User talk:Cosmic6811/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Geneseo, IL page

Hi Cosmic, I've noticed that you've been undoing some of my edits to the Wiki page on Geneseo, IL. The main edit has been removing the phrase "successful football program" from the article summary, and I just want to let you know that you shouldn't be undoing this edit. Geneseo football has been terrible since the 1970s, so it makes no sense to be saying that the program is successful on the wikipedia page. Please stop changing this.

Thanks, DaBaum32 DaBaum32 (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! It's not your edits specifically that i'm trying to revert, but the edits from the user @Bluemanassgroup23. Your edits are both intertwined within the page history though, so to revert the vandalism, I have to also revert yours as well. -- Cosmic (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Have a good morning! DaBaum32 (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you be willing to hop on a voice call real quick to further talk this out? DaBaum32 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really. -- Cosmic (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@DaBaum32: Hi, hope you're well. The best way to seek help from other Wikipedians is by using "our" communication methods, i.e. talk pages, or at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Don't feel discouraged; most people, including myself, would be uncomfortable using voice calls / video calls to discuss Wikipedia matters, due to time involvement, risks related to privacy, data protection, etc. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 04:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, came across this discussion while reviewing something unrelated. Thank you for your work and effort reverting vandalism on Wiki. Just a note from a fellow anti-vandal: It'd be advisable not to revert good faith (or, even more importantly, good) edits as a part of vandalism revert/rollback. Sometimes restoring the correct revision requires some manual editing (and, therefore, more effort) but it is almost always preferred. Otherwise, we may lose valuable contributions made by others. Thanks! Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 04:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello 9pfs (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

next time make a new section cause you added your comment to an existing discussion -- Cosmic (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I did? I thought it was a new section 9pfs (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hi [Created a new section on request] 9pfs (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

now you've made a new section -- Cosmic (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this better? 9pfs (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

yes -- Cosmic (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay 9pfs (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

cosmic this ethan so im band for dating that i did not do can you do something 66.227.226.105 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you able to access the ban appeals channel? -- Cosmic (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Replyte

Could you get on Replyte? Someone sent inappropriate content. 9pfs (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It was https://replit.com/@Beezle (human liquid waste disposal) 9pfs (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Replyte

@Cosmic6811 Could you handle what's going on on replyte? I don't know what to do. 9pfs (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Detroit–Windsor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Cosmic6811. Please drop the stick and stop wikilawyering in this thread. We're not going to grant you rollback and you are now torpedoing your future requests for rollback as well. Continuing down this path *is* going to result in a WP:CIR/WP:IDHT block, so I really hope you'll take this advice seriously. Thanks, FASTILY 05:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other issues that I should solve before reapplying so that I can lower my chances of getting rejected again? -- Cosmic (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The way you respond to constructive criticism would be a great place to start. If your first instinct is to become combative, then rollback is not the right tool for you. -FASTILY 06:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well then it's a good thing that my first instinct isn't to be combative but rather to become defensive. -- Cosmic (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you like me to indef you for disruption? -FASTILY 06:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You may say that i'm being disruptive, but I can say the same thing to you. All I did was provide a few points arguing against comments that I honestly feel are incorrect and you call me obnoxious and borderline disruptive. I may be that to you, but you are also that to me. -- Cosmic (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If you are feeling disrupted, I would suggest you place yourself in my shoes. Read the threads from my perspective and point of view. And yes, I must always have the last word. It is in my nature and I can do nothing to change that. It is just the way I am. And you are not going to indef me cause that would be escalating the situation and I will dispute it if I so need to at the highest level till the last of my days which will be a long time because I am very young. -- Cosmic (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok then, as you wish. -FASTILY 06:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ok -- Cosmic (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

wait i didn't think you would actually indef me -- Cosmic (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Cosmic I’ve never seen someone fly off the handle over a declined permission request like that, you are blocked for good reason. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not fly off the handle. Read it again and you will see that I calmly accepted the decline. I was not arguing against my request being declined, but rather against the points that you and other admins brought up that I saw as incorrect. -- Cosmic (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And in that situation there was no grounds for an argument to begin with, it was a simple situation with a simple explanation and simple instructions on what you needed to do. The fact that you were unable or unwilling to deal with that situation without starting a protracted argument in which you were not processing anything we were saying is precisely the reason you are blocked. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Help me!

If I was blocked and it says "Blocked until ready to contribute constructively, does that mean that I can just say that I am ready to contribute constructively? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I was trying to get a quick answer on the Discord server but they kept telling me to stop discussing there and to ask it here. -- Cosmic (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

See the guide to making unblock requests. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting for the record that Cosmic6811 has also been banned from the Wikimedia Discord. -FASTILY 22:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

i have? -- Cosmic (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Why was I banned? Do you know? -- Cosmic (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community Discord server ban

@ferret @GeneralNotability I was banned from the discord server but I don't know why. Could somebody please clarify? -- Cosmic (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Pestering people about your block. Worry about getting unblocked on-wiki first. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

When did I ever pester people about my block? I do not recall ever doing so. -- Cosmic (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I recall asking if it would be better to dispute a block or admit to wrongdoing, but I do not recall ever pestering anybody. -- Cosmic (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

These guidelines are not exhaustive. Please use common sense when using the server. Moderators may use their discretion to remove and ban users from the server for any reason. from WP:Discord. Anyways, this is not an appropriate use of your talk page while blocked. -- ferret (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"I'd suggest you walk a more careful line, as the next moderator action you see will be an a ban." Ferret implied that I had one more chance. And I am using my talk page because I have no other way to contact the server mods. Ferret appears to have blocked my messages from being sent on Discord. -- Cosmic (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cosmic6811 If you use your talk page for anything but a legitimate appeal of your enwiki block again, I'll remove your talk page access. As GN said, Pestering people about your block. Worry about getting unblocked on-wiki first. -- ferret (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

When I asked how I could contact people while blocked, I was told to use my talk page. Check the server message history if you don't believe me. -- Cosmic (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cosmic6811 You've been repeatedly linked to WP:GAB. If you can't follow those directions, it indicates your block is entirely correct. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I am able to follow those directions. -- Cosmic (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure you are. Would you like me to revoke your talk page access too? -FASTILY 01:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No thank you. I'm fine. -- Cosmic (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Block appeal

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked after being denied rollback permissions and a conversation in my talk page. I was not arguing about being declined but rather was replying to comments that I saw as being incorrect. After a while, admins seemed to be getting frustrated with me. However, I stubbornly remained calm and replied to them, telling them why they were wrong. While I stand by my points, I should not have said the things I said. Even If I feel that others have said things that I think are incorrect, unreasonable, or stupid, instead of arguing against them it would be better to not. While I may feel that I have been unreasonable or unfairly treated, debating even if I feel that I am in the right and others in the wrong will only cause disruption to others. It is better to just get over something rather than continue to debate in a thread and cause others to be disrupted. I understand why I was blocked, and if unblocked will try not to make the same mistakes I have again. (btw I was blocked because of the way I act and talk in discussions. There are quite a few articles that I want to fix mistakes in and while I may cause a disruption in talk pages, I do contribute constructively to articles in the mainspace and i really want to fix mistakes that I found) -- Cosmic (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I may cause a disruption in talk pages" -- no, you may not. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Second block appeal

{{unblock|1=I was blocked after being denied rollback permissions and a conversation in my talk page. I was not arguing about being declined but rather was replying to comments that I saw as being incorrect. After a while, admins seemed to be getting frustrated with me. However, I stubbornly remained calm and replied to them, telling them why they were wrong. While I stand by my points, I should not have said the things I said. Even If I feel that others have said things that I think are incorrect, unreasonable, or stupid, instead of arguing against them it would be better to not. While I may feel that I have been unreasonable or unfairly treated, debating even if I feel that I am in the right and others in the wrong will only cause disruption to others. It is better to just get over something rather than continue to debate in a thread and cause others to be disrupted. I understand why I was blocked, and if unblocked will try not to make the same mistakes I have again. -- Cosmic (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)}} -- Cosmic (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Your second unblock request is almost exactly the same as your first, just with two sentences removed. I'm glad you removed the I may cause a disruption in talk pages part, but there is still more you need to address.

I was not arguing about being declined but rather was replying to comments that I saw as being incorrect. After a while, admins seemed to be getting frustrated with me. However, I stubbornly remained calm and replied to them, telling them why they were wrong. While I stand by my points, I should not have said the things I said. Have you entertained the thought that you may be wrong? You shouldn't be editing to "right great wrongs". Currently your unblock request is still adamantly insisting that you were not wrong, which is one of the reasons why you were blocked. Dropping a discussion is important, but so is walking away without thinking that everybody you disagreed with are "wrong" and that you are "right". Re-read the messages Fastily wrote for you in #Rollback: The way you respond to constructive criticism would be a great place to start. If your first instinct is to become combative, then rollback is not the right tool for you.. Start with that. When your request for rollback was declined, you insisted on replying to every single comment because you took all of them as an attack on your character. Don't believe me? You said that to Fastily: You may say that i'm being disruptive, but I can say the same thing to you. All I did was provide a few points arguing against comments that I honestly feel are incorrect and you call me obnoxious and borderline disruptive. I may be that to you, but you are also that to me.. You must remember that criticism is not in itself an attack. When editors are pointing out something that you may be doing incorrectly, you should not be interpreting them as an attack and becoming defensive, which is what you were doing. By becoming defensive, you will feel the need to "respond to everything", to "correct what is incorrect", and to "keep the discussion going". This is the core reason of your block: address your tendency to become defensive in the face of criticism. And that means you need to stop implying that other people are wrong and that you are right. If you interpret criticism as disruptive, then you should not be editing Wikipedia, because part of our core principles is that everyone must be open to feedback, even if it isn't rosy. Criticism is how you learn as an editor, so you need to be open to it; editors who refuse to accept criticism will find themselves blocked as they wear out the community's patience.

Lastly, there is one other thing I'd like to see you address: your ban from the Discord server. Why were you banned? Because you simply wouldn't listen—and is there any indication that you are listening now? You were repeatedly told to stop discussing your block on the server and to use this talk page, which you repeatedly failed to do. You attempted to change the topic in such a way that indirectly discussed your block, which you adamantly said you were not doing (which you clearly were). You were timed out for some time, and when the timeout expired, you immediately returned exclaiming that you found it fun watching the countdown timer run to zero—which clearly shows that you don't understand why you were timed out and that you gloriously awaited your return. You were banned soon after, and rightfully so. If you think it's fun watching your timeout expire, what does it suggest here? Blocks and bans are not issued for fun—they are issued to stop further disruption. Your initial timeout was a message for you to use this talk page and to stop discussing your block on Discord, which you failed to do. I want to see you convince us that we will not see the same thing here if you are unblocked.

I won't be processing this unblock request as I'll leave it to another administrator to decide. If and when you do modify your appeal (if it hasn't already been declined) or submit a new one (if the handling administrator permits it), you should address these points. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Your initial timeout was a message for you to use this talk page and to stop discussing your block on Discord, which you failed to do. That was actually a big misunderstanding. Keep in mind that I am not arguing with you but rather telling the story from my own perspective. After I was told to use my talk page and stop discussing my block on Discord, I went to my talk page and re-read all the policies including WP:BP. When I was reading that, I found that the policy was contradicting what I was previously told by an administrator. I went back to the Discord and pointed that out because I thought that it was interesting, However, it seems that everybody except for me and one other person thought that I was to quote an admin, "smartassing my way into talking about my block". This was not true, so I tried to explain that I was not meaning to bring up my block, and was just pointing out something I thought was interesting. However, people kept telling me to stop talking about my block so I wrote a paragraph explaining that I was not talking about my block. And then after I sent that I got timed out. This may or may not change what you think and if it does, I will be glad. If it doesn't, that is understandable.

Edit: Your username sounds kind of familiar. Were you one of the people telling me to stop talking about my block? -- Cosmic (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Responses like the above are only going to dig your grave deeper, unfortunately; you're repeating the very behaviour that led up to your block. To respond to you, your question was about whether it was always necessary to leave a talk page message when reverting edits, which is basically the same discussion you had on your declined request for rollback, which you were blocked for because you wouldn't stop going on about it, because you were having a combative approach of feeling that you need to "defend yourself" against every "allegation". On top of that, many people were telling you to stop discussing the matter on Discord, which you went out of your way to "defend yourself" by claiming that your question was unrelated to the block. If multiple users are asking you to stop discussing something, writing a paragraph to explain why they're wrong is exactly what leads to you getting blocked or banned. We have a guideline on this: there is no need to continue arguing a viewpoint when the community has decided to move on, and that trying to keep it going will simply annoy everybody with no real benefit. Wikipedia is not about "winning arguments", which is why we tell people to drop discussions that have overstayed their welcome; they distract from the overall goal of building an encyclopedia. If everybody else around you is sick of the topic, then it's best to stop talking about it.

Do you truly understand why you are blocked? From what I can tell, this whole kerfuffle could've been completely avoided if, on your request for rollback, you just acknowledged Fastily's advice for you when they declined the request (a simple "Thank you for the advice" is sufficient), went back to doing recent changes patrolling, and made sure to warn vandals after reverting them. That's the simplest approach to it: you take people's advice, learn from them, apply your new knowledge in your editing, and continue to improve Wikipedia moving forward. The reason why you're blocked is because you didn't do that, instead staying on the request for rollback to argue with everybody, wasting everyone's time—including your own. That does not help to improve Wikipedia and is simply a drain on the community's patience, which is why you were blocked. Do you understand this? And you don't even need to look far: on your very own declined request for rollback, Felida97 acknowledged their error in not warning vandals without getting all defensive and "actually, you're wrong". You had an example of correct behaviour right there in front of your nose! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

But my question wasn't about my block and and it wasn't even a question. I was just making a comment. And the community hadn't moved on. If they had moved on, they wouldn't have kept telling me to stop talking about my block. I didn't say anything and people still tell me to stop talking about my block, even if i was not talking at all.

I do understand why I was blocked and I know this whole kerfuffle is not necessary and could have been completely avoided. The reason I stayed on the request for rollback is because I thought that people were wrong and I wanted to correct them. It seemed as if Fastily thought that I never notified people after reverting their edits so I replied saying that I do indeed use RedWarn and Twinkle and notify people. All I wanted to do was make sure that nobody had the wrong idea. Sarrail thought that I recently started to warn people but that was wrong so I messaged them telling them to double check. I wasn't trying to start an argument, I just wanted people not to be mistaken. Looking back, it seems as things escalated when Swarm said that I was coming across as unreasonable and I responded with reasons why I felt that the admins were being unreasonable. -- Cosmic (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And the community hadn't moved on. [...] I didn't say anything You've now gone from being defensive to outright lying. And you are still not listening. Do you still insist on having the "final word"? Your actions on this talk page will determine that. Just to warn you: if you continue to demonstrate a failure to understand why you were blocked, you may lose the ability to edit this talk page, at which point you will have to appeal via UTRS. And if you respond the same way there, I'm afraid you'll lose that channel of appeal as well, and then it will become very difficult for you to become unblocked. I'm sure you would like to be unblocked, and I'm letting you know that what you are doing right now is guaranteeing the opposite will happen.

My recommendation for you at this point is for your appeal to not discuss the actions of others at all. No "I thought they were wrong" or "This was not true" or "I want to set the record straight". Focus entirely on your own actions: "I should not have been combative and defensive." "I should have dropped the stick." "I do not need to respond to every single comment." You're blocked for your own actions, not for the actions of others. So long as you keep inserting a clause that implies that others were wrong or mistaken, you won't be getting anywhere with this. Your unblock request above is still pending, and you are free to edit it per my suggestions for you. A really good idea I can recommend for you is to remove the pending unblock request (so long as it has not been declined, you may remove it) and then spend the next few days drafting another unblock request, making sure that you have taken my advice into account and that you focus on your own actions rather than on the actions of others. You may then submit a new unblock request with that appeal. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

How should I remove the pending unblock request? -- Cosmic (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

What you did is sufficient. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Third block appeal

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked. I was causing disruption in the Rollback permissions request page by "not dropping the stick" and continuing to argue and extend discussions. If unblocked, I will try not to do that. Instead I will listen to what people say when giving constructive criticism so that I can apply things said by the more experienced administrators to what I do. Rather than continue to provide points arguing against people, I should accept what they say and use their knowledge to help me. Arguing only makes the experience worse for everybody including me. I now understand this and am looking to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia. -- Cosmic (T · C) 00:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined due to block evasion, demonstrating you still aren't willing to follow our policies. Yamla (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Note block evasion on alt account B2005 today. -- ferret (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do then in that situation? Just wait until somebody else comes along and fixes it? Would you rather I let vandalism stay? -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 03:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We have no shortage of vandalism patrollers. You are blocked, and evading your block does not improve the chances of you getting unblocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

On the 30th of November, I received a notification that an edit had been made to a certain article on my watchlist. It turned out to be vandalism to an infobox that changed the name of a company's founder to something ridiculous. I decided to wait and see what would happen, as you said that there is no shortage of vandalism patrollers. Today on the 20th of December, the article was finally fixed by somebody who randomly found the article and saw that it had incorrect information. Even if there is no shortage of vandalism patrollers, vandalism can slip by unnoticed for 3 weeks. This means that even if there is no shortage of vandalism patrollers as you say, vandalism is still an issue. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 22:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

But you alone, one person, are not going to solve that issue for us. The issues you've demonstrated that led to your block have used up as much volunteer time as any vandal has. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

But you alone, one person, are not going to solve that issue for us. Yes that is true. One person will not make a big dent in the overall amount of vandalism and Wikipedia as a whole. They will however make a difference to individual articles and it is the articles that make up Wikipedia. The issues you've demonstrated that led to your block have used up as much volunteer time as any vandal has. I don't fully understand what you mean by that. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 02:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

More time has been spent dealing with your block and the circumstances around it as any number of vandals. You're becoming a drain on the community's time and effort by not taking "no" for an answer and waiting the required time. -- ferret (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting fact. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 04:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Rather than continue to provide points arguing against people [...] Unfortunately, you haven't followed your own advice for yourself (1, 2, 3). We're right back to seeing more lengthy explanations about why your violating Wikipedia policies was justified. I'll give you points for removing those comments, but I'd like to see more self-control and discipline from you to avoid publishing those comments in the first place.

It's a shame to see you throwing away your chances at an unblock like that. I'll take it as a good faith error on your part by reverting vandalism with your alt account while blocked, but regardless it still constitutes block evasion.

I will be removing your talk page from my watchlist after this, but one option that I suggest for you is to try the standard offer. To put it shortly:

• Wait six months without editing Wikipedia at all—no sockpuppetry, no block evasion. Best bet is to not even edit your talk page at all for those six months.
• Promise to avoid repeating the behaviour that led to your block in your unblock request.
• Don't do anything stupid that would otherwise ruin your chances.

The standard offer comes with no guarantees, so if your unblock is declined even after following the letter and spirit of the offer, don't get irate. I'm simply making it known to you that you have this option if you want to resume editing (and I know you do), but it's very easy to throw it away if you lack of discipline and self-control. Don't blow it for yourself. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is off topic but could you revert this edit please? It was made by a sockpuppet (whom isn't an admin) going around reviewing unblock requests. They appear to have done the same on my talk page as well under a different account (that impersonates another user). -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 00:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Data Insight

Hello, Cosmic6811. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Data Insight, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no Evidence (site source) for paranormal experts unless you count "Tic-Tac event" from Gov.?

Where do you draw the line between fact and fiction when in the realm of history suppressed and or paranormal no such evidence can exist unless your open-minded in the first place. We can let consensus determine what is true with race/culture, science fact, history, merely dubbing conspiracy theory. What is academia afraid of; losing their tenure? The majority of people already know through personal experience UFO's/UAP exist because of Military (Air Force/Navy 4-star generals who came forward as truth elephants.

So how can we keep slandering and censoring what to scoff at merely with attitude and personality disorders merely because we don't refer to so called legend and myth as Religion? Religion is more far out there than any topic as it more so than any topic has outlandish stories and not siting sources. Biblical sources merely come from King's & bishops who forsake twisting teachings of Emmanual (Jesus) when they stood to gain God Kings through a corrupt church & state basis of reasoning; that's not proof!

For example: The Late Chief Harvard psychologist John Mack has investigated thousand of cases of UFO abductees under hypnosis as a skeptic until he realized the chances of these people who didn't know each other saying the same exact details was far beyond coincidence.

So when society merely bases everything on sources who DON"T KNOW because those sources obviously never truly investigated and/or have no experience or wisdom to speak on the topic out of egos then we cannot merely depend on sited oh so knowing sources. We are going to have to stop slandering cultures oral traditions calling them village idiots essentially and stop actually delving into NOT repeating the past with that same ignorance we are claiming the ancient cultures merely use when we still cannot reproduce their high technology building methods with all the technology we have today. 47.157.159.22 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because on Wikipedia, content needs to be cited. I understand where you're coming from, but am afraid you are mistaken. Feel free to add info as long as you have a reliable source. Wikipedia articles need to be referenced. If you just write a bunch of stuff, even if it is true, for all we know you made it up on the spot. By adding sources, we provide a way to check to see where the information came from. Please read the Referencing for Beginners article. Thank you. -- Cosmic (T · C) 23:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Block Appeal

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Regarding my so called block evasion, at the time I was just trying to remove vandalism from a page. I understand that blocks apply to the person and not the account. Contradictory to what Yamla believes, I am willing to follow guidelines and policies. I will do what I must do to gain editing privilages again. The reason I edited using an alt account was that I found edits that were misleading into thinking that the mascot of a school was a seal instead of an eagle. I understand that what I did is against Wikipedia's policies and even though the edits were constructive, they should not have been made while my account had a block on it. I now have a clearer understanding of sockpuppetry and its consequences and will not edit while blocked at all in the future. I apologize for breaking the policy and for any wrongdoing I have committed. Regarding the problem of how I seem to provide points arguing people, that is a habit that I am trying to break. I am not intentionally trying to start an argument; I just sometimes disagree with people. However, I am working on correcting this behaviour that is not fit for Wikipedia. I can not 100% guarantee that I will completely stop doing this, but I can confidently say that I will to the best of my abilities try not to. After all, I am only human. I will try my best and make steps to have more self-control and discipline and refrain from posting comments that disagree with others. I wish to be able to actively contribute to Wikipedia again. I will spend some more time reviewing all the different policies and guidelines and make sure that I do not break them. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 00:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Try the standard offer and make a better unblock request then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

"so called block evasion"? -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Data Insight

Hello, Cosmic6811. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Data Insight".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Appealing Block

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked so that I can edit again. I understand the Wikipedia policies and will follow them as closely as possible in the future. I have no intentions of making disruptive edits and want to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. I admit that I made mistakes in the past but I have learned from them. I will no longer be disruptive in talk pages and will not engage in any sockpuppetry. In the future, if unblocked, I will continue to work on improving Wikipedia. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 19:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I suggest you take the standard offer and wait 6 months with no socking. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

-- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 19:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Is there a reason why I can't be unblocked now? Why the standard offer? -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 22:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Your block evasion means it is unlikely you will be unblocked without taking the standard offer. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way I can get unblocked sooner than 6 months? -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 02:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems unlikely. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is unlikely but unlikely means that it is still technically possible right? -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 18:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it is possible. I am not going to unblock you, but you are free to post another unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Block appeal

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I fully understand the reasons for why I was blocked and won't make the same mistakes again. I now understand that I committed sockpuppetry when reverting vandalism using another account. I apologize for my actions. At the time I did not realize that what I was doing was wrong. I have re-read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and have a better understanding of what I shouldn't do. I also will not extend arguments with others when the conversation should be finished. I intend to follow them to the best of my abilities. Debating against things I disagree with and information that I think is incorrect is disruptive for the community and I will no longer write lengthy paragraphs justifying why I am right and others are wrong. After a while, it is better to just drop it and move on. There is no point of keeping the flames alive and by doing so I cause a burden to both other Wikipedians and myself. I want to contribute positively to the encyclopedia and will make edits such as reverting vandalism and fixing grammar if unblocked. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 02:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm unwilling to unblock you before six months. I would suggest that in the interim you edit a different Wikimedia project(scroll to the bottom of the Main Page for some choices); if you do so constructively, that would be a good point in your favor six months from now. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Block Appeal

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was originally blocked for getting into disagreements administrators. After I was blocked, I used an alternate account to make a few edits such as reverting some vandalism. Since then, I have realized my actions were wrong. I have reviewed the policies and guidelines related to my wrongdoing and now understand my mistakes. I wish to be unblocked so that I can continue to revert vandalism, fix grammar, write articles, and contribute to Wikipedia in any way I can. I have learned from my past mistakes and believe that I won't make them again. Going forward, I want to continue helping Wikipedia by improving its articles and removing bad faith edits. I now understand what sockpuppetry is and isn't and why arguing with others when I believe that they are wrong is a waste of time and is extremely disruptive. I was blocked until ready to contribute constructively. I believe that I am now able to do that and if unblocked will make sure that I don't do anything disruptive. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 2:45 am, 17 May 2023, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

If I squint hard enough, this is almost an acceptable unblock request. YMMV. I mean, but for the six months problem, I probably would. I don't feel a need to reset the clock. Oh, bother. six months is six months. Please try to follow 331dot's advice. Maybe in July. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Note that asking to be unblocked before six months are up by two admins is likely to not be a point in your favor, you also seem to have ignored my advice above. This is your choice, but not likely to succeed. It will probably be up to the next reviewer if this request resets the six month clock should it be unsuccessful. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It has been six months since I was blocked -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 15:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh you meant six months from January -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Block Appeal

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).

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Following the advice I was given by Deepfriedokra, I am now appealing my block after 8 months. I fully understand my wrongdoing and I want to make up for it by helping improve to the encyclopedia. I've re-read the policies and rules and will make sure not to repeat the mistakes I made such as continuing arguments long after they should have ended and using an alternate account to edit articles after my block. I wish to continue editing and fighting against vandalism and I will make sure to not cause any disruption whatsoever. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 04:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You forgot to point to the other project where you've been editing without problems, as 331dot said. You are free to immediately make a new unblock request pointing to this other project. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Checkuser data shows no evidence of block evasion this time around. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Block Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cosmic6811 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not aware that I was required to have contributed to other projects to be unblocked, though I did make a few edits to the Simple English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons. I have also made a list of edits that I am planning to make to the English Wikipedia if unblocked containing instances of vandalism to revert, hyperlinks to be added, grammatical fixes, spelling fixes, as well as content to be written or restored. All I wish for is to be unblocked so that I can continue improving the encyclopedia. I was blocked for causing disruption by arguing with administrators and later for sock puppetry, both of which I won't ever do again as I have learnt my lesson and have changed my ways. I understand that I have done wrong in the past and I want to make up for it by contributing and helping to improve Wikipedia in the future. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 05:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Conditional unblock per WP:SO, and the agreement below. User’s final warning as an unblock condition has been logged at WP:ER/UC. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Fastily: Objections to SO unblock at this point? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fine with me under the condition that any repeat of the same behavior that led to this block will result in a new, immediate indefinite block. -FASTILY 07:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sound good Cosmic? Your appeal will be granted with the condition and understanding that you be indefinitely blocked without further warning if you prove to go back on your word here, and/or if there are further issues. If you acknowledge, I will unblock you without further discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. That sounds good. -- Cosmic 🍁 (T · C) 03:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

   Done. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)