Paul Vogel

This page has been edited for better indentation, removal of duplication, and clearer attribution.

snip cut and paste from Cosmotheism

"your article"

Hello there. In case you don't know, this is a Wiki, thus there is no such thing like "your article". The article belongs to everyone, and everyone is free to edit it. If you want to have an article only for yourself you have to put it on your private homepage, there noone will edit it, revert it. But here you have to accept it that others might have a different view of the topic and add that one, to make the article more neutral, see Wikipedia:NPOV. Note that I didn't followed anything about your dispute, I just wanted to make sure you know about this inherent feature of Wikipedia. andy 20:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello there, Andy!

What was meant by "my article" was that I am the "expert" on the topic, as I actually am a COSMOTHEIST and I have read most if not all of the relevant material on the subject.

Thanks for reminding me of the inherent feature of wikipedia, but, I have also been noticing alot of reverts and censorship based upon a cabal of pc bigots that do not adhere to the NPOV, whatsoever.

For example, those that abuse "quick polls" to try to ban and censor those that insist upon the Wiki NPOV verses their own personal POV's

snip cut and pasted content from wikipedia:quickpolls archive - quickpoll vote on Paul.

I don't mind any "good faith" editing to improve the article or to add any relevant links that are NPOV, whatsoever, but, I am quite annoyed by any of those that do refuse to abide by the NPOV and that do insist on reverting the Cosmotheism and other articles based on nothing but their own ignorant POV's.

Thanks,

Paul Vogel

Spam

Dear Mr. Vogel,

You have put a large chunk of text on my user talk page, claiming that I expunged or altered your work somewhere. I have communicated with a couple of administrators about what happened, and they have suggested that I remove your materials from my talk page. Besides not having ever done anything to any article on Cosmotheism, the presence of your materials on my user talk page is the functional equivalent of burying your materials in a hole that nobody is interested in digging up. P0M 04:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! :D

The Turner Diaries

You seem to be making some bizarre edits to The Turner Diaries article, changing what the book says. You can find copies on line by doing a web search for the title. The book you try to portray is quite differnt from what the book actually says. Please stick to the facts. From this article alone I see you are skirting on vandalism, for which your isp address could be blocked. -- Infrogmation 22:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What "bizarre" edits have I ever made that "change" what the book, The Turner Diaries, actually says?

Be specific in what the actual differences have ever been when you do make any such false allegations.

I have always been sticking just to the NPOV "facts".

Your false claims for me "skirting vandalism" are without any merit and this is really only your own biased POV.

I also really don't appreciate your "threatening" to block my isp address on any such erroneous and factually unsupported grounds.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

I'm talking about the changes trying to make the book look much more moderate than it is. Quite possibly there are many White Seperatists who do not advocate the extermination of all the world's people who do not fit into their ideas of racial purity/superiority, but that is what is portrayed in the book. Have you read it? A web search will easily locate several copies on line. -- Infrogmation 05:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No book, whether fictional or not, is likely to be "moderate" in any accurate description of any "racial civil war". Most White Seperatists do not advocate the extermination of all the world's people who do not fit into their ideas of racial purity/superiority, and that is NOT what is actually portrayed in the fictional novel or book. Have you yourself actually ever read it?

Where exactly in the book does it ever actually say or actually advocate "the extermination of all the world's people who do not fit into their ideas of racial purity/superiority?"

Please give me the specific page number, and chapter, or specific quote?

Thanks! :D

Yep, I plowed through that book some years ago. One online copy is here; read the "Epilog" to get the drift of what the book fantasizes about. Also please do not get into revert wars, as I notice you've been doing at Homophobic hate speech. -- Infrogmation 18:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Stop vandalizing pages, or leave useful comments on the Talk pages of articles. Your putting "neutrality disputed" messages on all these articles without edit summary, or discussion on the Talk pages is considered vandalism. Please stop and explain your point. Stop vandalizing pages, or leave useful comments on the Talk pages of articles.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Is NOT vandalism and they are useful comments on both Talk pages and within articles.

The point of that statement is that those articles are NOT WRITTEN with any NPOV, whatsoever.

Even if that's the case -- knowing your mistaken ideas of NPOV, I doubt that it is -- you have to explain why the neutrality of the article is disputed; you can't simply add the header and walk away. --No-One Jones 18:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

YOU, of all people, Mirv, have no business talking about "mistaken" ideas of NPOV! YOU and YOUR reverts are always tainted with your POV and rarely with any NPOV. Besides, why should I explain anything "why" when jerks like you automatically and reactively hit the revert button, SSEE reflexively, anyway? Curious.

That's nice, dear. You still have to explain why you dispute the neutrality of the article: see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute for all the juicy details. --No-One Jones 18:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ESAD, dearie. :D YOU already KNOW WHY the neutrality of those articles ARE DISPUTED, because they are strictly Marxist-PC POV. Don't be so coy...:D

If you won't explain it, you'll just be reverted. The orders I have from the Learned Elders of Zion are quite specific, you see. --No-One Jones 18:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, why should I bother to explain anything "why" when jerks like you so automatically and so reactively hit the revert button, so SSEE reflexively, anyway? Curious.

It is quite obvious that you have learned quite well from them, and whether forgeries or not? LOL! :D Lying hypocrisy is your forte', Mirv, so what else isn't new? :D

Sorry, my Marxist brainwashing has made me incapable of anything but lies and hypocrisy. Nevertheless, unexplained NPOV disputes cannot and will not stand. --No-One Jones 18:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know. It's not entirely your own fault. You were likely just born that way. :D

In any event, I will only "explain" when I am not being Marxist-PC POV "reverted".

Anyone can see what a lying hypocrite you are being Mirv. Nothing new there. :D

When you're through reading Wikipedia:NPOV dispute -- take your time -- you may want to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --No-One Jones 18:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(cur) (last) . . 18:39, 20 Feb 2004 . . Mirv (rv Vogel vandalism)

More lying hypocrisy. LOL! :D

Take your own time to read it:

rm cut and pasted content from wikipedia:NPOV dispute

Mirv is falsely crying "vandalism", yet again, and always whenever any NPOV by me is being insisted upon.

Put up or shut up when you so falsely cry "vandalism", Mirv.

You are the one that seems to revel in "personal attacks" by always falsely calling me a "vandal".

Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

rm cut and pasted content from unknown source

Trolling

Stop trolling or you will be blocked from editing. --mav 15:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting the article to a Marxist-PC POV one verses a Wiki NPOV one. You are being the troll and POV bigoted censor and reverter and not me, Maveric149!

rm cut and paste from white supremacy article.

You were warned, now you are blocked. --mav

You may have blocked me, but, you are really only revealing your own lying hypocrisy and bigoted censorship, mav. What else isn't new?

Hadal's advice

Obviously Wikipedia is not an ideal soapbox for you. Have you considered a different venue? Hadal 16:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, Wikipedia has too many people like you that do not understand what a NPOV actually is, and only their own Marxist-PC "soapbox" POV has any venue here?

"Hadal (I don't suppose there'd be any point in protecting this redirect?)"

NO, there isn't, and you ALL KNOW IT!

The "re-direct" is only to enforce your own non-NPOV verses the NPOV of the article.

Curious. Meanwhile, the truth and objectivity and credibility of the entire Wiki project, goes out the window, here, as well. What else isn't new?

-- Paul Vogel

We've been through this before, evidently. You've been warned countless times. I suggest you cease and desist; otherwise another block may be in order. Hadal 21:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, and almost NONE of YOU have actually stood up for the NPOV, either! You can block me all you'd like, but, I will always insist upon the Wiki NPOV in any articles of interest to me, unlike yourself and your pc-censorous ilk.

-- Paul Vogel

I'm trying to uphold Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, actually. Maybe you should peruse this policy, as it is evident that you have yet to do so. Hadal 21:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning

We have a rule against making more than three reverts on the same page within 24 hours. Consider this a warning - if you continue to revert Carl Sagan, you may be temporarily banned from editing.—Eloquence 19:49, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of the inherent feature of wikipedia, but, I have also been noticing alot of reverts and censorship based upon a cabal of Marxist-pc bigots that do not adhere to the NPOV, whatsoever. "Cosmos" is and was pantheistic and Carl Sagan was a pantheist, based upon the diction definiton of pantheism and Carl Sagan's own words, which were documented in the TALK PAGES, before the BIGOTS and CENSORS deleted them!

-- Paul Vogel

Calling other people bigots and censors is not exactly a good way to make friends, you know. Do you really want to reach a solution to this conflict? Then here's my patented three step program:

1) Create a user account. Anonymous users are generally not trusted.

2) Grab your favorite text editor and collect all the evidence which you can find that Sagan's films and/or books were pantheistic. The more direct the citations, the better.

3) Put this evidence on the talk page. If it is removed, you can easily re-add it because you have it all in a local file. Ask that these citations are included in the article.

If this doesn't work, start a vote on whether to include the pantheism statement and in which form.—Eloquence 20:04, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Calling other people bigots and censors is not exactly a good way to make friends, you know.

Being a Marxist-PC bigot and a censor, isn't exactly a good way to make any good friends, either, you know?

Do you really want to reach a solution to this conflict?

Yes, and I do so by providing proof and evidence for my assertions!

Like this:

snip cut and paste from Carl Sagan

Then here's my patented three step program:

1) Create a user account. Anonymous users are generally not trusted.

Why should one class of users generally not be trusted over another?

I thought that all ideas and ideals should be made available to any others in a so-called free society or medium?

2) Grab your favorite text editor and collect all the evidence which you can find that Sagan's films and/or books were pantheistic. The more direct the citations, the better.

There are many. Quoting Carl Sagan himself, is far easier.

3) Put this evidence on the talk page. If it is removed, you can easily re-add it because you have it all in a local file. Ask that these citations are included in the article.

Here is the clear evidence again:

snip cut and paste from Carl Sagan

If this doesn't work, start a vote on whether to include the pantheism statement and in which form.

Votes are not relevant to the truth of any statement or proposition. Truth is based clearly upon the actual facts, and NOT UPON any CONSENSUS, whatsoever.

Even Carl Sagan would agree with me on that, as his own famous "Baloney Detection Kit" also clearly reveals.

Best regards,

PV

PS--Some of the best ideas and ideals actually came from, at the time first written, from anon writers, ie. George Orwell, aka Eric Blair clearly shows! :D

How about this as a compromise?—Eloquence

Quickpoll in progress

Because of your constant reverts I have created a quickpoll that could result in a 24-hour-ban. However, if you pledge to no longer revert the Carl Sagan page, I may withdraw that poll.—Eloquence 20:33, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have only constantly reverted the Carl Sagan article for accuracy, and since you have added the quote and the pantheism link, there is no need for me to keep reverting the article.

I liked this one better:

snip cut and paste from Carl Sagan

Pasting article content everywhere

User talk:MOBY et al

Please stop pasting your version of Cosmotheism on multiple talk pages, or I will block you from editing. It is disruptive and does not help your cause. Thanks. - Fennec 23:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

POV Reverting Cosmotheism Article

Stop POV reverting the NPOV cosmotheism article to reflect only "David Gerard" and his Sock puppets POV and Biased version of the article. Then, I would be happy not to post article content everywhere. Your own biased censorship and constant pov editing and pov reverting and "double-standards" are what is most "distruptive" and creates hostility and resentment that leads naturally to more "edit wars" and to "vandalism" or worse.-PV

rm cut and paste from cosmotheism

rm cut and paste from white supremacy

Your refusal to heed previous warnings about your edits has resulted in your contributions being tracked very closely by many other users. Please bear this in mind before making further contributions. -- Decumanus 22:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising Cosmotheism. Thanks. --snoyes 18:02, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That link belongs on Cosmotheism and not Monism. - snoyes 19:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About should answer your question. andy 19:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't put the external link to cosmotheism into the middle of articles. Thanks. Fuzheado 18:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

External links must be allowed to cosmotheism where and when it is relevant. The wiki cosmotheism article is locked, so any additional information must be added elsewhere where relevant.

(See also cosmotheism [[1]]).

Adding relevant links to existing articles is NOT VANDALISM, contrary to Snoyes and to some few "Usual Suspect" others own "opinions".

Last warning. - snoyes 19:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WARNING: MOST OF THIS anti-White ARTICLE IS JUST MARXIST-PC POV PROPAGANDA!

Also, please just....

ESAD, SNOYES!

Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

rm cut and paste from unknown source

Please learn that the articles and talk pages are different. In articles and user pages belong text about the topic or from the user, and discussion about it belong into the talk page. If you continue to discuss in articles don't be surprised that your additions get reverted quickly. Thank you. andy 16:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what andy said. BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop mis-directing this article, and Andy is just a POV bigoted censor.

rm cut and paste from white supremacy

As you seem to have problems to understand it, the 10 minutes you are blocked from editing should give you time to contemplate on the sentence "Do not edit user pages, use talk pages". andy 17:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since you and your bigoted ilk POV revert and POV mis-re-direct, totally regardless of whether "talkpages" are being used are not, your own "user pages" then seem to be the best place to let you know to just STOP IT!

Thanks! :D

rm cut and paste from Cosmotheism

reunited talk pages

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I put the two IP talk pages this user had together. If you have other unwanted talk by this user, by all means move it here. Martin 22:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

These extensions

Not that I'm looking for Vogel to come back, but what is causing these extensions, out of curiosity? Do we have good evidence for Vogel edits? Can these be posted when the ban is extended again? Snowspinner 23:16, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Penalty_for_evasion; the duration of his ban was set at one year, and it's reset every time he tries to evade it. The evidence has not, so far, been posted on this page (which I suppose it ought to be next time the ban is extended). However, Vogel has a distinctive editing style that he makes no effort to hide or change, so reviewing the contributions of the various IPs listed here makes it clear who's using them. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My concern was simply that I've seen a few other bans (MNH most notably) extended due to attempted edits that got stopped by the ban. I wanted to make sure that there was not ban extension going on due to edits that never posted, as that seems like it would be a very dodgy grounds at best. Snowspinner 00:53, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

More Sock Puppets?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If the above user has created more sock puppets, most notabely http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Paul_Vogel_IV&action=edit then what should I do? Anouymous 22:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What about these IPs?

From the IP block list, it seems the following IPs were used by Paul Vogel between May 2005 and now:

216.45.239.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (2005 May 6)
216.45.237.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (2005 November 13)
216.45.251.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) {2005 November 30)

Do these IPs really point to PV? If so, why hasn't his block counter restarted?

White supremacy

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Add topic