User talk:Cochese8

Linkocrites
I was blocked 3rr because I was maintaining justice, which is in a sad state on this website. The world was such a better place when I was blocked. Now the link isn't there and the page is locked- there were celebrations all over the world, I'm sure.

There are little bands of link police who target certain people and ignore violators of their own rules if those violators side with them. here is a list of the hypocrites concerned with the recent Logo page:

User:Wmahan, Nigel, Pascal.Tesson, Mr. Darcy

All I ask is that people be consistent instead of targeting others.

Summary on the Logo debate
Reason that the straw poll on Talk:Logo ended up like it did was because the little band of hypocrites kiss and hug wach other on the sidelines in exchange for votes like these. Of course no one is going to defend some link that they have no affiliation with, but the only reason that so many are against it is because they have personal ties to the people who was it removed or they are in competition with the link. The proof of their hypocracy is that they agree that the standards for links should be the same, but they don't concentrate on links that violate the same things (all the other links on Logo are/have advertisements, lack citations).

It's pathetic, but I will continue to try to make them realize what they really are and hopefully change their hypocracy. It may be a hopeless effort, but no one ever gained anything without trying.

From Logo:Talk

Thanks for trying to save people's time, User:Wmahan. However, I don't think enough time can be spent on justice. Every editor may have valid reasons for wanting the link removed, but won't use that same reasoning to delete other links as quickly as they deleted the disputed one. This whole thing started as a part of your crusade against jsmorse47 and treats one link differently than the others. Proof that you have something against jsmorse47 is that you won't work to remove spam created by User:Jkatzen as seen User_talk:Wmahan and User_talk:Wmahan. The posts by Jkatzen, including some of his Logo page additions [(a link to a page he created to support one of his websites)] are in violation of the same things that Wmahan criticized User:Jsmorse47 for doing Talk:Basal_metabolic_rate, yet, when presented with this, he merely shrugged it off as retaliation. This is the kind of inconsistent behavior on WP that makes for injustice. I will continue to work against that type of thing. Thanks for reading Cochese8 15:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page comments
to: I@n


 * Not embarrassed. I want people to see certain things when they come to my talk page, not inane comments by people I don't know. Cochese8 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia operates on a system of collegiate co-operation between editors and constant peer review of each others behaviour. Talk pages are a useful means of communicating a concern if one editor considers another is non-compliant with our rules.  Of course, you are free to disagree with a comment, but unless a comment from another editor is outrageous and/or abusive, they should normally remain so that others can review the discussion.  We all make mistakes, and I've made plenty. If you believe you're in the right, then argue the point but don't hide part of the argument, which is what removing warnings implies that you are doing.  Warnings are visible in the edit history, but they're less visible.


 * Moving forward, and specifically with respect to your concerns about the external links discussion at Talk:Logo, I suggest you:
 * Please assume good faith from other editors. There is no conspiracy to oppose your external links over others.  I urge you to read WP:EL - "Links normally to be avoided ... Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." The straw poll came to a consensus that the link you wanted was too commercial.  That other links remain is irrelevant and is not hypocracy.  Consider helping to improve Wikipedia by removing such links as they lessen the quality of the encyclopaedia.
 * Understand that canvassing of others to support your point of view and use of other identities is frowned upon and does not stand you in a good light.
 * Remove the attack comments under the heading "Linkocrites" on this page and your user page before someone else does it for you. Agree to disagree and move on to something productive.
 * I@n 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Plea for reason
I suppose if you can't beat 'em, you can always censor them. Wmahan and Pascal.Tesson have been so inadaquate in defending their inconsistent, hypocritical positions about links, specifically about links on logo, that they've decided the only way to succeed is to get me censored (and a few other users evidently). This fascist behavior is shameful and will hopefully be rectified, but I'm disgusted and completely turned off by this website and some of its active members.

I would like to add this one piece of information, however: since the linked site (code-interactive) was placed in the spam list unjustly, one of the administrators showed me that there were multiple mirror sites pointing to the disputed link. This led me to a number of questions: If the link had no value, why were the majority of [12000] pages linking to it? Why were [1944] people digging it? Why are there so many mirrors? This is something that Wmahan and Pascal.Tesson will fail to see because they are blinded by their phony cause and with respect to Tesson, his hatred (see his dick comment above). Even when the link has no commercialism (as jsmorse47 provided above with the new link) and it has proven value to the design community, they will reject it because they are on a mission to defeat me and label me silly names. We'll if I can't be heard, it appears they have defeated me- it is my hope that they wake up to their hypocracy and start working toward justice soon instead of censoring and deconstructing others' work. Judgenot77 15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
There seems to be a reasonably heated discussion going on here. I got lured here by someone asking for help on my talk page on wikimedia. It appears parties involved are not assuming good faith in the actions of other wikipedians. Mathiastck 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)