Jump to content

User talk:Cobulator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

March 2012

Please stop re-adding the same general statement to Lincoln Cathedral's header about pre-reformation churches, pending consensus being reached on the talk page. This matter e page has already been the subject of an edit war, and by continuing to re-insert the edits (pending consensus) you may be infringing Wikipedia policy—GrahamSmith (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now, thanks. Cobulator (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to stop this already

Cobulator, what you are doing is riding your own particular hobby horse. The cathedrals that you keep changing have all been Church of England now for over 500 years. That fact is well explained in most article, or the major article that links to Church of England.

Adding the word "now" implies that some recent change has taken place. YOU might know that the change is not recent, but a reader from a different background will ail to comprehend that you are doggedly referring to an historic event that is half a millenium in the past. Your edits, which re completely out of context, are disruptive to the article and provocative to the editors. Drop it.

Amandajm (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cobulator, you have been given reason, and you have already had a communication with Nev1 who is a long-time and highly experienced editor. If you keep reverting inappropriate edits, you will be banned. That is the way it works. Amandajm (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia - it is open for all to edit. Many of the cathedrals have been CofE for less than half of their life. So it only seems right to make it clear from the very beginning of the article that they weren't always so. Not all readers know the history of the English church. What reason was I given, and why would adding value to an article lead to a ban? That sounds more like intimidatin to me. Cobulator (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because wikipedia is open for all to edit doesn't mean that all editor's edits will and should remain unchallenged. If an edit is inappropriate/unsuitable it can be challenged and removed. Reasons have been given on the Lincoln Cathedral talk page and those still stand. The consensus is that your edits are not helpful and are making a meal of an implicit and not-even-remotely-recent event. This is nothing to do with "intimidation", it's a desire on the part of editors to create the best possible encyclopedia. If you keep making unilateral changes to articles in the face of numerous other editor's concerns and objections, then you probably will find yourself blocked. Arthur Holland (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Websites

I have just reverted your deletion of all the websites from the cathedrals on the "list of cathedrals" page. Really, for a new editor you are extremely forward in deciding what Wikipedia ought and out not contain. It took someone a great deal of work to track down all those links.

If you will take the time to notice, you will find that at the bottom of most articles there is a section of significant External links. The websites of the various cathedrals are among those links in each case. Amandajm (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read somewhere that Wikipedia wasn't a website directory. I'll see if I can find it because they took ages to get rid of. Cobulator (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found it on the What Wikipedia is not page, so I got rid of them all again. Cobulator (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia is not states that wikpedia is not "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories", in other words, if a page consists only, or predominantly, of external links, then that is inappropriate. WWIN goes on to say "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". This is a well-constructed list page and the presence of links to the official web sites of these cathedrals is entirely appropriate. I will say again, please stop unilaterally pushing your changes through in the face of numerous objections from other editors – you will find yourself getting banned.Arthur Holland (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedrals

You appear to be involved in an edit war on the Exeter Cathedral page in order to insist on making an addition to the lead sentence. Likewise here and here.
I suggest you stop doing so and discuss the matter on the talk page. All changes are made with the tacit consent of everybody else; if you make a bold edit which is reverted, the next step is to discuss the matter In order to reach agreement, not insist on your change by reinstating it.
This kind of disruption is not acceptable and may well result in your account being blocked. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong, it wasn't me, the edit war page says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." On the Exeter, Salisbury and Canterbury pages that you linked to It was Amandajm who repeatedly overrode my contributions. I think you should give the warning to him/her and stop threatening me with a block for doing what Wikipedia is here for. Cobulator (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might I please ask you to exercise restraint both in refraining from: (a) deleting established content from pages (as you appear to be doing to List of cathedrals in England and Wales; and (b) introducing new, potentially contentious material into pages (as you appear to be doing to various pages that relate to pre-reformation churches), without first reaching consensus (on the talk page) as to the appropriateness of such edits? TIA—GrahamSmith (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cobulator: To be clear, you made a bold edit here (which is fair enough). That was reverted by Amandajm (here) and a discussion opened (here). Then, instead of working towards an agreement (the next step in the BRD cycle you insisted on your change by reinstating it (here). That is when it became edit warring. You also did the same on the other two pages.
And the reason you got the warning is because this isn’t the first time you’ve been told about this sort of thing.
As for “what Wikipedia is here for” I suggest you read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the five principles that WP is founded on, and try to work within the spirit of them, rather than arguing the toss over the letter of WP guidelines. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we supposed to discuss each cathedral separately on its own talkpage, or is there somewhere central we can discuss the principle, because all this fuss over a simple and very, very, unbold clarification of fact is getting a little tiresome. It appears that I'm not the only one wondering what the big deal is too. And when we've find somewhere more central to talk about it (presumably no everyone with an interest in this will know that all the discussion is on my talkpage), then rather than issuing warnings, perhaps you could come up with a logic for leaving the articles in the current misleading state. Cobulator (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a recognised central point (which could no doubt be arranged - but this page is not the place, then the answer must surely be "yes, edits to each cathedral/parish church should be discussed on its own talkpage"—GrahamSmith (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cobulator: The issue being discussed here (if you haven’t grasped it yet) is your behaviour.
The issue of what you are calling “a simple … clarification of fact” (you don’t seem to have grasped what is meant by “bold edit”, either; I suggest you read the linked guideline to find out) and what others in this discussion are seeing as an agenda to push a non-neutral point of view, has already been discussed at the Lincoln page and is now (as you don’t seem to have taken in what was said to you there) at the Exeter page. If you want to continue the matter I suggest you take it up there, or open a new section at Lincoln again. Whether the debate spills over onto other pages is up to you.
And yes, it is “getting a little tiresome”; I’ve certainly got better things to do. New editors are generally given the benefit of the doubt while they learn from their mistakes; if they persist in them, or wilfully ignore advice, then community patience tends to wear thin. Its up to you whether you go on to be a net asset to the project, but at the moment your account is on the debit side. And that isn’t a threat (it won’t be me that blocks you from editing) it’s a simple statement of fact.
Also, I don’t know who you are thinking of when you say you are not the only one who thinks these articles are “currently misleading”; so far the only one I’ve seen pushing that point is you. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This hostility seems to be designed to move the focus from the new, improved, content to the contributor of that content. The new content gave a more neutral overview than the original. The original gave a false impression of continuity, but the added clarification didn't seem to meet the approval of some. The result of eliminating that new clarity is a poorer quality article. You need to look at the history of the Lincoln article to see the other editors who have attempted to add similar clarity. BTW, I noticed the thinly veiled threats hidden in the internal links above and am not impressed. Cobulator (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln Cathedral has always been part of the Church of England, which dates its formal establishment principally to the mission to England by St Augustine of Canterbury in AD 597. Those charged with the Cathedral's management have (to the best of my knowledge and belief) always considered themselves to be of the catholic faith. The fact that the Diocesan Bishop was initially appointed by authority of the Pope and latterly by authority of the Church of England's Supreme Governor is IMHO only of marginal interest to those who wish to know about the cathedral. As I think has been noted on the talk page, the article should relate specifically to either:
(a)the building itself; or
(b) the liturgy, etc. used there. Which particular apostolic line of succession the Diocesan Bishop traces is not a matter worthy of mention in the article's opening section.—GrahamSmith (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cobulator, as far as I can see the only other editors pushing the same point as you on the Lincoln Cathedral page are:
  • User Woodseats44, who refused to engage on the talk page discussion at all and persisted in edit-warring until he got himself blocked. His final edit to the Lincoln Cathedral page was accompanied by the following edit summary: "I REFUSE TO BE CENSORED BY THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO BLOT OUT AN HISTORICAL AND UNQUESTIONABLE FACT!!!!". He hasn't been heard from since.
Both these editors have made very few edits, but have both made edits to the Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School page which leads me to suspect that they are the same person (and probably a child – the hysterical overuse of exclamation marks and capital letters would point in this direction too).
As regards the debate moving from the contributions to the contributor, well there is going to be comment on an editor's behaviour when a) they insist on forcing through new material despite considerable resistance from several other editors, and b) they ignore a compromise that was offered (that would have placed considerable material relating to the Cathedral's Catholic history in the main body of the article) and simply demand that their original edit be allowed ("And let's put 'now Anglican' back into the introduction"). Your use of decidedly melodramatic language while discussing the issue doesn't help either:
  • "New editors should be welcomed, not banned for daring to add inconvenient truths or treading on the toes of established editors ... who collaborated to have it suppressed perhaps"
  • "I wasn't given the dignity of having it "objected to" originally"
  • "I went to a lot of trouble inserting it as 'is' does not give the full story"
  • "Perhaps you should consider unlocking the article and blocking "Arthur Holland", "Myrvin", "Keith D" and "GrahamSmith" who seem to be causing all the trouble"
  • "if they do it agian, block those doing the deleting of incontrovertible facts"
  • "Another new editor given a "warm Wikipedia welcome" then"
  • "I have had nothing to do with any 'edit war' there, and an editor has, in one discourteous go, undone two unrelated edits I made today."
Basically, you're not doing yourself any favours by approaching Wikipedia this way. It's a collaborative process, and confrontation just gets people's backs up. Arthur Holland (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, you say "pushing the same point as you on the Lincoln Cathedral page" as if if were an opinion rather than a fact. Also, I make it three, not two others who seem to favour openness and honesty over this matter of fact, you missed 86.25.36.77. So that's three plus me, which equals four who I'd say would support the extra clarity that I added. Cobulator (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't whether what you're saying is correct, it's whether it's appropriate in the lead. By "pushing the same point" I mean (as you surely must realise) pushing the suggestion that this fact has to be explicitly mentioned in the lead. We've repeatedly explained why this isn't helpful or appropriate in the lead.
And yes, I'd missed 86.25.36.77 – this user has made a total of one edit to wikipedia, re-inserting Woodseats44's last edit (Woodseats44 having been blocked a couple of hours earlier) with the following edit summary: "who the hell are you??? Another one of these frankly pathetic WikiFascists?" Again, I suspect that this was probably the same person as Woodseats44/84.45.222.192, so I don't think that there are three seperate people supporting your position, and however many people there are (I suspect only one), they all seem inclined to abuse and vandalism. Arthur Holland (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I've taken the liberty of fixing the indents, here. I hope it makes things clearer. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Cobulator:If you really think your additions added clarity, or neutrality, or any kind of improvement, I suggest you make your case on the talk pages indicated. So far all we have is your unsupported opinion that it is so.
On that subject, do you really want to claim that Woodseats 44, and whoever is at IP 84.45.222.192, agree with your position? The evidence is that, on the balance of probability, those edits were made by you; using multiple accounts in order to .a) avoid a block and/or .b) influence the outcome of a discussion is sockpuppetry, and will get you permanently banned. If you didn’t know that before (this is you getting the benefit of the doubt, again) you know it now. So I would think carefully before you pursue that line of argument.
You can continue this wounded air of martyrdom on your own talk page if you wish; it won’t cut much ice elsewhere. And you can dismiss the welcome you got if you wish; it is customary to post a welcome to all new editors, in the hope they will learn something and become productive members of the project. What you do with it is also up to you. I will look out for any response you wish to make on the other talk pages. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Woodseats44, 86.25.36.77 and 84.45.222.192 are the same person, I wouldn't know; but I do know that neither of them are anything to do with me. Moonraker12, is it just a coincidence that you too came here to "talk" to me, or are you the same person as Arthur and/or Graham? Cobulator (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you already have the benefit of the doubt, so there's nothing more to be said here, is there... Moonraker12 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you chose not to answer my question. I wonder why. Cobulator (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the allegation made by Cobulator, which is that I am using more than one account to access Wikipedia. The clear implication is that I am breaking a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia policy and it is not true. Kindly withdraw the remark and apologise—GrahamSmith (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... I think I'm just feeding the troll now, but... Moonraker12 has been editing since May 2007, GrahamSmith since October 2006, and myself since July 2004 – see following for contribution histories:
Therefore, in order for these to all be the same person, it would have to have been myself who has created the other two accounts in order to sockpuppet with them. I also would have had to have made a total of 5521 edits with those two sockpuppet accounts. In all that time, I've never had any dealings on talk pages with either of these two editors (as far as I'm aware – I really can't be bothered to go through my entire history, but you should feel free to do so). So essentially I would have had to set this up 6 years ago in order that I could then bring my sockpuppet accounts to bear in arguing with you over the inclusion of the phrase "now Anglican" on the Lincoln Cathedral talk page in 2012. Is that what's known as playing the "long game"? Quite a bit of prep work for a pretty small return I'd say. Arthur Holland (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like insinuations and/or wild accusations either. Cobulator (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
The welcome page contains links to general advice on making edits and writing articles, as well as the principles and policies outlining the standards and behaviours expected of contributors here. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Cobulator (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union State / Country

Your change here is understandable as the entities you describe are states. However, I had thought that the change to country had been made because of the confusion possible between "sovereign state" and "state as a division of a larger country". Isn't the word "country" here less ambiguous? Britmax (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Cobulator (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

He tried to silence me that way too. Up and in (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try and understand that. Cobulator (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

A big mistake has been made somewhere. Now when I try to edit a page (even a page I have edited successfully before) I get the message: "Editing from Cobulator has been blocked (disabled) by King of Hearts for the following reason(s): Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto". I have already been there and pointed out that the accusations made there by Martinvl are clearly ridiculous as I have been editing since long before DeFacto got into trouble. I also left requests there for clarification of unsubstantiated, and very cryptic, remarks left there by WilliamH, which remain unanswered. Can anyone please help me to get my editing ability restored? Cobulator (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request alone matches the behavior of DeFacto, and makes your claims appear even more dubious. As the behavioral and technical information is very consistent with DeFacto, I see no reason to overturn this block. If you want to appeal, you need to use WP:BASC. I wouldn't suggest any admin consider an unblock without CU assistance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

This is getting even more ridiculous. What "technical information"? Is it that I now live in the same country that DeFacto lived in 16 months ago (well I've only been back here since April 2012)? Is it that I am using the same web browser that DeFacto did 16 months ago? Did DeFacto use a Windows PC 16 months ago? Why do you think DeFacto would create my account 7 months before he got blocked, use it to edit stuff that I am interested in for a while, then, more than a year after he got blocked, come back and start editing the same sort of stuff that he got into trouble over? As for similar behaviour: presumably anyone being blocked, particularly if the accusation leading to their block was less than accurate and less than honest, would want to try to understand the reasons why. Using your logic, that would make all appeals dubious. Please, imagine for one moment that I have been mistakenly accused of being DeFacto, now what can I say or do, or what sort of evidence can I supply, to clear my name? Would the submission of scans of documents that prove that I was physically prevented from editing Wikipedia between the end of April 2012 and the middle of June 2012, and again between the middle of August 2012 and the end of February 2013 clinch it? Cobulator (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been advised that your sole route of appeal is via BASC, please redirect your appeal there if you will be pursuing an unblock. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cobulator&oldid=1077869355"