User talk:Coginsys

'''dont talk to me: why all you fuckking people do is change articles back into trash, without any good reasons, and say improvements aren't "constructive"? and then you threaten me with blocks as if i cared. you just play politics on non-article wikipages with proposals and disputes, and rant about "respect" when you dont deserve any. go improve things since 2001 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity -- make sure you dont msg me otherwise; if you haven't made anything better, im not interested. if you're just making a pile of rules or a pile of overbearing and cluttersome templates that dont make anything better and hardly anyone uses, im also not interested. and if you dont know what is making things bettter, look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series&diff=518032407&oldid=516614772 -- ips traces to Columbia, the proportionally few ppl in the world worth something (wish it could've Stanford but i'll settle) -- because that's the only kind of thing on here that is making anything''' better.

October 2012
Hello, I'm Tbhotch. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Differential equation, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Function (engineering) with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Subroutine, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Subroutine was changed by Coginsys (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863113 on 2012-10-07T19:58:26+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, content is not removed because "it is unclear", which in fact, you made it unclear. If you want "clear" content, you can edit Simple English Wikipedia. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want simple and clear English content rather than encyclopedic content. You can also read Contributing to Wikipedia for futher information. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not "stalking you", I'm using a tool called Huggle which help me to revert vandalism. Your edits appear there, that's it. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse Q&A note
Please add your questions to the top of the question list, not the bottom. You should probably use the "ask a question" button at the top of the page to do this automatically. Thanks! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted
Hi Coginsys. I have remove comments at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. That page is for discussing proposals relating to the DYK section of Wikipedia. If you want to ban all messages, or rant about the editing interface, a more appropriate place would be Village pump (note that the village pump has a page dedicated to proposals). The message you see is called a Watchlist notice. That page also describes how you can hide all watchlist notices. If you like, I can set this up for you. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC) not interested, you can continue ranting

When you request for help
...it is generally a good idea to be respectful, particularly because we are all volunteers. Comments like this aren't doing you any favors in terms of 1) actually getting the information you want and 2) being treated respectfully by other editors. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) no. if ppl arent helpful the first time they probably arent going to be helpful the 2nd time. also that person wasnt helpful the first time, that person was accusatory, disrespectful, mean, and i didnt like that person. that person was just blaming that was basically it

that person was so unhelpful i didnt even read any other coments after my last reply, actually when i went back to check today i couldnt even because it had already got archived, and no, im not interested

Welcome!

 * }

October 2012
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notices
Hello there Coginsys. I saw these edits that you made to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, and it looks like you are very annoyed with all the notices on your watchlist that keep popping up. Actually, it is possible to hide all of those notices if you want, by putting the code from this page into your common.css file. If you have any problems getting it to work, just let me know and I'll do it for you. Also, if you use ALL-CAPS in your posts, people might think you are "shouting"; lots of people on Wikipedia don't like that, so it is probably best to avoid doing it. Have a look at the talk page guidelines for more information, and if you have any questions that are not answered there do not hesitate to get in touch with me. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC) this was cleared up long ago, see backlog

GA reviews
Hi. Your GA reviews are improper, and I have deleted them. Please read WP:WIAGA before reviewing any more articles. Thank you. --Rschen7754 05:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough
Coginsys, I've encountered your work a number of times now (mostly through the Teahouse), and frankly, your disruptive approach to editing cannot be allowed to continue. Whilst you've made a few good contributions to article space, their value is hugely outweighed by your constant vitriol and your apparent inability to work collaboratively with others. Your latest rash of inappropriate GA reviews is the last straw, undermining the GA process and making a mockery of others' hard work to improve the articles in question. Whilst Wikipedia is not a social network, it is a fundamental principle of the site that editors interact in a civil and respectful manner. You have been extended every courtesy by other editors, who have repeatedly gone out of their way to try and help you; your responses have been brusque and insolent at best, downright insulting at worst. If you want to continue editing here, you need to clean up your act: no more all-caps shouting, no more railing at other editors and no more of your bad attitude in edit summaries and on talkpages. If you feel you are genuinely unable to edit in a polite and constructive manner, then perhaps you should consider leaving Wikipedia for another site - you'd probably enjoy Wikipediocracy. Either way, consider this a final warning: if your disruptive editing continues, I will start handing out blocks. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it might help if I gave you a few words of my opinion on a couple of issues. I see that you have tried to make some articles on mathematical topics simpler and easier to read. I agree a hundred percent that many articles on mathematics make the subject too confusing for non-mathematicians. In particular, the leads of such articles should, as far as possible, be written in a way that can be understood by someone without a high level of qualification in mathematics. Unfortunately, most such articles are written mainly by specialist mathematicians, and many (though not all) of them see things only from their own point of view, and are either unable or unwilling to consider how an article will read to an ordinary Wikipedia reader. Years ago I sometimes tried to edit such articles to make them more accessible to the lay reader, but I found it a frustrating task, as certain mathematicians were convinced that right from the first sentence an article should present the topic in the way that seemed most relevant to them. I therefore naturally sympathise completely with you in your efforts to simplify such articles. Unfortunately, however, some of your attempts to do so have missed the point. For example, the thing known to mathematicians as "e" is a number, it is not a "continuous, compounded rate of growth". It is true that one of its many uses in in connection with compounded rates of growth, but that does not mean that it is a compounded rate of growth, any more than the fact that one of the uses of a computer is for reading Wikipedia means that a computer is Wikipedia. To take another example, you wrote "a function is a group of inputs and outputs with each inputs corresponding to each output". However, there are several problems there, including (1) a function is not the group of inputs and outputs: it is the relationship between the inputs and outputs; (2) "each input corresponding to each output" reads to me like a description of a one to one function, rather than a general function, so it is likely to mislead a reader; (3) "group" has a specific meaning in mathematics which does not apply here, and again, use of the word is likely to mislead a reader. While, as I have already said, I completely support your wish to make the leads of mathematical articles more comprehensible to the ordinary reader, the job needs to be done by someone with enough understanding of mathematics to make sure that in the course of simplifying they don't produce explanations which are simply wrong. Another point I should like to mention is one that has, in fact, already been mentioned to you, but I should like to present it from a slightly different point of view. Apart from outright vandals, almost everyone who edits Wikipedia does so with good intentions, believing they are improving the encyclopaedia. Sometimes I think someone is mistaken, and what they intended to be helpful was not in fact helpful. In such cases I try to explain politely why I think that. I don't shout at an editor who has good intentions but has made one or more mistakes that he/she is a fool, or tell them not to fucking disturb my edits. I don't do those things, not just because I am a nice person, but because I don't think it would help. Someone who has made an edit in good faith, believing that they were helping, is not likely to think "Oh, someone here is angry with what I did. That must mean I was wrong, so I had better not do the same again." They are far more likely to think "I was just trying to be helpful, and here is someone turning on me for no good reason". The result is likely to be that, instead of focussing on what I said about their edit, and considering whether perhaps it was a mistake, they are likely instead to focus on my behaviour, and turn against me. I therefore believe that I am far more likely to influence people towards my point of view if I am civil to them, even if I think tehy don't deserve civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, that works by people trying to cooperate. It is not a battleground. One last point. I have made over 80000 edits to Wikipedia in the six years and some months since I created this account. Many of those edits have been reverted or deleted. In some cases, reverting my edits was the right thing to do, because I had made mistakes. (We all make mistakes.) In other cases, I believe that my edits were right, and reverting them was wrong. However, I accept the fact that in a collaborative project I will not always get my way. I could have stayed and fought and shouted every time I thought I was right and others were wrong. However, I believe that I have done far more good to the encyclopaedia by accepting that, when there is consensus against me, I should accept it and move on. That way, instead of wasting my time and effort on fighting for one change that won't stick, I can spend the same amount of time on making dozens of changes that do stick. Anyone who comes to Wikipedia unable or unwilling to accept that they will not always get what they want will be likely to have a frustrating and unsatisfactory time, and very likely they won't last long here. Quite often I do get what I want, and I accept that.
 * I hope these remarks will be of interest or use to you, or maybe even both. If so, and you have any questions or comments about what I have written, please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Brigham Young University–Idaho
The template, used on this page, contains a piece of code that automatically provides the references for the rankings from US News and Forbes. It does not require that you insert raw URLs into the template, as you would know if you'd read my edit summary when I originally reverted your addition. Since I'm slightly involved with this page (and since your vitriol this time is directed at me personally, which frankly, doesn't bother me in the slightest) I'm not going to implement the block I promised above in response - you get one more edit's grace. I would, however, reiterate my above message - shape up, or be prepared to ship out. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm Ushau97. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Common Starling/archive1 because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Don't change content in archives Ushau97  talk 08:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Iven Mackay FAC
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iven Mackay/archive1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belle (Disney)/archive1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ushau97 talk 09:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for continued disruption of the article assessment process and disrespectful conduct towards other editors. I have warned you about this before. If you cannot behave in a colllaborative and constructive manner, then you will not be allowed to edit at all. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)