User talk:Cosmos416

Arbitration case[edit]

You might want to take a look at an Arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence

Free speech dispute[edit]

There is an ongoing free speech dispute here with some editors rallying against the inclusion of links to rat worship saying its offensive. Your input is appreciated. Anwar 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to resolve ongoing conflict[edit]

Could you please contribute to the discussion at [1], to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding Aryan migration theory/OIT related issues.Sbhushan 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British India[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:British Raj#New page for British India by user:Xn4. Xn4 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join[edit]

Please assume good faith in your responses on talk pages[edit]

Though the page Wikipedia:Assume good faith suggests that reminding someone of this is not entirely classy and forgive me for doing so,however; this is the third time in less than a week you have behaved in what i would say as going against this policy. Please take a read of this policy.Remember to try to address the issue and topics of hand on talk pages and not motivations or suspicions of users thanks (in this case the university of ottawa talk page).

(as on the ottawa U talk page)Cosmos, this section is related to primary sources about the university of ottawa page. If you have problems with edits of mine from at least a year ago, address me on my and your talk pages respectively in a civil way (instead of just deleting everything i try to communicate with you). To answer your queries, Ive addressed the gourman report as well as others have, I myself have agreed with you placing it out of the main paragraph, this has been settled. The topic at hand here is related to primary sources and wether or not a tag is warrented, not about edits which have been made, reverted or changed in the distant past. If you prefer to quote me, quote this "id like to see this article (university of ottawa) labeled as a good articel or even a featured one some day".

New editors need to be encouraged, first edits can be a bit off and sometimes not the best in taste, the goal is to get better and improve with time (if only my typing and spelling would improve lol), encouragement not discouragement helps in this alot. Lets keep on topic, and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think i have trashed talked the university of ottawa at all,just the tone of the article as it was almost 8 months ago in the past and not today. The article has undergone considerable changes since then, and kudos to the people who have been doing this by fixing the article and taking the time to do so. As for good faith I stand by my early statement, I want this article to become a 'good article' and one day featured. Ill reiterate a few points of mine that ive brought up before and add a bit more detail :)

1. The Gourman report is no longer mentioned in the opening paragraph. Based on the fact that the reference is ten years old and is from a questionable report at best (it ranks non existnat programs in universities) I consider this to be resolved, youve agreed in the past to move it to a different section, we are agreed this has been settled.

2. If your feeling like i have not treated your edits in good faith, We can easily move this to a wikiettique session and allow others to judge for themselves, but I think you and me will both agree our intentions are the same, to make this article better, agree?

3. Maybe its not the best to mention other universities as this has offended you in some manor, but please dont be not my intention. However; there are people even on this talk page which have mentioned and questioned why the gourman report is even in the article, not just from here say (which I would fully agree is no means to change the article) but thats why we use these pages to find consensus right?

4. Now wether something smells fishy, finding new comers edits odd, where some editors edit from etc etc, are not going to get this article to be better, the best way is state your opinion, find consensus, and edit. The issue here is primary sources and whether a tag is needed. I agree with your position as you stated before that unless something else is added to say why there is no need for a tag. We have consensus?, so why continue this bad form between one another?

Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I want the same thing you do :), Lets edit not fightOttawa4ever (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another false accusation[edit]

See you appear out of nowhere, just like all these others users in support of each other. All for pointing out the Original Research and you guys gang up Cosmos416 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comment about the article in question, I am telling you that your behavior is unacceptable and detracts from Wikipedia, you should stop.

Second, I am not appearing out of nowhere, I am a member of the WikiProject Human Genetic History, Medical genetics task force, I am one of the voluteers who help to make sure articles such as Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)

The page Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) has been listed as a page needing attention, and edit warring does not improve that article.

If you want objective wikipedians to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior we can deal with this issue on the abuse notification board. It would be much easier for you to head others warnings. Once I start reviewing edits on the page I have found reason in the past to report abusive postings which has eventually resulted in action. Act like an adult and respect others and work toward a consensus, that is the way of wikipedia.PB666 ^yap 21:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI NOTICE[edit]

hello, I am here to inform you of a discussion concerning you on ANI_Disrutpion.2C_personal_attacks. Your input is desirable. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported on WP:ANI[edit]

Your recent disruptive behavior is more than sufficient grounds for reporting you here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disrutpion, personal attacks, POINTy behavior by User:Cosmos416. --Athenean (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for per this edit. Enough is enough; you are harming the project way more than you are helping it. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]