Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:46, 12 June 2014

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Catflap08. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Blocked

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay I am Blocked now just because I and other users have set back changes made by the user in question? Normally I do not edit those articles in any major way – it might be worthwhile to read the edit history and who started to simply delete whole blocks of referenced material. At the same time it was not me who insulted other editors. Please also note this as of January 2014] Catflap08 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that in your unblock request. --jpgordon 17:44, 17 March 2014 (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.

Catflap08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Me and other editors simply reverted the users changes – also look at the article Daisaku Ikeda most all after isnsults like this ]. It was also me who asked for assistance since yesterday and blocking was already considered here ] I do not know if it can be considered warring if whole referenced section in articles are being deleted.Also seems a bit odd to block somebody and THEN ask for second opinion ] and not even wait for me to respond to user:Liz . Catflap08 (talk) 12:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. While normally I'd be prepared to look at the surrounding circumstances first, a user does not need to have privileges reinstated that they have no plans to use (see comments below). If you should later decide you wish to resume editing and to be unblocked, please submit another unblock request. If I'm around and about at that time, I'll review it. - Vianello (Talk) 07:06, 18 March 2014 (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.

You really really need to read WP:EDITWAR, since it's what you're blocked for. Any unblock requests that do not address your edit warring and how you intend to change your editing practices will most likely be denied. --jpgordon 18:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How can it be edit warring if an article is being vandalised and a BOT even reinserts the references - without the text that belongs to the reference?? If vandalised once by an editor I do not repeat myself again and again. The the same pattern occurs on the Daisaku Ikeda page were also other editors reverted the changes made by the user in question.I should maybe not ask for assistance in the future if the messenger is being killed (blocked). user:Naveen Reddy‎ follows the same pattern as user:SafwanZabalawi unable to discuss issues, Reddy lashed out at editors out of the blue and simply deleted what did not follow his worldview . He censored the article according to his world view. I made other editors aware of that yesterday and today and now I am edit warring?Neither do I want to be called a a “fascist” nor having a “dirty mind”. The only edits I made on this text was to reset the text to an older version as before 16th March – especially considering the reason Reddy gave in his “edits”. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap80I've been blocked more times than I care to remember, but since you are only blocked for 24 hours, you should read the policy, because it is somewhat loose.
I'm not even looking at the reason you were blocked, just tryig to point out that itwould be better to spend your time reading the EW policy (so as to avoid a repeat) instead of wasting time trying to refute the block (which will be over before you know it).--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if admins do not take the time to read before blocking no matter on what grounds --- I am out of here. If some brainwashed religious fanatic twats are allowed to use Misplaced Pages as their playground – fair enough. I am doing this on my free time – but no need to waste time either. I have a fair amount of knowledge on the issue involved and stayed clear most of the time to do any major edits on the named articles. I called for assistance on many occasions but even in real life being called a “fascist” and “Dirty minded” does cross some red lines – being blocked now. No need for that bullshit any longer. Someone else can take care of those Reddy's and Safwan's. I've had it by now --- anyone can just come along and edit articles here. Fair enough but then it should be ensured that those edits are properly administered by those FAMILAR on an issue in an unbiased fashion. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC) --Catflap08 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats it

Actually I shall consider to retire for a long while. If it seems okay to be personally insulted as a “fascist” and “dirty mind” and religious fanatics to delete complete sections that do not fit their proselytising mission in life. Then that’s me out of here. Thanks for nothing.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As from tomorrow I will officially retire from the english wikipedia – reason will be given after I have access to my users page.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As I do admit that my language was unusual harsh and blunt by my standars yesterday I hope I will be able to access my own users page to add the retirement template. If any admin would read the history of articles like Soka Gakkai, Daisaku Ikeda and Nichiren Shohsu I decided to limit my activities on those pages to the talk page. The pure deletion of complete referenced sections of named articles got me extremely angry but if push comes to shove and this is the way Misplaced Pages admins decide on those issues so be it. Please in turn be prepared that the articles will suffer in terms of content and quality. In other Misplaced Pages languages any edit by unconfirmed users have to be reviewed first – a procedure that would also be beneficial to the English Misplaced Pages. It does reduce the edits in general but in the end leads to more quality based discussions on the respective articles. I worked on most articles related to Nichiren Buddhism and must say that those edits went calmly and constructive while interacting with other editors for most of the time. If blocking and edit warring policies in the end lead to articles being a elongated proselytising and propaganda tool by some organisations then that’s the way it should be then. I am not going to support this though. In the end an article should convey reliable information to the reader – and in articles that have a controversial background make the reader aware of different points of view and assertions. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you do ever decide to come back, besides reading WP:Editwar (which from what I can tell was the reason you were blocked, nothing to do with your language), I suggest you also read WP:Vandalism because bad edits even disruptive ones are not necessarily vandalism even if the editor has been warned about them before, and calling something vandalism when it isn't doesn't help anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Could not care less not going to waste my time here anymore ... will change my users page and thats it then. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I hate to see you go because you were one of the few constructive editors on these advocate infested pages.

I've had similar problems here as well, and it is a burden to learn Misplaced Pages policies. Moreover, administrators don't always follow the policies, and you were blocked for a relatively minor edit war of four reverts over a two-day period. They have recently slackened the 3RR rule in the EW policy, so there is a fairly high degree of admin discretion in doling out blocks under that policy as a result.

At any rate, the counterparty was deleting well-sourced material, making personal attacks and editing as an advocate, and you had reported him the day before. I don't agree with the new EW policy, basically, because it is too loose. Misplaced Pages is teaming with advocates on various pages, especially related to religion and politics, so it is a chore to have to deal with them, but policy-based countermeasures are the only approach that works, in the long run.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well to me those standards (unaware they just changed) are clearly counter productive then. My aim in the articles was to keep them balanced and free of radical religious propaganda. But if admins believe that that is okay – fine. In the long run the somewhat questionable reliability of information in the English Misplaced Pages is going to suffer - some adimins can continue to exert the kind of authority that they might not be given in real life. . --Catflap08 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that they have changed - we have no new EW policy that I can see. We've always been able to block for edit warring even where 3RR wasn't breached. Being blocked isn't a comment on your edits but on your behavior. I take your point about IPs but English is spoken so widely there is a much larger pool of potential editors and reviewing all their edits would be virtually impossible. They can be a serious problem, but some are excellent editors. We do have semi-protection and Pending changes which we can implement to either block or force review on IPs. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect is it too much to ask an administrator to have a look at the edit history by both the editor and the article?? In this case the edits were first reverted by a BOT (AnomieBOT ) - the Bot was not successful to reinserted the information that the references referred to. I simply set the changes back to the stage before the bot had to become active !! The rest can be followed in the articles history – also that the user was active before (funny enough always when Safwan disappeared for a while). I am not an toddler who has to be told off, but if administrators simply push the block button one could get idea that this job could also be done by a BOT just as well. It was hard to get other editors actively involved in the article as it was who have some knowledge about Japan, Buddhism AND who were able to bring in more references. For obvious reason I stayed clear of the article except on the talk page. All rules and guidelines sure have their use and purpose but if they lead to articles to (yet again) become unencyclopedic then there is something wrong with the system. Even though the IP issue would not have prevented this situation your conclusion of a larger pool of editors is incorrect. Most articles are on someone’s watchlist. The German Misplaced Pages is not exactly small but cases of vandalism or bad faith edits rarely make it into the article proper as valid edits don't take long to be accepted by a verified editor. In the end I would like to say that there should be a clear distinction between edit warring and attempts to corrupt an article. And I am sorry to say that editors like Reddy and safwan are immune to reason and thats a breed of editors that have to be taken into account. All guidelines and rules are useless if they result that Misplaced Pages does not meet encyclopedic standards. Am I in the huff? Yes. Cause it seems I wasted my time including creating articles. I do care about the subject in the sense that informtion in being conveyed but this all is putting me off – in the long run Misplaced Pages is suffering – not the relevant information it will just be harder to be found … and thats just what some people would like to see happening. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nippon Kaigi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nippon Kaigi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Nippon Kaigi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nippon Kaigi is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nippon Kaigi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tawker (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukranian editors, possibly adherents of Nipponzan Myohoji, abusing WP as a promotion platform

Hello Catflap, for heavens sake cool down and please stop reverting these POV pushing editors. This appears to be a group of editors who are probably adherents of Nipponzan Myohoji and their most venerable leader from the Ukraine (Kiev and surrounding). Its quite clear that this dispute will soon end up in page protection and dispute resolution (RfC might be useful). It makes little difference to revert them because a long-time solution of this dispute is needed. Relax, I have no doubt that this will be stopped - it just takes some time, more comments from neutral editors, and detailed explanations why these edits are not considered constructive in an encyclopedia. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shii (tock) 21:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nichiren may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of all of Gautama Buddha's teachings relating to the laws of ], and to lead all people without distinction to enlightenment.<ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Enjoy your cup of tea and relax! I did not intend any provocation, I am just a fan of sourced content. JimRenge (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

one can go over that top with that --Catflap08 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed academic source, written by an author who spent his life on the topic, can not be topped :-).

I doubt that the NMRK website is a reliable source; it appears to be a one-man project (I also did some research on the internet about the owner) . I remember the problems with the owner of this website because he insisted to add his links to Nichiren related articles, which were considered to be WP:SPAM and deleted by several editors. Perhaps you want to remove this yourself. Anyway, one reliable (!) reference would have been sufficient. JimRenge (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Do as you please--Catflap08 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Myōdōkai Kyōdan

Hello Catflap08,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Myōdōkai Kyōdan for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Kenji Miyazawa

Please take it back to the talk page before complaining about me on AN. I'll forgive you for not noticing that WP:AN is actually semi-protected and I am unable to respond to you there, but your accusation is false. The material is not actually referenced, since the sources cited don't actually back up the claim. I have already explained this to you several times on the talk page, but you have ignored me. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

EEER you FORVIVE me???--Catflap08 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. You posted about me on a noticeboard where I was unable to respond. You erred. Youa culpa and all that. Now let's forget about that AN mishap and discuss article content on the article talk page. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

3RRNB notification

Noisemonkey has filed a report on you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It was malformed, still missing information, and I've pointed out that the report appears to have been filed in bad faith. You probably don't even need to bother with it, but I'm notifying you per common courtesy. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban on Kenji Miyazawa

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• As per the ANI discussion, and our policy on WP:BURDEN, you need to stop adding the "nationalist" tag until you've gone through DRN or similar process. Basically, if something is undersourced and contentious, you always leave it out until it is demonstrated that a consensus supports inclusion, regardless of which article it is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)