User talk:Cogvoid

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cogvoid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to the article Cognex Corporation does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dekisugi (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognex

Hi there. I reverted your edits, though some are good with references. The think is that you can't put your opinion there, even if you put it as a hidden comment. And please don't put your signature there. You can re-insert your valid edit there again. Happy editing. Dekisugi (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can add again those text with references to newspaper, but please don't put your signature and your opinion there. Dekisugi (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...hmm?

Actually, I don't even remember reverting your edit. If you're talking about the Cognex Corporation, I wasn't even reverting you. I was reverting an Anonymous user. And if that Anonymous user happened to be you (which it very well could have been), I just thought he was removing a large portion from the page as vandalism. I'm really careful around Anon users so if I see an Anon user with hardly any edits removing large portions from a page, I jump on it instinctively. But I'll take your word that it was a legitimate edit. Xhaoz ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my oversignt on that one. there must be some way to archive these things anyhow.

On annother note, I see you allowed the deletion of the lemelson case but refered the sources as third party. This section had links to newspaper articles refering to it (user Xhoaz said as much above)and think the reason you gave is incorrect. My issue is not with this section in particular but the way you applied the WP:WEIGTH rule. Surely this is a judgement call that should be made by people who have a good understanding of the site(i am new) and the entry in question. I do know a little about cognex so I am a good candidate to add information to the page. This is also a tech company and I am an engineer so I also know what facts are relevant to this type of entry. Given the nature of the sexual harrassment case, who was involved,the precedent and the source I used as verification it just does not make any sense to me that this section cannot be posted. This company claims work environment as one of its guiding principles, "work hard play hard" is a well known mantra.

I have read the guidline for posting. Please explain to me how you can interpret the WP:WEIGHT rule the way you did.

At one point bad faith on my part was alluded to. I am concerned that there is a user who goes by the name Arnold Reinhold editing this page. Is it out of bounds to ask him what, if any, is his relationship to cognex and bob shillman in partucular. I cannot find the reason why this user had a page deleted by wiki-am i allowed to know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs)

Arnold Reinhold has already stated the particulars of his relationship to cognex. Since turnabout is fair play, let me ask you: What is your relationship to cognex? Are you a former employee? - MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a more important question above which you ingored and you asked me what my relationship is with cognex. This is obfuscation. Is this clear to you? I have no relationship to cognex or whith any cognex employee. Do you believe that a person has to be personally wronged for him to care about disgracefull behaviour in business. For reasons I do not have to divulge I have met shillman and much of cognex's senior management. I find these people quite frightening and for many reasons I find it disturbing that it is so difficult to find out how these people behave even when its documented and known to be truth. I also have met people who have had buisiness dealing with cognex. I was browsing this site and I see that there are alot of tech companies using this site to advertise. Who polices this ? please give me coherent answers to my questions above or refer my to someone who can.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs)

answer the questions! Jesus christ.  what is wrong with you? justify your edits. I have aksed at least 5 times now. GIve me an explanation for what you have been doing on this site.

At no time have I accused you of bad faith. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. - MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

explain your application of WP:WEIGHT explain your application of WP:WEIGHT explain your application of WP:WEIGHT— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs)

I assure you that I have made no such accusation and I would challenge you to find the diff of that. Again, I suggest you are mistaken.

In answer to your question on undue weight, I have restored content that has multiple reliable third party sources that establish the content's significance, and removed content that lacks sources that establish relevance. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

listen the harrsment case had as evidence court transcripts of the appeal in question, it had multiple reference to court cases citing this precedent in law. This is far more reliable than posting a "landmark case" with no proof of it being landmark other than a headline that contained the word "landmark" also i am unable to find wiki's policies on legal documents. The way you have applied the editing standart a link to the declaration of independace on a gov site would not be evidence that it existed but if a newspaper made reference it would magically come into being. And your tone and suggestions taken as a whole on this page alone in my mind constitute a threat. Threatening my right to anonimity cannot be acceptable behavior to someone who has authority to police content. This is certainly a threat and i will tell you one more time. do not resort to making threats .explain your application of WP:WEIGHT

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cognex Corporation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Cogvoid. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible disruption on Cognex Corporation. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is outrageous

I dont know how this process works. But I have been accused of exactly what this editor has done. There is a pattern here that borders on bullying. The issue is the way that this editor applies the standards set by wiki without unevenly.

There is a court case I want to post on this page. It is a sexual harrasment case in which a legal precedent was set.

the harrsment case had as evidence court transcripts of the appeal in question and was linked to by a university for educational purnpose, it had multiple reference to court cases citing this as a precedent in law. This is relevant to the page because accusations this company made in a rebuttel and actions it took caused the definition of abuse in law to be expanded. This is far more reliable than posting a "landmark case" with no proof of it being landmark other than a headline that contained the word "landmark" also i am unable to find wiki's policies on legal documents.

The lemelson case that has been allowed by this editor, passes the editing because he sais it was covered in many newspaper. I asked for for a proper arbitor to apply some judgement to this dispute.

He sites my user name as evidence of bad faith. I am asking for a ruling. Who i am does not matter. Further suggesting my identity with no proof and when I have clearly opted for anonimity can not possibly be acceptable. IP addresses prove nothing. Threats similar to this one have been made when I have clearly asked for explanation.

--Cogvoid (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[User talk:cogvoid|talk]])[reply]

Here is the policy on court documents. "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper)" This is exacly what the link to the video is, teaching material on a uni site. User Mendaliv has not only displayed bad judgement, a lack of respect toward me, pulled stunts like reporting me to this thing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents rather than inform and help me use wiki the way it is meant to be used and does not have a clear understanding of the content giudline. This bahaviour is simply malicious --Cogvoid

Here's more of said policy:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

A reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge cannot verify the significance of this court case to Cognex' history, which is the whole issue we've been attempting to address. The reason why this does not apply to the other claims about Cognex is because those claims are sourced to secondary sources (as defined in WP:PSTS). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you answer without reading the post. This article has been cited by a university and is therefor reliable whether or not you understand the post. Read the rule in its entirety. But this is irrelavant anyway because I have linked to pages that cite this as a precedent and therefore proves that point without anyone needing to understand. If a court of law recognized this as a precedent as well as the legal comminity in general there is no need for interpretation on behalf of the reader. It is fact. And please stop telling me that it is more important to have the case written in newspaper by people who lack " specialist knowledge cannot verify the significance of this court case" you may not assume all reporters understand what they write because no standard is set in this regard. a reported is in no way a lawyer or judge. and in the case you allow they seem to be more cheerleaders than reporter-read some of them.

Wiki stanards also state that judgement must used. I am calling into question your judgement on both the source rules and the weight rule. This is not an insult but no reasonable person would assert in this discussion that you have displayed judgement.

Using this type of judgement a person could get half of wikipedia deleted out of spite. Using the rules this way how would i submit the us constitution unless the new york times wrote a story in which the existence of such a document was asserted.

I am asking for these question to be answered. please just read through and give me answers that are the result of reasonble judgement and conform to wiki standard-the way you posted part of the rules above was misleading. I used only a fragment because it was immediatly pertinent and there was no other requirement relevant to my point. Ask me anything you like about this dispute and i will answer as soon as possible.

--Cogvoid

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 00:34, 22 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

The editor in question is attempting to infer my identity from an IP I would like to respond ASAP. If I do work for Cognex this is malicious and just add it to the list of bullying beahaviour. Of course someone familiar with cognex will be fron this area and its easy to appear as a different IP. Further I am willing to forget about editing the page for now and just have this disput over editing standards and the behviour of this editor settled. I am sorry about deleting the post but the same was being done to me by this editor giving me the impression that it was no as serious. There are about three points in this argument I want reviewed by arbitration and I would like to show the how question I asked that resulted in obfuscation, unacceptable nonsense, and finally the reporting this commitee when an editor is supposed to help learn the rules. I have been reeding the guidlines and there are numerous infractions to deal with. Also the COI will be addressed. I dont care about the page right now, I am interested in dealing with just the facts of these posts and what this editor has done and said. As I read the guidlines, giving newspapers as highest unrefuatable source as it was done here is false, this legal case will demonstrate that. I also saw an editor who is not comfortable with the way the source rules are being applied and I would like him to be part of the discussion

Decline reason:

No valid unblock reason given, just a lot of WP:NOTTHEM stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:17, 23 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

reson for request:2)comments were made while I have been blocked I do not think these particular comments are acceptable wiki pratice and the should be addressed now.this block was made because COI was alleged during the reporting of an edit war infraction i do not believe this is fair. This editor was removing my posts without expaining the judgement used in applying the wiki rules, I should have been given help and guidance. These infractions we made during edits on one page. The page in question is no longer the issue. I was frustrated with this baviour I appoligize 2)My immediate reason for being here is to find out how the editors are interpreting the some of the wikipedia rules. 3) an admission of guilt was made an it has never been my intention to damage a page on wiki or the reputation of a user.4) I would like to address the COI suggestion and the way is was assertatined 5) I would respectfully ask that this block be lifted and to please be allowed to ask an authority about the wiki rules and standards

Decline reason:

This is a project to write an encyclopedia. Users can help this process in a wide variety of ways, such as starting new articles, improving existing articles, or reverting vandalism. However, you haven't given any indication of wanting to help, so I'm not going to unblock your account. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

reson for request) ok this is exactly the point there are a few articles where consensus vew among other guidline are not applied properly,the cognex page is only one, there are pages on statistical modeling that have errors(I came here to ask mathematicans about this initially and never got aroudn to it because the page on cognex was so misleading), one page presented a model using fluid mechanics to model a system that exhibits chaos, in this case the validity of the model was accepted because of "consensus view" demostrate by links to newspapers, there are wiki guidlines that actually would allow a primary source like a peer reviewed thesis to supercede this. Before I make anymore contributions to wiki I want to get the rules straght. There are judgement calls in involded here and I want to understand the standards applied. I have notice also that the page on global warming is taking a politcal tone, I did not know that there were scientists that refuted some of the science involved until i found out here a while back. now the articled reads like any news paper and there references to facts all around have degenerated and important scholarly material has been ignored(I have looks through all pages relevant too). It seems to me that this source of information is deteriorating and I would like to help. sorry this is long but you asked how I want to help wiki. Well step #1 would be to understand how the editing rules are being applied so can i not start there before posting anything anymore? also there was an infraction commited again myself on "Possible disruption on Cognex Corporation" I am making a report of some of this stuff, along with the way some editors have been using their authrity to bully and discredit to send to the arbitration commited but the post has disappeared, how can I access it.

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided, as far as I can tell. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to request unblocking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:22, 24 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

man i dont understand I aknowldged my fault,explained I should be unblocked first to get the edit standards clear. I will do this in a courtious way. I have not been interested in that cognonsense nearly as much as the standards for editing. These rules interest me because the intent is clear they are rigorous and worded in a way that leave wiggle room for common sense. Newspaper would not be able to get articles into wiki. I am an engineer and have a lot to contribute in terms of stats,algebra.. I read the rules and will declare COI when I am aware of it but according to the rule I can still present cited material to be considered in this case. Is it wrong to be primairily concenred whith proceedural issues at this piont?

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons for your block. Page protected. Sandstein 05:47, 24 June 2009 (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.

sorry i completely buggered the template

Standards

If you look around, like I just have, there is alot of chatter about the decline in the quality of wikipedia in general. I would like to raise issues to address this. I have some examples where I can demonstrate the the rules are not being applied evenly. There are editor who seem to lack an understanding of what needs to be deleted from an article and on what grouds. I am clearly intent on improving wiki even if I did get sucked in to an unfortunate pissing contest. No matter what you cannot say that anything I edited since last week was not designed to make wiki more accurate . I would like a chance to get past all this, deal with the editors and administrator and try to add to some of the more politic free pages. This site aslo offers the chance to interact with top mathmaticians, is this not a valid reson to be on here?

I know this is not a soapbox but the engineering profession is degenerating(http://punkrockhr.com/ general employee abuse page). Engineers belong to a profession and are expected to conform to a strict code of behaviour. It used to safe to expect high moral standards and respect from colleages. The oath I took read reads like a joke now. This has happened very suddenly too. Most engineers I meet just want out. Students who could probably be anything they want should be aware of what engineering is and is not. Is this not good for wiki. Can I not ducument the codes of conducts and cases of adherance and cases where this code is violated.

--Cogvoid