So your saying I am the same person as this User:Exiled Ambition? What are you trying to prove? I simply decided to revert the information he had written after it had been vandalized by User:Tadakuni; User:Tadakuni practically took those articles and threw them across his shoulder to be deleted while pretending as if his actions had been virtually substantial to Wikipedia's quality standards. How gullible would you have to be to think what he is doing is correct? But why would I happen to jump on such an issue you may ask? It's because I know "Tadakuni" in real life many years ago as a guy who could do nothing more but run his mouth in college about how honored he felt to contribute towards society with an alias like "Tadakuni" without ever revealing his real face in front of other people; he was like some sort of pretend-samaritan, but someone who couldn't actually help others even if he wanted to or tried his hardest. I don't know who this "Exiled Ambition" guy is but his articles had been clearly vandalized so obviously I'm going to stand up in defense of the work he took the time to write. If you don't believe that Tadakuni is deserving of any fault then you shouldn't be an administrator, because it's very apparent my actions have helped Wikipedia and I am not speaking words that are disapprovable. User:Cosmos Raver17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your actions speak louder than your words, and you haven't done anything useful for Wikipedia. Please do not vandalize this page, either (as you did here and here), or you will be prevented from accessing this page as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
"Your actions speak louder than your words, and you haven't done anything useful for Wikipedia." This coming from the guy who deleted 200 of his articles last year? Wow. "Please do not vandalize this page, either." Wow, "vandalizing" his own talk page--how terrible would that be? Maybe that wouldn't even be possible if Wikipedia didn't suck, and actually had a real message-board system instead of this ad-hoc piece of garbage talk page system? And why does Wikipedia even allow random people to edit other people's personal profiles? Beause the creators are retarded and lazy? Yeah, that's probably it. They only raised $6 million last year, they can't be bothered to develop new features like article-authors being able to create private pages and set the modification rights to restrict it from being edited by people outside of a certain group. Oh, we wouldn't want to vandalize Tadakuni's profile now would we--3 people probably read it a month, and the guy quit Wikipedia months ago (shortly after becoming an admin mind you--the admin selection process is obviously far from rigorous, as your admin status bears testament to). This is terrible, horrible, almost as bad as that time when the front-page of wikipedia was replaced with a photograph of an erect penis, or back when Nihon Joe went on his article deletion spree crusades. Terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.140.118 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2419 BC (UTC)
Your correct, anyone's actions should speak louder than their words, and I have proven to be no exception to that phrase; but saying that I "haven't done anything useful for Wikipedia" is sort of heart-breaking: in any one of my edits even an illiterate person could comprehend that sources and the information written in those sources had been retrieved for other people to read instead of mundane, ready-to-delete supplements like those Tadakuni is so ever trying to portray. Knowing as much why would you take the time to revert each of my edits when I'm not only bringing back the original lifespan of the articles but also encouraging other users to expand on them so one individual source isn't relied upon for every ounce of credibility? Essentially you don't want others to think of you as vandalizing those articles like Tadakuni had to this other guy, so why shouldn't we both just cooperate for the sake of what the people actually want from Wikipedia? -- Cosmos Raver
And relating to the anonymous poster above it seems you have had quite a history of rigorous, positive contributions haven't you? I wasn't aware how much lack of rigor represents the RfA system on Wikipedia; it seems I am not the only person aware of what blatant change Wikipedia is incapable of. User:Cosmos Raver 22:07, 21 March 2009
Unfortunately I also see that you don't trust me after having "corrected my abusive impersonation", even though that wasn't even me at all. What are you honestly trying to get at here? Other people have been expressing there dislike towards you in one way or another and you try to convince yourself that that group is a single entity based upon coincidental reasoning to no reasoning at all? I have only been expressing a fervent interest to help support the frail feet of Wikipedia's administration, so there shouldn't be any reason for this discord when I am not at fault for anything at all. If you don't intend on cooperating with me then I will bring up my case before other administrators so this 'no-page editing' stamp of unreasoned-justice can be removed from my forehead. With a baseless argument on your own part--as you have shown to me irrationally--it is impossible for me to think any different right now; there isn't any way that we can work together, Nihonjoe, until you admit that I am correct and move on from it. User:Cosmos Raver 22:13, 21 March 2009
Admins generally have a thankless job, and I'm sure you can find plenty of people who are happy with the work I've done. People who don't like it tend to be much, much more vocal, though, so I can see why you would think that people only dislike me. I've brought it up here, so we'll see what happens. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
And now this User:Hoary accuses me of being that Exiled Ambition user you administrators are seemingly so obsessed about? I will admit that a good number of those samurai articles he contributed to were terribly written but his contributions still shouldn't have been left to vandalism on the part of users who receive false praise from those as equally lacking in the intelligence quotient section like Tadakuni. The only thing I did wrong was vandalize Tadakuni's front-page and talk page, but those were for personal reasons, since I do know him in the real world and know better than anyone else the negativity of his collective 'I must help people in need even though I don't know how to properly help them when I should' personality which has only put Wikipedia in a more negative situation. I mean really, Wikipedia should be sophisticated enough to offer modification rights to users so that they can essentially prevent their personal user-pages from being vandalized. User:Cosmos Raver
So let me get this right: you're saying it's Wikipedia's fault for not preventing you from vandalizing Tadakuni's user page? It doesn't matter why you did it; it just matters that you did it. Do you really not have enough self control to prevent yourself from doing immature things such as that? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe03:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
But, virtually, I wasn't harming practically anything: no more than half-a-palm worth of people would have even take the time to look at his user page throughout an entire month, which renders its importance as pretty low in general. The vandalism that I decided to clean up after him carries an unjustified, yet remotely large, weight of praise to it instead of careful scrutiny that would otherwise cause serious problems for Tadakuni. Tadakuni even decided to abandon Wikipedia after he became an administrator -- he would have inevitably become a source of mockery no matter what happened once it was confirmed he left without reason. Vandalism in itself may be incorrect if you aren't able to create anything efficient from it, but in my context I had been illustrating that adminship should be respected, not denied, of course with the notion that Wikipedia is worth contributing to, which I believe in. User:Cosmos Raver
Seeing as you haven't responded to my post it seems we have reached some sort of consensus on this issue. Now, the thing is, I believe it would be in your best interest to un-revert the edits you had made to those Japanese-themes articles I reconstructed from User:Tadakuni, the vandalizer behind this entire issue who people such as yourself have been giving praise to without almost as much as a second thought on the logic of the entire situation. You of course want to punish those who create wrongdoings and I too want to punish the same sort of people, so it's practically common sense to help Wikipedia discipline Tadakuni in some way or another instead of letting this argument become a waste of words even when I'm speaking with reason. I will be inspecting the other articles Tadakuni has contributed to to make certain that no other users have fallen victim to his blatantly negative contributions as people like User:Exiled Ambition have or User:Fg2: nothing is more worse than to have a person commit wrong actions when he genuinely thinks what he is doing is correct. User:Cosmos Raver 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend against doing that as you will be blocked again under whatever usernames you use to do that. Your edits are not welcome here as you have shown you can not be trusted to make valid edits. Please go play somewhere else. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
So apparently what I have been trying to argue has been nothing more than childish gibber to you then? Of course, Tadakuni is a user who genuinely wants to positively contribute to Wikipedia and has been exceptionally reasonable and kind to me whenever I intended on working with him or convincing him to cooperate according to my standards, so it would be impossible for his contributions to be negative right? Alright, lets just be very succinct with everything already: Tadakuni has been harming Wikipedia, which is why I surfaced and undid the edits he made to various Japanese articles; if it weren't for you I would have also reverted other acts of vandalism he probably made in other secondary articles that he thought he was contributing to positively. Now your argument is that I have messed around a little bit with his user page and talk page and should be punished for it, but my verdict was that they were positive because he abandoned Wikipedia after taking up a position of authority and could only harm the reputation of people like you by doing so without reason; and as practically no one aside from those interested in Tadakuni would check his user page or talk page routinely--or ever--the ridicule I gave him was for a better good that can't be simply dismissed as childish. After all, why would my secondary edits be positive when my first seem negative? If I wanted to harm something I wouldn't be helping something else at the same time now would I? Sometimes gaining the attention of others may require a little bit of unethical behavior, which was nothing less than rational if you properly understand the personality of Wikipedia and such a heavy lack of rigor in their administration team--both in their ability to administrate and recruit new administrators properly--let alone the articles and policies that are terribly upheld.
You then accused me of being User:Exiled Ambition, who apparently concentrated his contributions to Japanese articles here on Wikipedia more than the majority of other people had, so obviously if I were to revert back to any edits he made--which I have no clue why they were removed to begin with aside from corrupt administrators exercising their power incorrectly in some shape or form--I must be him. But what evidence is there that proves I would have selectively messed with those articles if Tadakuni had contributed to a subject that was entirely separate from those relative to Japanese history or whether this person--Exiled Ambition--couldn't have carried with him empathetic supporters? It's only evident I have a justified disdain towards Tadakuni, so no matter what edits he makes I will be there to assess the value of them and take a necessary, positive based, course of action in return to those edits. As you can see I have been blocked for irregular edits backed by mere speculation, even though they are only, in all actuality, irregular, NOT incorrect. Listening to reason is the first step to positive growth in any society; that being said, if reason existed here, from your interpretation, I would have already been convicted as guilty then wouldn't I? User:Cosmos Raver 7:05 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Turning a cold shoulder to reason now are we Joe? I want to help Wikipedia just as much as someone like you would like to, and as it is blatant my innocence has already been verified already why should I still have to post here on my Talk Page feeling dismayed by the weight of other people's mistakes? You do understand the best option for me right now is to simply create another account and revert the rest of the negative edits users such as Tadakuni have made, but for some inexplicable reason that would come across to you as being criminal in some way, even though you wouldn't be able to properly conceive anything more than speculation to justify that intuition of yours, and knowing you that would come across as a reason to act against my favor even though that is out of the interest of everything nonetheless. Don't tempt me Mr. Joe, I'm not the sort of person who would prefer remaining legit even after he proves his case is just; but maybe it would be more preferable for me to accept Wikipedia as not very just and reasonable and move forward from that understanding -- or maybe not so much when I registered here for the obvious reason to correctly enact justice acts. Come now, if you are an administrator it would be in your best interest to respond to me and inform the world that you understand how to think and act with reason; I and anyone else will respect you more for doing so. All you have to do is admit my innocence and we can move forward conventionally, otherwise you will only be tarnishing your name more than it already has been -- but who am I to say, I might be one of the few who actually want to see intelligent differences around here. User:Cosmos Raver 8:09 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but there's not really anything more to say which hasn't already been said. Your contributions are not wanted here, so please go find somewhere else to play. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Acting superior in front of other people while minimizing the credibility of your arguments by sticking to easily disapproveable speculation instead of evidence isn't what I should be inferring at all from you Nihonjoe, you are meant to be an administrator after all -- someone who knows what choices maximize Wikipedia's gain, not loss. Apparently reverting every one of my good-willed edits even after evidence existed that what Tadakuni was doing had been incorrect is your interpretation of supporting Wikipedia, either that or you are trying to prove that you are a perpetrator of his negatives. Both don't seem very rational to say the least so what exactly are you getting across here? Surely you don't want to make yourself look stupid, but hey there isn't going to be anyone else watching you anyways since the administration team is a non-rigor based community of people who probably wouldn't ever be able to have the qualifications of even web-based adminship in the real world of business -- what reason is there for you to give me a viable argument when you can do whatever your whim may direct you without almost any repercussion to speak of in return? After all, the gap between our capabilities is so large that if you come to a final verdict my argument could only be interpreted as gibber, right?
How far do you want me to go with this cynicism for real Nihonjoe? 'Messing with Tadakuni's page equates to villainy!' has been the only thing you have ever said aside from pretending you are superior to me in some way or another. 'Hmm, edits that are irregular must be edits that are incorrect; time for me to do something about these edits whether or not that is actually going to harm more than it can help' is ultimately what you were saying. After what I have said you could at least explain to me how my edits to Tadakuni's user and talk page have been childish -- and I will expect you to speak in a way that will be denying every aspect of reasoning I have already given to you concerning that subject, so everything is going to be just fine. User:Cosmos Raver00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I can see that I have outspoken you many a time now Mr. "Admin", do you truthfully want me to create another account to undue the wrongdoings of people such as Tadakuni and the blindfold perpetration you so stubbornly and unreasonably uphold for no gain on your own part at all? I want to see positive differences when those differences are needed while you would prefer to pretend you are superior to me and scorn any reasoning I may give in favor my argument. To be blunt you would rot like a cockroach in the real world of business my friend, or even lose to a lawsuit you couldn't even conceive an argument out of to save your own skin; your very fortunate anyone as intelligent as you can become an administrator in a non-profit corporation like this, otherwise real-world repercussions could actually be set in place. If your a smart person you would have ignored what I had just stated and conclude to yourself that listening to people's arguments--especially when they are correct--should be your first priority as a figure of authority rather than stubbornly stick to easily dissaprovable speculation that can only cut you in the back at the end of the day. Why stick to speculation that can be easily dissaproved when you should have evidence Mr. Nihonjoe? The thing is I have already proven you wrong yet I'm being ignorantly ignored because you'd rather not listen to what I have been trying to tell you, which is what you would phrase as childish to say the least in a situation such as this. And don't respond with another one of your baseless statements either because that is getting quite irritably redundant to me, but if you decide to not respond to me at all then you know what you will be forcing me to do, which is what neither of us want at the moment. Remember, I shouldn't have to force you to listen to my argument, an argument that I have been sacrificing my own personal time to appeal before you; I mean you're not trying to prove to me that you have the intelligence and argumentative capacity of a little kid are you? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be held testament to that. User:Cosmos Raver 3:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No one is forcing you to do anything. However, you have forced my hand on this. You are now prevented from editing your talk page as you have shown (here, here, here, and here) that you can't even be trusted with that. If you come back under another username, you will be located and you will be blocked again. I strongly urge you to find something else to do with your spare time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
