Stay objective despite who has more edits than another and perhaps don't let your own biases get in the way either. Once again, if you bother to look at my edits, I'm using factual events that are notable and well sourced. If you also look at my history, you'll see I've made scores of small, helpful, useful, and well-grounded edits throughout Wikipedia. But, it appears you only assumed I haven't done this. Maybe your bias against me clouded your vision on that one? Once again, if you truly want to keep Wikipedia less biased and have a more NPOV, then you too should be concerned with whitewashing and those that enable and/or contribute to the problem. Once again I ask you to focus on the content and not me. I hope my words to the wise will help. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Cowicide. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh, you've been here for years! Well, better late than .... Also, please take a few moments to read and refresh your recollection on these items. Let's get past this Koch nonsense. If you will consider yourself to be a Wikipedian first, and advocate second, you will enjoy being a member of the community much more. -- – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already consider myself to be a Wikipedian first, thank you. You may want to take a harder look at the others there who seem to be focusing on advocating for and defending Koch Industries first and are Wikipedians second. It's been quite a problem and the whitewashing continues. How about we work on the whitewashing of the article and then worry about me later? Cowicide (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You willingness to strike the 3RR comment validates your Wikipedian status. I commend you. Please don't think that the others are advocating or defending Koch. For instance, you wanted to add "claims to be", but Rubin correctly reverted your edit. Not because he is whitewashing the Koch article, but because he really is the best of Wikipedians. I want to worry about you now because I can see that these Koch edits might get under your skin. That results in a constant itching that fails to find relief as you scratch here and there, quite deeply, into the hide of Wikipedia. Other editors, such as Rubin, Azrel, and myself will come by and make editing corrections to the article inspite of what you'd prefer. In the long run, with their edits and yours, Wikipedia will improve. And it will improve as you become a more proficient editor. The WP:5P will guide you in that regard far more than andy worrying that I might spend on you. But please take my words to hear. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about consensus and notable facts. It's not about your opinion "that Rubin is the best of Wikipedians" and is therefore "correct". It's about the CONTENT, not how much you throughly enjoy a user or their conduct (or if you happen to agree with their libertarian politics as you mention on your User page, maybe?). This isn't my words, it's from the very core of Wikipedia's guidelines here (please read). I suggest you put aside your obvious biases that go against the spirit of Wikipedia and let's work on making the articles better instead of stroking egos and perhaps teaming up against me. Thank you for the cookie, but I did it all for the nookie. Cowicide (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cowicide, I tried to translate your Chinese on Google. Your webpage came up in the related search results. One of Wikipedia's goals is to keep the articles available for searching, but keep the other stuff out of search engine results. While I am putting this awkardly, WP does not allow editors to use WP as a host webpage. So that is why I have added the "magic words"__NOINDEX__ to the top of your userpage. (For more info, see WP:FAKEARTICLE and related guidiance.) The template will not show up on the page. But it may save some trouble later on. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your detailed scrutiny of my user page. Thank you so much. Cowicide (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I am. I hope you and the other libertarians find all kinds of ways to focus on me instead of the content of articles. Wee... It's getting close to time for me to get a bunch of unbiased administrators involved if this keeps up. You can't say you weren't warned once it happens. How about BE COOL and get off my back? In the meantime, I've been working on the article to make it less whitewashed while also ADDING Koch's side of things and positive press they've gotten to keep it balanced. Please don't ignore that. You know, focusing on the CONTENT instead of the user? Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after many years of service in local, state and federal government jobs I do have a libertarian outlook. And I post the fact on my userpage. But that does not mean I can't look at edits and see POVs. In this regard, your addition [1] had certain POV aspects. The main problem was the title of the section. Per WP:TPO, they should be neutral. (That is why I revised it.) Also, you used subsection headings to, in effect, WP:SHOUT your opinion about Koch. (I note you removed the subsectioning here [2] and here [3]. But the shouting is still in your remarks, and in your response to me, above.) Cowicide, as part our friendly discussion about no-indexing templates, you responded with WP:EGG comments about harassment and dispute resolution. I was acknowledging your very nice "Thank you", but your response was spiteful. Please, experience and proficiency in editing WP comes with time and effort. I do appreciate your efforts and worthwhile contributions. Please keep them up. But your edit count is weighted in the talk page area compared to article contributions. Seems you are spending more time and energy on the WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is no dispute between us regarding the Koch Industries article. My two edits were to the talk page to keep the discussion civil. What else have I done? I offered a belated welcome message and some advice about overall editing. (In effect, I'm trying to repeat that effort with this message.) If you cannot accept such gestures for what they are, you will be a very unhappy editor. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not stupid, it's obvious that you are focusing on me and not the others in a fair and balanced manner. You don't just have a libertarian "outlook" you have a clear bias you can't seem to contain. You look the other way at others that are desperately trying to keep Koch Industries in the best light possible while cracking down on me who is adding BOTH critical AND positive information to enhance the article. Oh yeah, the article? Remember the article? If you cannot contain your biases, you will continue to make yourself a very unhappy editor here on this Talk page. Obviously, everything I've said to you above means little or nothing to you because of your biases. You seem to only have nothing but praise for your libertarian buddies. Just stick with that. Go give them some awards or something. Meanwhile, I'm going to work on the article and make it a better quality article with less whitewashing (not that whitewashing of Koch Industries bothers you obviously). You're not wanted or needed here, but I'm sure you'll continue to stalk me and my edits anyway (as long as I'm focusing on the Koch Industries article with anything critical). It's obvious. You're not fooling anyone and I'm sure your libertarian buddies are very pleased. :) Back off. Cowicide (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To those who just sent the email threats against my life because of my Koch Industries edits, I'll have you know I enjoyed them and your IP address visits to our honeypots. Expect Us. It just inspires me even more to continue to unwash your whitewash and continue to work towards a Wikipedia with better NPOV Cowicide (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:CANVAS. One criteria of concern is the message being forwarded. It should be unbiased. The various editors you are contacting are indeed quite experienced. And with that experience in mind, I surmise they are familiar with canvasing guidelines. Accordingly, they are likely to ignore your request. (If they do chose to respond, I am confident they will provide valuable input.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be awful if we ended up with some people aside from biased libertarians like you here? It's telling that you're still stalking me and now fear more input from disinterested third parties. Don't worry, they're coming whether you like it or not. I'm wondering if it's time to check for Koch Industries sockpuppets again? Cowicide (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are shooting yourself in the foot. Consider the contribution history of the editors that you contacted since I provided the guidance about canvasing:

• [4] – no edits for 5 years
• [5] – no edits since May 2012
• [6] – no edits for 3 years
• [7] – no edits since September 2012

– S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stalking like celery, Rich. It interesting how you nervously watch my every move and even the people I contact. How much does Koch Industries pay you, anyway? Cowicide (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "stalking like celery" phrase. Very good. As for nervousness, I assure you that looking at a computer screen does not phase me in the least. I've been in real situations were real nervousness was to be expected. As for Koch et al., they pay taxes and then I get a monthly cut. And if you pay taxes, I thank you as well. – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had come up with it myself, but I stole the celery quote from The Bloodhound Gang. IF I pay my taxes?? Are you threatening to audit me now? ;) -- Cowicide (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the at the end. I certainly did not want to imply that you were a tax evader, living on welfare, at home with parents, of simply having bags of money sitting around to dip into, etc. Much more importantly, I commend you for your most positive replies to the remarks below. WRT your remarks, you certainly have stirred the crockpot, I mean Kochpot quite well. Just please be careful of where you poke the handle end of the spoon when done stirring. People don't want it poked in their eyes. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogies are like bananas in a swordfight. -- Cowicide (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent remark. But it depends upon whether you or your opponent has the banana. Me? I prefer the approach taken by Indiana Jones against the guy with a sword. He certainly did not use a banana. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://i.imgur.com/YFy3MLR.gif -- Cowicide (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 ! I LOL'd. One of the best moments of my day. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a moment to review the inquiry you left on my talk page. It is my opinion that, in the rare instance where a subject has generated such voluminous, disparate criticisms, the best solution is to create a standalone article that specifically addresses such details per WP:SUMMARY. With that said, and as someone who has encountered similar situations in the past, I would also advise you to try really hard to keep your cool. The worst thing you can do is allow valuable information to be omitted simply because you get emotionally involved and earn sanctions. All the best,   — C M B J   01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, looking at the article and participating. I stopped editing the article page and its talk page to divert attention from me being cantankerous and allow editors to hopefully put more focus on the quality of the article. -- Cowicide (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to dial back the invective. Please read Wikipedia:Edits_not_editors#Discuss_Edits.2C_Not_Editors which you have violated multiple times. I note most of those attacked have turned the other cheek and have not complained, but that doesn't make it right.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little debatable about others "turning the other cheek", but nonetheless, thank you for taking a look at the article, etc. I've refrained from participating in the discussion to hopefully return focus on the article instead of my behavior. Thanks again. Cowicide (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope it has become apparent to you that your approach to getting more attention on this situation is not exactly the right one. This is not to say you are wrong about what is happening, just that the way you are trying to draw in more users is not acceptable. I won't belabor the point about canvassing and forum shopping as I can see both policies have already been brought to your attention. I would suggest withdrawing the myriad conversations you have been opening and using proper channels for dispute resolution if you want people to look at the content and not at you and your behavior. The dispute resolution noticeboard may be able to help you achieve that. Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beeblebrox. I'll take your advice into consideration. Cowicide (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the four links at the top of this page and your userpage came up with non-found or 404 errors. (Could this be the result of Chinese censorship? I haven't a clue.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Mark Christian for not maintaining the site. He's Canadian and not to be trusted. -- Cowicide (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your posting of Indy w/o his pistol, I'd think you're pretty computer savvy and you could rescue them. Would the "wayback machine" work? Again, I don't know – I only learned how to turn on a computer 5 years ago. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China has made insidious changes to their "Great Firewall" since those days. There's a Chinese version of this that was spread everywhere, but I won't get into that. Things have had to get a bit more "subversive" since then. -- Cowicide (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cowicide The deletion of" he said" does not make this accurate, The cited article say that and there is no confirmation that Snowden worked for CIA. Please cite proof for your change.Patroit22 (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UnPatriot, you're not fooling anyone. Fuck off. Cowicide (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Organic farming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Yobol (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one guilty of an edit war, not me. The Talk Page will reflect that I've even offered compromise after compromise in the face of you and your partner outright deleting literally everything I edit. I will now go ahead and conclude it's necessary to bringing disinterested third parties into this. I would have liked have avoided that, but you've been showing bad faith blanket deletion edits that show more of an agenda than a concern with an article that's encyclopedic. Cowicide (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on organic farming. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowicide, you must discuss content changes. Barrelling ahead and keeping making changes while the article is under discussion is just plain wrong. You can bring an admin action if you like but it will WP:BOOMERANG. I could have brought you to 3RR, but decided to hold back and see if you would be reasonable. I suggest you slow down and discuss things on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unike you, I did discuss content changes on the Talk Page. I suggest you finally take your own advice and start using it and stop edit warring and deleting entire edits without discussion while also breaking Wikipedia guidelines in the process and resorting to vandalism of the article by removing all my edits at once in a hostile form of revenge that has no place at Wikipedia. I'm in the process of gathering admins to look at this page and your behavior. You also need to be civil in your comments next to your edits:

WHEN YOU SAID: "revert back to before cowicide started editing. stop it with motherfucking editwarring"

This isn't acceptable and I'm not going to put up with it. Do yourself a favor and knock it off along with the edit warring with hostile edits. Cowicide (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fucking job and i was working tonight. I rejoined the conversation this evening and was dismayed to see the edit warring going on. I reverted to a version before all the nonsense started - including my own edits - so we could all discuss things on talk. This is a tactic I have used in the past to try to avoid going to drama boards. I suggest we try to work things out on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being uncivil next to your edit comments and now on my Talk Page. If you had bothered to read the article's Talk Page, you would have seen where I made many concessions and changes to my edits even in the case while you were wrong about the guidelines and made blanket deletions of my work without discussing it on the Talk Page first. You didn't bother to simply even try to work with me before repeatedly blanket deleting edits. I reached out to you to talk on the Talk Page during that time, now you rejected all that and have wiped out the entire page in anger and revenge. Now you're very obviously trying to wiggle your way back out of it.

You are being incredibly disingenuous by saying that you reverted "so we could talk". You very obviously did it as an act of vandalism and revenge and you already basically admitted it within your notes I quoted above and elsewhere. Now you apparently want to backtrack and finally "talk", but you've already broken enough guidelines, ignored my pleas to utilize the article's Talke Page and used plenty of hostile editing tactics that may very well get you a ban from the admins.

If you revert back your vandalism and restore the edits you wiped out and then finally utilize the Talk Page about the edits you disagree with, I'm all for it. It may at least show some good faith on your part for a fresh start. But, unless you do that right now, you've crossed a line by literally deleting every one of my edits without discussion and we've reached an impasse that regrettably only some admins can resolve at this point. Cowicide (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hello Cowicide. I offer some unsolicited advice. Walk away from your computer and don't come back for, say, six hours. then re-assess. It is good advice. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Roxy. I have some advice for you. When attempting to calm things down, don't pick sides or you may exacerbate the situation. All you've managed to do with Jytdog (who has used expletives and blanket deleted my edits in an act of revenge) is fix a link for him on this Talk Page. Shouldn't you also ask Jytdog to relax? Hmmm? My advice is to address everyone's behavior equally instead of simply focusing on one person alone or you're simply going to become a part of the problem as your bias is exposed. If you're still not clear on this, I suggest you go for a nice, long walk yourself there and gather some perspective. I hope you had fun with Jytdog asking screaming for me to RELAX below. :D Enjoy your walk. Cowicide (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cowicide, again, i reverted back to before this whole thing started, including edits i made that were completely independent of you. it was not vandalism but rather a way to reset the board so that we don't fight over whose version stands while we talk about things. i hate editwarring. i hate it. IT. THE BEHAVIOR. in wikipedia we talk about things and reach consensus. we don't just push and push and push and disrupt the article when there is a disagreement. there is no deadline here. i do not think any kind of impasse has been reached that we cannot work out over the next few days. THERE IS NO DEADLINE. BREATHE. SLOW DOWN. Also, admins are for behavior issues. for content issues, we follow dispute resolution procedures (please read that link). We are still very much at the Talk page discussion stage. (you will notice that i have not even had a chance to participate there yet much BECAUSE I WAS WORKING TONIGHT. So keep your pants on, slow down, and talk. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I find it rather humorous that you're asking me to "relax" while all I have to do is read your comments filled with expletives and your hostile blanket deletion editing to see that it is clearly you that really needs to chill out. And, sorry, SCREAMING doesn't convey calm. :D

I will give you this, your attempt to pretend to be the arbiter of "the calm" while SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS is giving me a chuckle. Your utter lack of self-awareness is amusing in this regard.Cowicide (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, speaking of a lack of self-awareness. You should read your own post back to yourself and take heed. It was you that edit warred instead of discussing things with me on the Talk Page. You simply deleted everything first and asked questions later (if you bothered to ask any at all). I was the one who repeatedly requested that you discuss it with me and even made concessions in your absence despite your hostile nature. That's not edit warring, that's working with someone despite our differences. That's what I did. Your excuse that you went to work doesn't fly as you were repeatedly making reverts and blanket deletions without discussing it with me as you were doing them. You had time before and after work to spew these hostile edits, but not enough time to discuss them first and you've done this repeatedly until you finally decided to take the infantile act of simply deleting literally everything at once. You keep trying to backtrack from your statement, but we both know why you really did it:

This was you: "revert back to before cowicide started editing. stop it with motherfucking editwarring" right next to your edit where you deleted literally all of my edits. Sorry, but your words there and actions speak louder than the backpedaling you're desperately attempting to do now. If you want to show some good faith. Show it now and restore my edits you deleted en masse. Otherwise, I have no faith that any and all edits I make in the future won't be deleted if you personally don't agree with them to suit your obvious bias, POV and anger management issues that utilizes very obvious grudge edits instead of doing what's best for collaboration and Wikipedia itself. Cowicide (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture. Somehow it doesn't erase your actions that's led up to this situation, nor do anything to gain my trust. Why? Because there's no good faith action behind it, just words and I'm still looking at an article where you deleted every last one of my edits very obviously in anger. And, please stop insulting my intelligence, stop lying and have the dignity and self-respect to at least admit the obvious. I've got a picture for you that should refresh your memory as to why (we both know) you did it:

http://i.imgur.com/zTMErFc.png

Until you rectify this and revert my edits back for us to work on from there, you're just offering meaningless words and a fancy graphic from a person who acted in anger and very obviously deleted every one of my edits in a punitive, vindictive manner instead of working to collaborate with me. Your actions are what matter at this point, because it's your very actions that's lead to this impasse.

If you really, truly want a fresh start, you need to restore the edits that Yobol and I worked on. If you bothered to read my edits and Talk Page, unlike you I worked with Yobol to severely edit my content and I added two sides of sources in each section based upon the sources. I also made ridiculous concessions in order to appease your misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. It gave the article a better NPOV, but if you disagreed with that, all you had to do was finally stop your trite edit warring with profanity laced invective and joined me on the Talk Page and raise your concerns with them. Instead, you ignored my pleas and took a vindictive action that you now refuse to reverse and refuse to offer a fresh start.

And, on top of everything else, your obviously hasty slash-and-burn edits are disingenuously labeled as well. It's not back to where I started editing, you brought the article back to a different starting point that made the article yet even more POV pushed against organic farming. So much for a "fresh start" unless your idea of a fresh start is by disingenuously shifting the POV even further to one side as a radically skewed "starting point". Nice strategy to get the POV agenda you want, but it's not going to fly with me.

I saw your "proposal". It's not a fresh start, it's a list of demands without any good faith actions to back it up. I'm willing to have a fresh start once you are. Bring my edits back and then we can collaborate from there to refine them and/or delete them as needed. Otherwise, this is simply a stale nonstarter you're trying to pass off as something else and I'll simply work with others that will come here to work with me on this article and make it encyclopedic instead of an industry public relations piece you may fancy. Cowicide (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what i was upset about was not content but behavior - namely edit-warring. People disagree about content all the time. What our policies and guidelines call us to do when there are disagreements about content - how to behave - , is to stop editing the article and start talking, and keep talking until there is agreement about what to do about content. Please keep these two kinds of issues distinct.

Most admin boards (3RR, AIV, ANI, etc) are for behavior issues. Dispute resolution (DR) talks about how to resolve content disputes, none of which involve going to the admin boards.

However, none of the various DR tools are available to us until we have tried to work things out on the Talk page, and we have barely started talking there. The "fresh start" discussion on Talk is the kind of thing we do for content disputes - we back up and talk about the fundamentals of content - namely, sourcing - on the Talk page.

If you have a different proposal about sourcing, please make it on the Talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and i will add that i apologize for using the word "motherfucking"; i would strike that but one cannot strike an edit note. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

finally, i'll open a discussion on the Talk page about the "restore point" I chose. We can talk about that! Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with talk from you, you had your chance and you blew it and I really resent you trying to continuously project your own actions upon me.

You are responsible for your edit warring, not me. Once again, while you were busy mass deleting my edits without discussing it on the article's Talk Page at all, I kept pleading with you to talk with me there and even started a section on the Talk Page that you ignored while you continued to vindictively blanket delete my edits in the meantime (until you finally deleted all of them in anger). Also, If you had bothered to read my edits and the article's Talk Page, you would have seen where (unlike you) I collaborated with Yobol to severely edit my content and I added two sides of sources in each section based upon the sources along with at least attempting to appease you in the process. Read it, please. I doubt that you bothered to read any of that in your haste to edit war. Unlike you, I'm flexible and I showed it with my good faith actions. It's time for you to show that same kind of good faith with an action yourself, instead of talk.

If you want a fresh start, the ball is now in your court. If you don't offer a true fresh start and keep your malicious mass deletions in place, I'll work with others to make it encyclopedic instead of an industry "think tank" public relations hit piece against organic farming. Your very selective edits and blatant hypocrisies that continually POV push are obvious. You're not fooling me and you're not going to fool the community that's coming here to improve this article to have a NPOV beyond your disruptive tactics. This is my final offer for a fresh start. You know what to do. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say to you. Talk is cheap. Cowicide (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talking is what we do here. You will do as you will, but refusing to Talk will not generate progress on the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly hypocritical of you to say, but I'm finding that this kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for you. Talking is what you didn't do here and now you want to blame me for your past actions instead of taking self-responsibility and setting things right. There will be progress on this article with or without you. Read those 5 pillars again, fellow contributor. You do not own this article, no one does. You can be a hostile stick in the mud, but you'll just end up banned in the end if you attempt to keep this article from progressing towards a NPOV worthy of Wikipedia's standards. You don't want a fresh start, you want a skewed start with a POV slant that obviously favors certain industries. That's, again, a stale nonstarter disguised as something else. If you have any more questions, finally read my edits on the article's Talk Page you previously ignored because you do not understand that talking is what we do here at Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i looked through the edits from yesterday again, and chose a more proximal restore point, to just before the intense edit warring began.Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least bringing the article to a more balanced state of NPOV. However, I think removing the criticism section entirely is pretty drastic. I'm not here to push an all positive POV of organic farming, I'm here to help this article be encyclopedic and informative with a NPOV that attempts to show the pros and cons of organic farming and let the reader decide for themselves what they think of all of it. Unfortunately, the holidays are starting and I can't participate until next week. Anyway, thanks again for making a concession, and I will consider this a fresh start and will assume good faith on your part from here on out despite our differences. - Cowicide (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowicide, it appears it was your edits and behavior that was mostly out of line here looking over the talk page and discussions. Remember that we focus on content, not contributors, and it's really starting to look like you've fallen into the same hole many others do when trying to tackle scientific topics for the first time. Jytdog summarized our standard approach for dealing with scientific topics here quite well. [8] That is how we deal with NPOV in such articles, and it seems like you're moving too quickly to really grasp that concept. You're also getting quite a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from the looks of it and getting too focused on what you're thinking about other editors (remember WP:AGF) by what I've read above. When someone gets passionate on a topic, it's very easy to make the mistakes you've been making, but you really need to slow down if you want to contribute to the article. It's looking like this is all just a combination of you not liking that your edits were reverted and a misunderstanding about how we deal with scientific content. The more you pushed against that, the more other editors had to deal with you in a less and less friendly manner. Time to drop the stick and take a listen to what people are actually saying about content over at the article. If reliable sources say something, then we reflect that in content with appropriate weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, you're a hypocrite who is talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say to focus on the content and not the User, but on the other hand you spend the majority of your post slamming me, a User, instead of focusing on the content I edited. In the process, you've trashed your own credibility with that kind of blatant hypocrisy. Well, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander... and I have a question about you below. And, I'm happy to say I do not accept money of any kind nor am I involved or associated with any entity that receives funding related to organic farming, pesticides, etc. whether they be pro-organic, con-organic or otherwise.

It's quite obvious you are taking a biased stance against me while completely brushing off the transgressions of Jytdog's actions who was clearly rude, edit warred and in the process repeatedly made edits that have a decidedly POV-pushing, anti-organic farming slant and was entirely hypocritical in his application (and misapplication) of sources, etc. that all bent towards his rather obvious anti-organic farming bias/agenda. Do you think I wouldn't notice that? I see that you're an entomologist who works with various agricultural pests. You claim on your User Page that you don't receive funding from private companies (i.e., pesticide companies), nor do you have any personal or financial connection to pesticides.

Does the University you work for accept any funding, grants, etc. from companies involved in pesticides (i.e., Monsanto, DuPont, etc.)? Please be honest. Cowicide (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now locked for three days at the restore point. I do hope you come and Talk during this time so we can establish some common ground. That's what this time is for. See you on the article Talk page! Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above, but it's very cluttered up there, so I'll just copypasta it here:

Thank you for at least bringing the article to a more balanced state of NPOV. However, I think removing the criticism section entirely is pretty drastic. I'm not here to push an all positive POV of organic farming, I'm here to help this article be encyclopedic and informative with a NPOV that attempts to show the pros and cons of organic farming and let the reader decide for themselves what they think of all of it. Unfortunately, the holidays are starting and I can't participate until next week. Anyway, thanks again for making a concession, and I will consider this a fresh start and will assume good faith on your part from here on out despite our differences. - Cowicide (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been involved in controversy lately... completely unrelated to that, I was coming here to thank you for some of the noncontroversial contributions you have made years ago, that I just saw and liked. I appreciate your perspective on Wikipedia and I hope that you stick around. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D Cowicide (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Ticker.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]