User talk:CatapultTalks

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation working on collecting stories of Indian Wikipedians for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Bangalore

I’ll be traveling to India from the 12th -20th of November to conduct face to face interviews with Indian Wikipedians. I’ll be in Bangalore from November 12-15 and in Mumbai for WikiConference India from November 17 - 20.

If you are interested, and would like to schedule an interview with me, please mark your time and place of interview on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Indiastorytelling or send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) with any questions or concerns you may have.

If you feel that you’d like to talk to me, but wont be able to make it to either of these locations and would like to schedule a Skype or Telephone interview, please email me at vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Cheers, Victor

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

You are needed immediately at Telugu Cinema article
some one is vandalising the page Telugu cinema, users vensatry and secret of success are reverting back new edits with 2010 edits, just revert those edits and do the needful, restrict agenda driven vandalism, dont allow them to revert back constructive edits and replace it with 1-2 year old content Ba7431 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2012 Delhi gang rape case, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian Premier League
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Indian Premier League, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

List of Indian Premier League records and statistics
Please provide official site sources that update regularly. Don't add those which are outdated and not get updated. If you can find anything like cricinfo or official IPL site most welcome.--Vin09 (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Added ref
Added ref for your edit here.--Vin09 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

red links
Hello CatapultTalks, just wanted to ask if there was a reason you removed the redlinks during this edit ? I thought Social Awareness Society for Youths,  Vadakkuthurai  and Alamelumangalapuram might all warrant article creation at some point which was why I put those redlinks in, but perhaps you're correct. Were you suggesting that they are all very minor and will never get an article? that may be true for the Vadakkuthurai one - but I was hoping someone might actually check that redlink out - as I can't find it so perhaps it was a mispelled place name ? and Alamelumangapuram looks like it should redirect to Tiruchanur, and this suggests that SASY is a reasonable size significant organisation. What do you think ? EdwardLane (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. You are right, they are all very minor and will probably not get an article. FYI, Alamelumangapuram being referred here isn't Tiruchanur, instead a small village in Cuddalore district. CatapultTalks (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Train-the-Trainer 2017: Invitation to participate
Hello CatapultTalks, It gives us great pleasure to inform that the Train-the-Trainer (TTT) 2017 programme organised by CIS-A2K is going to be held from 20-22 February 2017.

What is TTT?

Train the Trainer or TTT is a residential training program. The program attempts to groom leadership skills among the Indian Wikimedia community members. Earlier TTT have been conducted in 2013, 2015 and 2016.

Who should join?
 * Any active Wikimedian contributing to any Indic language Wikimedia project is eligible to apply.
 * An editor must have 500+ edits.
 * Anyone who have already participated in an earlier iteration of TTT, can not apply.

Please see more about this program and apply to participate or encourage the deserving candidates from your community to do so: CIS-A2K/Events/Train the Trainer Program/2017

The last date of filling the form is 26 January. If you have any question, please leave your message here. Regards. GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Simple calculation are not original research
Only for your information, about your comment "representing actual info from the quoted sources. the earlier 125 number seems to be OR" at this edit. I am fine with your edit, but simple routine calculations are not original research, "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.". Now, I am asking you, "less than 125" is a basic meaningful reflection of the conversion of "less than 1%" of 12,587 ? I prefer absolute numbers instead of percentages, why the percentages may also be used (and are used) to confound.--Robertiki (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Recently deleted Sessions edit suggestion
Hi! I think I understand why you made the recent edit re Jeff Sessions deleting a Newsweek source. The reason I'd added that Newsweek source was because it because it was secondary, but I made it a separate sentence because it had said something slightly different from the retained primary source. The retained source had claimed Sessions was "influential", which is slightly different from what Newsweek said. But now we've deleted reference to his influence on Trump. That is why I felt that source was justified. Could you re-add the influential adjective and maybe make it a separate sentece so we don't have concerns about synth? Also, I've done a decent amount of editing, but not interacting with other wikipedians, so if I'm out of line in the content or form of my communications, please let me know. Thanks!G1729 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by. The reason I wouldn't want to add 'influential' is there is no source calling it that way (not Breitbart, not newsweek; DJT.com doesn't count and the link is now a 404)- and even if there is, no reason to add it other than to contribute to puffery. IMO, the previous paragraph has sufficiently established sessions' role in the campaign CatapultTalks (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

1RR
The article Executive Order 13769 is under 1RR restriction. You just broke it (actually you broke it previously too, but we can let that slide since maybe you weren't aware). But here, please self-revert and take it up on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting. will talk CatapultTalks (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means. You did not self-revert. Which means you've already broken 1RR on the article twice. Please consider reinstating the material you removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thought you already reverted my edit that broke 1RR. Will revert now if not already done CatapultTalks (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Social policy of Donald Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I think you're up to five reverts now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I did initiate conversation on the talk page in both instances. And when editors responded, I did make consensus edits. please see the article talk page for my comments. CatapultTalks (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

American Politics Discretionary Sanctions
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously
This edit violates TWO discretionary sanctions on that article. 1) You've just broken 1RR yet again. I am not going to warn you about this again. You've done it several times in just the past few days, you should know better by now. 2) You've restored a challanged edit. The original text is long standing and you cannot change it without consensus. It's actually up to YOU to get that consensus. Please self revert, or I'll have to take this to a noticeboard (and I've tried hard to be as accommodating about this as possible - note this is like the third or fourth notification I'm making here. Each one of those times I could have *already* gone to ANI/3RR or AE).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've consistently noticed you having issues regarding my edits but you should have also noticed that I'm open to discussing in the talk pages and gain consensus for my edits. Instead of reverting because you don't like those edits, you could have started or responded to my calls for discussion on talk pages. Please go to respective talk pages and I hope to have a constructive discussion to arrive at consensus. CatapultTalks (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One more time. Discretionary sanctions. You've repeatedly violated these. It's actually up to YOU to start the discussions when you want to make changes and up to YOU to get consensus. So please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's only upto me. I've opened up a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus and you are welcome to share your concerns CatapultTalks (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's up to you because that's what the discretionary sanctions say. Last chance to self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that you did NOT "open up a discussion on the talk page" so I'm not clear on what in the world you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the article talk page if you have specific concerns regarding the content of my edit. We can discuss and arrive at a consensus CatapultTalks (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time...
... you've violated discretionary sanctions on an article. In this edit you've restored material which has been challenged by reversion. This violates discretionary sanctions. Now, since I've notified, warned, and pleaded with you to stop this kind of disruptive editing, by this point you have no excuse to be doing it. Please self revert. Else we will wind up at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, stop reverting my sourced edits just because it doesn't match with your PoV. I've pleaded with you enough times to discuss on the talk page if you have an issue with something. Don't simply revert my sourced good faith edits, please see talk page. CatapultTalks (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring discretionary sanction restrictions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

AE Comment
. Have it your way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)