User talk:Catflap08/Archive 14

Speedy deletion nomination of Nippon Kaigi


A tag has been placed on Nippon Kaigi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at 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 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609841565 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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)
 * of all of Gautama Buddha's teachings relating to the laws of cause and effect, [Karma in Buddhism|karma] and to lead all people without distinction to enlightenment.

A cup of tea for you!
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 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 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 &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please participate in the Conversation on Germany
Hi, Thank you for your participation in the image review on discussion on the Germany talk page. The Image has now been reverted for the third time and ruins of Berlin photo is back. I would really appreciate your participation in this discussion and hopefully reaching a consensus. Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving already?
It looks like you've got the bot to archive already which makes actually adding comments kinda hard. FWIW I can't see any rational reason why someone would post a German language comment on a user talk page in the English language wikipedia, less reason for them to ask for a response in that language, and no reason whatsoever for them to jump to the wildly unsubstantiated and almost completely unsupportable conclusion that you aren't German, but some people around here aren't particularly rational anyway. But you might want to do something about the archiving problem. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Holocaustverleugnung?
Wie kommst du bitte zu diesem ungeheuerlichen Vorwurf gegen mich? Dass ich ein Leichenbild im Artikel über Deutschland als respektlos gegenüber den Opfern und der Volksgruppe empfinde, hast du mir gefälligst freistehen zu lassen. Ich empfinde nicht nur diese Eingebung und deine Anschuldigungen als respektlos, sondern bereits als an der Grenze zum Rufmord schwelend. Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein. Schönen Tag, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know we are in the English speaking Wikipedia is there any specific reason why you post legal threats against me in German? I may have to ask Wikipedia for some legal advice on this one.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you stop it we can rest the case, if not, well. So you aren't actually German, are you? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall remind you that posting legal threats goes against Wikipedia guidelines and can result in blocking a user. My nationality is as a matter of fact no business of yours.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ANI. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Horst has been unblocked. I think you may have been considering requesting some form of sanctions if that were to happen. Now might be the time to ask for them. And, if you want something quiet to do, I can email you some reference book articles on Soka Gakkai I found now that Safwan seems to be gone John Carter (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and I have already responded. This is in some ways irritating.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Germany
You wrote "If the final goal is to victimise Germany during the period between 1933 and 1945 by displaying an image of Hitler and some rubbles then this is to my mind irritating and a cause for worry . . . revisionist views are given a platform that is unseen on the German Wikipedia. " Since I am one of the editors supporting the long-term consensus, and your comments could be read as referring to my comments or actions, I would personally appreciate it if you would redact all of your relevant comments to clarify that your intent was not to associate my views – or those of other editors, for that matter – with an attempt to provide a platform for revisionist views. If you wish to remove your last comment, you have my permission to also remove my reply.

It might make for less drama if you concisely expressed your views on how many and which images to display in the survey section.--Boson (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I surely will not follow your request. Constantly negating the fact the Buchenwald picture is not in accordance to articles content – i.e. victims of the regime – is an opinion that I challenged as being revisionist. So in the end we are faced with two opinions. Showing images that do give the impression to victimise Germany and to blend out what happened during the time the regime was in power is my opinion a revisionist view – you are free to challenge that. In my books the talk page’s purpose is to talk about issues concerning the article. And yes I do have VERY strong views on to either victimise Germany’s role during World War II or to put a blind eye to the atrocities that the regime committed against its own population. Sorry that the Berlin in ruins picture does not cause me to weep.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Catflap08, You are inspiration to us all. I could not support your views more strongly.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is supposed to inform, not make you weep. --Boson (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Boson (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:John Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Catflap08 as Editor of the Week for his remarkable dedication to trying to keep some of the articles on some of our most contentious and least-noticed topics reasonable. Catflap08 recently stated on his user talk page an intention of retiring. Given the nature of the articles he works with, including a lot relating to various groups of Nichiren Buddhism, I am more than a bit amazed that he hasn't already retired. The content of the edits, particularly talk page edits, of many others of the pages in question would be enough to drive many, possibly most, people away permanently. I have myself, to a limited degree, had contact with Catflap08 for some time, and though he can lose his temper sometimes almost as badly as I do, his greater dedication and involvement in this material probably gives him more cause than I have ever had. Having someone who knows something about this topic, is not fanatically devoted to the beliefs of one or another of the groups involved, and tries to the best of his ability to keep the content in line with policies and guidelines, despite the sometimes endless blather of partisans, is an invaluable asset to our efforts, and I think very well deserving of this recognition.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Upps cheers--Catflap08 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi, this is to let you know that I have asked for a 3rd opinion on the Bundestag question. This seems to be the lowest, entry-level way that these things are handled. But I think there are other problems. It appears that you have been adding exclusively negative content, which looks like a WP:POV violation. You've been loading up the article with this negative content, which is a form of WP:OR, even when each addition is sourced. It may also violate WP:DUE. And worst of all you've been constantly reverting edits by editors who are trying to bring some balance back into the article. In my view this qualifies as disruptive editing. It makes it really hard to work on this article. It feels like arm wrestling. I've tried to be cooperative and talk about these issues on the Talk page, but so far you haven't conceded a single point. While looking into the various ways to complain about this behavior, many of them required talking about this on your Talk page. So that's what I'm doing here. Taking it all in all, it seems to me that the most appropriate action would ask for a topic ban on all topics related to SGI. But I really don't want to do that. You've been watching this article for years, and I don't think you should be banned from contributing. But this constant reverting is making it very difficult. Can I put it as a request, to please let other contribute in peace? Thanks. --Margin1522 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the RKK corrections and updates
I saw some subsequent edits and improvements to the ones I made on the Rissho Kosei Kai article, and just wanted to say 'thanks'. I was working off of limited information (resources are pretty scarce in English), but your corrections helped clarify some points. Thanks for adding additional citations :) --Ph0kin (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  reasonable moves

Thank you, German/English user who started with "just keeping a eye on things :-)", for watching over topics such as Germany, Nichiren Buddhism and Soka Gakkai, for using and the reasonable moves from evangelikal to evangelisch, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Members of Nippon Kaigi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democratic Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RX
It might well be possible to make a request at the above page to get a copy of the article from one of the editors who might have it included in one of the subscription databanks involved. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ John CarterI have meanwhile searched the data bank on how to obtain copyrights, this would be done on behalf of that toride link. At this point I am quite willing to go to great lengths to make this article accessible to a Wikipedia reader. Me citing parts of the article is just an alternative which I have no hesitations to do. In the end I am not doing anything wrong by citing.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Check your e-mail. I think NQ said they sent you, me, and Hoary all a link to a pdf version of the original article. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter I have checked my e-mail and thank you ever so much, but I already have a copy, but to have it on my disposal only is of little use. What irritates me most is that I have to speak in defence of something that was made public in printing at any news stand 30 years ago  --Catflap08 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Violations of the MOS
Please do not restore euphemisms in prose. Wikipedia is written in a formal tone, and euphemisms are not allowed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Concerning what? Sorry the term former suggest in some ways still alive. How much former can one be than "late" or dead?--Catflap08 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Now you're edit warring?  I already linked to the guideline that describes that this is not to be done! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No I am not edit warring. The term “late” is an adjective. It informs the reader of the fact that Hugo Chavez is no longer alive, kicked the bucket, passed away, no longer alive. “Former” might suggest he went of doing something else … he did not he his dead, died in office – hence the term “late”.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I mean good grief, the term ‘late’ is not a euphemism. It describes that the person we are on about is dead. He is dead hence he can no longer run for any office - he is not running full stop. And you are calling this any edit war – that is a bit daft must say.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Are you serious? The guy is dead that is a bit more than former so by the laws of biology he can not be in office.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious. late.  Read it now.  Please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in the former colonies one bears more weight to an office than a person, but to my mind Hugo has crossed the Jordan.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC) It’s the late Hugo Chavez not the former Hugo Chavez.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda
If I had any opinions on Daisaku Ikeda, I'd hope that they wouldn't be apparent either in my edits to the article or in my comments on its talk page. You're welcome to your opinions, but you would be wise not only to keep them to yourself but to make sure that your editing pattern doesn't reflect them. It's quite likely that various editors will (1) know something of your editing history; (2) view your combination of and (3) think "Just what I expect."
 * insistence on the retention in the article of the kind of material that Ikeda's admirers wouldn't want despite presenting little or no evidence that Ikeda was involved, and
 * reversion of the addition of the kind of reliably sourced material they would want on the grounds that it violates a guideline that it actually doesn't violate at all;

Here are some suggestions:


 * Apply the same interpretation of Wikipedia's standards for reliability to any material that anybody wants to keep in, or add to, the article;
 * Reread any guideline or policy before you cite it;
 * If you can produce enough evidence for an allegation of sock puppetry, you are free (though not compelled) to go ahead and have it looked into. Otherwise (whether you lack the evidence or have evidence but can't be bothered to do anything with it), stay quiet.

Anyone can make a mistake. I myself made a mistake in that article, in this edit. Two new contributors pointed out that I was wrong. I conceded that I was wrong and reversed my edit. This was not heroic of me; it was simply part of level-headed editing. So to show that you are indeed editing with a level head, an optional bonus for you:


 * Admit to mistakes quickly, and apologize for them.

Because I suspect that if you keep on as you've been going, you're headed for a topic ban. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Hoary Well since I keep my activities mostly to the talk page when it comes to certain articles. The incident you refer to – okay point taken. I would like you to pay attention to WP:HOUND: “This includes any real world threats, such as threats of harm, but also threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia.”--Catflap08 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you believe that you are being hounded, I urge you to report this at WP:ANI. -- Hoary (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Hoary At this point I do not feel hounded yet. Just saying. At the moment I believe editors are actually relatively successful to get articles on Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda as objective as possible and indicate which facts are missing. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Regarding your query on ''Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan's new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai ([1st ed.]. ed.). New York: Weatherhill'' - NQ (talk)  14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Help Desk request
I replied to your question at the Wikipedia Help Desk. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

DRV nomination
Hi, Catflap08. This is just to let you know that I have nominated Buddhist humanism at WP:DRV. Please feel free to comment. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing discussion in archives
I've your edit to ANIArchive873, because discussions should only be carried out on the main page. If you think it's important to add that comment, you can move the entire section out of the archives and add it back to the main page. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...Hi there, I just added a rather lengthy footnote on Soka Gakkai. Due to the controversial nature of the article I thought this might be helpful. Nevertheless I find the sections on References, Notes, Quotes, and Literature etc. to be a bit all over the place. Could somebody check if all follows guidelines and protocol? Feel free to correct the latest edit if needed.

Catflap08 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I take it that rather lengthy footnote is a quote from the book cited as a source, since it's listed among "Quotes"? That quote is long enough to be problematic on copyright grounds, and I'll remove it for that reason. Instead, you can simply add a footnote referring to the relevant pages of that book so our readers can look up that text for themselves, or provide a short summary in your own words and cite the source.
 * On an unrelated note, you used the sfn template for the reference. That's indeed a good way to deal with it, but it only works properly in conjunction with a corresponding entry in the "References" section that gives the bibliographical details - without it, the link pointed nowhere, and readers were left to wonder what work "Montgomery 1991" might be. Huon (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Huon Okay thanks for the quick help. I will rephrase some sections of the paragraph as some author got the numbers wrong and add a shorter footnote. Is there any guideline in terms of number of words the footnote should not exceed?--Catflap08 (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no fixed number, but the only reason to quote a source, instead of summarizing it in our own words, is that it's of crucial importance to give that source's specific wording - say, because we give an author's personal opinion and don't want to put our words into that author's mouth. I don't see any such issues here; do you? Huon (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Huon Nope summed up everything written and stated in the main text and added a shortened version of the citation. I do this because of the core of the citation was once questioned i.e. that it ever was published in such a way. Just being on the safe side here.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I warned you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Hijiri 88 Well you warn me and I take action via RfC first because I find the current discussion a bit irrational.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alawites
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alawites. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not really related so I'll post it here, but...
...could you please stop talking about how "no one argues that Kenji wasn't a member"? It's entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand: you say him being a member of the group makes him a nationalist by default, and have written the article on the group to reflect this view; I say that since no reliable sources refer to him as a nationalist, clearly the fact that he was a member of the group is irrelevant.

It's also unfair for you to say "he was a member of the Kokuchukai, not a devout follower of Nichiren Buddhism". Keene (whose Dawn to the West (poetry) pp283-291 is probably the most widely-accessible English-language biography of the man) devoted eight pages to him and of the Kokuchukai he wrote simply:

His parents were devout believers in Jōdo Buddhism, but after a reading of the Lotus Sutrain 1915, which made him tremble with joy, he became converted to Nichiren Buddhism. It has been said that he lived his entire life in accordance with the spirit of this sutra, which he kept by him always. His writings, mainly poetry and children's stories, contain an unusual number of words of Buddhist significance, and even though specifically Buddhist teachings do not often surface in his works, they were never far from his mind. Miyazawa's deathbed request, made to his father, was that he print an edition of one thousand copies of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese translation and distribute them to friends with a note saying: "The purpose of the work of my entire lifetime was to deliver this sacred book into your hands, and to enable you to enter the Highest Path by bringing you into contact with the Buddha's teachings." Such piety, contrasted with the indifference to Buddhism on the part of most modern Japanese poets, helps to explain the life Miyazawa led.

[...]

Miyazawa himself edited a volume of extracts from the writings of Nichiren, and in the following year [1920] he joined a Nichiren Buddhist society. That winter he went through the streets of the city shouting the invocation of Nichiren Buddhists: Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō ("Hail the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law").

While at home in January 1921 he made several unsuccessful attempts to convert his family to Nichiren Buddhism. He was much discouraged, but one day a miracle occurred: some volumes of the writings of Nichiren fell off a shelf and struck him. Taking this as a divine revelation, he instantly determined he would go to Tokyo and take a more active part in proselytiztion. Forty minutes after making this decision, Miyazawa was on the train, carrying with him only the Lotus Sutra, an umbrella, and travel money.

As soon as Miyazawa arrived in Tokyo he went to the Kokuchūkai (Pillar of the Nation Society), where he offered his services in whatever way might be helpful in spreading Nichiren's teachings. At first his offer was politely rejected, but eventually he engaged in street propagation of the faith. During his stay in Tokyo he also wrote an enormous number of pages of children's stories -- supposedly three thousand pages a month -- and sold one story at the end of the year for five yen, the only money he received during his lifetime for his writings. In September 1921 he returned home because of his sister Toshi's renewed illness, and became a teacher at the Agricultural School in the town of Hanamaki in Iwate Prefecture.

That's it. That's all. He was a follower -- a devout follower -- of Nichiren Buddhism for some years before travelling to Tokyo. He visited the Kokuchukai upon arrival in Tokyo and asked if they would let him work for them as a missionary. They initially turned him down, but eventually he made it work, and preached in the streets for them for eight months before returning to Hanamaki and continuing his devotion to the Lotus Sutra. The fourth paragraph in the above quote is literally the only place in the eight pages Keene devoted to Kenji that mentions the group (hence his providing a translation of its name). He remained a devout Nichiren Buddhist until his death, when his dying wish was for his father to distribute Lotus Sutras to a thousand people to spread the faith, but there is no reference to this being "the faith of the Kokuchukai".

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * to make matters even worse you just called me a jackass --Catflap08 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to imply you're not? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 17:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 I am sorry due to your latest actions it seems you have discredited yourself. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is you get to ignore every comment by every user who disagrees with you (and there have been quite a few indeed) and when it finally drives me to use an, all-things-considered, extremely mild epithet, you say that I have lost all credibility? Well, on your AN thread about me, everyone else seems to think you are the one with no credibility, and for you yourself I clearly had no credibility to begin with -- otherwise you wouldn't have completely ignored everything I said since last June. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 I do not see myself disagreeing with every user. I will just sit and wait and see what the RfC will do. Thereby also following the advive of one of the usrers on the ANI you strated. At least one will get experts on Religion, Philosophy and on Biographies to look at the matter. You deleting my message on your talk page and this speaks for itself. I will there for repost my message to you which you deleted here:

''Well what about he was devout Buddhist and member of Kokuchūkai? Saying in the lede that he was devout Buddhist makes him look to the reader as a guy may be sitting in mediation in a zen monastery drinking tea and writing poetry. He was not. He was a member of a Buddhist organisation on the fringe of Nichiren Buddhism. A form of Buddhism that some say to be on the fringe of Buddhism full stop. Further … when you speak of „Plan“. Yes there was indeed a plan. I work mainly on Nichiren related matters. If you look up some dictionaries Nichiren Buddhism is often connected to fierce nationalism and many issue become mixed up. I therefore researched the issue and came across the term “Nichirenshugi” which scholars translate as Nichirenism in this conext one comes across Kokuchūkai and Tanaka Chigaku, League of Blood Incident and Nissho Inoue. I guess they all had the plan to discredit Miyazawa. Certainly any author out there mentioning Miyazawa’s membership with Kokuchūkai are also part of a great big “plan”.-- 20:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)'' ''I will yet include the reference made in a foreword to one of Miyazawa’s English language translations. A Foreword that makes reference of him being a Buddhist, Nichiren Buddhist and member of Kokuchūkai. Further more this is a reference for all to read via google books. 21:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC''

From all that I can see so far you’d like the Kokuchokai issue do go away and negate his membership in the group full stop. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hang in there
Believe me, given the nature of some of the very recent behavior I've seen, I can't see in any way faulting you for placing the "retired" banner on your user page. But I have a feeling that certain circumstances are likely to change, maybe sooner than later, and maybe some of the long-standing problems might become a bit more resolvable in the near future. Maybe. If nothing else, it might not be unreasonable, although I hope a final answer, to seek ArbCom to allow discretionary sanctions on some of the SG related material. Maybe, who has been more involved lately than I have there, might have an opinion on that. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't leave
Please don't give up on Wikipedia. We need somebody to stand up against the Soka Gakkai whitewashers.126.59.94.184 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Retirement
Since I have received some emails of support concerning my retirement for the time being I feel I should say a few words. The utter ignorance that I have been faced with lately leaves me speechless and it has become an increasingly tiring task to fight it. May it be adding references, fighting for references to remain in an article … the advocates of certain views do get the upper hand these days. In the long run en. Wikipedia will indeed suffer as a somewhat reliable source of information. Administrators are preoccupied acting as referees rather than to focus on content. I by no means shy away from disputes on content and facts, but lately personal attacks have occurred again and again – those individuals seem to carry on undetected advocating their own agenda and censoring information. I was once part of an organisation force-feeding wrong information upon its members and being sick of bullshitting I found Wikipedia to be means to publish facts – even on controversial issues. In recent years however, I found en. Wikipedia to be place where just anyone can dump their smattering and if the subject is on the fringe it is there to stay. Witnessing this I myself do mistrust Wikipedia these days and all the guidelines are useless, all noticeboards futile if this is being allowed to continue. Admins are truly preoccupied with administrating while losing focus on verifiable content. We all use our spare time working here --- being continuously insulted is the last drop that makes me leave. So cheers for all the support I got through the years and the tremendous insight I was able to gather studying the history of Nichiren Buddhism – book shelves are packed now with information I was once discouraged to study. In the long run it is also about free speech. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you think in time that maybe to offer useful input again. Also, I rather hope that at least watch the page here for the next few days. If, as I personally rather hope, Shii responds with comments that maybe the time has come to seek discretionary sanctions through ArbCom regarding this topic, having your input in providing reasons why it is sought would be possibly very useful to the arbitrators in determining whether they have a basis for such action, and I personally think that maybe the time has already past for them to be in effect. With sanctions in place, the amount of disruptive and problematic edits would drop, or, at least, the number of editors with a known prior history of disruptive or problematic edits still able to engage in such edits would be reduced. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry John en.Wikipedia are losing it and the admins are themselves are to be blamed for that. Any idiot can come along and edit and it’s there to stay unless anyone intervenes. Again: I am not here to be called names and I have been less blunt today. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a former admin, I think maybe the lack of admins might be more to blame than the few remaining admins themselves. But I can and do understand the frustration, believe me. I might suggest though, if you had an interest in doing so, that maybe getting some of the better broadly "reference" type works up on wikisource or maybe doing something on wikibooks or wikiversity might be useful here. I am myself doing a lot more on wikisource now than I probably am here. You seem to be one of the few English language editors who have some knowledge and interest in some of these topics, and I think, although I can't prove it yet, having really good reference sources available to outsiders to consider when looking over who acted wrongly in articles here might reduce at least some of the problematic edits here. And also, honestly, with some more development, I think it could be made to appear a lot higher on search engine results too. I'll probably know a lot more about that on finishing the DCB&L I'm working on and seeing how high the extant links in the texts bring up the rankings of those articles. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, "any idiot can come along and edit" is inappropriate language for someone who recently requested I be blocked for using the word "jerk". Additionally, when it comes to the Miyazawa Kenji page, I was just making the page conform to 99.999999% of reliable, scholarly, secular sources, none of which have anything to do with Sōka Gakkai. I'm not going to repost my earlier further comments on any other material in the above discussion. But using WP:RETIRE as an excuse to post a "last will and testament" that attacks the good-faith activities of other users is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and removing valid responses to such is inappropriate. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that you prove the truth of your first sentence with your comment itself. And I believe given your transparent regular inability to speak in anything but grossly inflammatory language we will all be happy to see you not repeat yourself. Also, frankly, the attempt to seemingly badger an editor who has announced his retirement, with your own presumptuous, perhaps unproven, and rather obviously attacking languages raises serious questions whether you are capable of recognizing that you are as much bound by policies and guidelines as are those you rather obnoxiously and arrogantly describe as "jackass", "jerk", and other grossly unacceptable terms. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ John Carter, talk, CorinneSD, 連絡 .  Thanks for your support. I will need some more time to think of what to make of en.Wikipedia at this point I believe it is time for some serious changes. The de.wikipedia runs on slightly different rules such as that all edits by unregistered users are under pending changes … only by a number of approved edits an editor in itself may be approved – a system I believe that works quite well and makes all the IP edits futile. And now to Hijiri 88 the “idiots” that you referred to was a general comment if you feel that you are amongst them then that is your business not mine – I have 183 pages on why watch list. You however called me as a user a “Jerk” and “Jackass” – which I still consider an isult. When one does undergo the task to view your edits over the years then one could get the impression that you yourself are “protecting” articles in ways that are somewhat dubious. Please also note that the Kenji-man might not approve the ways you are negating his religious beliefs. His beliefs were what they were and it is not for us to know if he would have distanced himself from those later on if he had lived long enough to do so. On a general note I believe it is up to Wikipedia that claiming a source to be unreliable has to be proved first before it is allowed to be deleted.  For me to prove that a quote does exist (this way before the Kenji-man issue @ Hijiri 88) is an exercise I do not want to undergo anymore.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content on Google books regarding Ikeda
I think at least some of the entries in encyclopedias and other reference sources here might be useful. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI in which you are likely involved, in which I suggest the possibility of a mutual interaction ban between you and Hijiri88. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kenji Miyazawa
In the discussion on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa regarding Membership in Kokuchūkai and reference to it, you need to focus on the issue under discussion and not on other editors. See Comment on content, not on the contributor. I suggest you strike "It is because a certain editor does not want to see such references being made." While I am involved in this discussion I don't want to see any personal remarks. If they continue I will issue formal warnings, and if appropriate I will block you. I have given the same notice to Hijiri88.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ User:SilkTorkThis seems fair enough. On the other hand if “It is because a certain editor does not want to see such references being made” is regarded as a somewhat personal attack I wonder why calling me “jerk” and “jackass” seems to have slipped the radar at the time even though I took the steps advised by guidelines.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think maybe the operative point here is the word if. If you don't comment on anyone, no problem. If Hijiri doesn't comment on anyone, no problem. If either does, there will be problems for that person. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes awhile for things to rise to the level that they get admin attention. In such cases, "everybody stop" sort of warnings like this, or, alternately, mutual interaction bans when only one person might have earned it, are kind of a general way to go. If i-ban's weren't mutual, as I think I might have found out, it is possible for one party to consistently violate the i-ban without it being noticed or acted upon, basically dancing on the grave of the other. Human nature being what it is, that sort of response in some cases isn't unreasonable. Harmful, unacceptable, and counterproductive, yes, but not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ John Carter I was called names and even my nationality ridiculed/ derogated if this all goes unnoticed – fine. I get the message. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I want you to know that I am in no way necessarily saying I think it right that this happened. However, I also think it worth noting that as I kind of indicated above, perhaps because indicating is all I am allowed to do regarding someone with whom I have an existing interaction ban, it is far from unheard of for one party in a serious dispute to make clearly insulting comments, sometimes even comments which have no value as anything but insults, in disputes. Sometimes, in at least one case I know of, those rather obvious, if indirect, personal attacks can continue for years. I think I might even know of one such case myself, which I might not be at liberty to discuss. Like I said, sometimes these things aren't noticed until the issue has escalated to this point. Also, FWIW, unfortunately, the existing precedent is that we rarely if ever lay one-sided I-bans anymore. So, that being the case, it is not necessarily an insult or case of casting judgment on anyone to be subjected to one, because it is rather often the case that one side is the one needing current sanctions, and the other one is simply basically banned from gloating about it after the fact, even if sometimes they have good reason and more than enough cause. That was basically my own thinking in proposing a mutual i-ban. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * John CarterI by no means question your integrity as an editor focused on content. Even in real life I find it simply hard to defend the reliability of en.wikipedia these days. I can deal with academic disputes but not with what I have seen lately.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am myself becoming increasingly of the opinion that the history of certain topics in what might broadly be called the new religious movements area have demonstrated their inherently problematic nature rather clearly, given the number and frequency of disputes which continue to take place about them. I wouldn't mind myself seeing a few of those brought before ArbCom for discretionary sanctions to be imposed. And, yeah, Soka Gakkai is one of those topics which I think might well merit DS being imposed. Regarding what you say in the last two sentences, well, I wish I could say that I didn't agree with you on those points. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please strike the comments as suggested. If you continue to let them stand I will assume you wish to escalate the matter and I will issue a formal warning. I am not interested in digging through the past, but I cannot let personal attacks that appear before me on a thread I am involved in go unchallenged. Also be aware that because my name has in the past been frequently used in discussions, I have turned off alerts, if you wish to contact me please use my talkpage. I am not watching this page.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I think it makes a lot of sense to do what he says here, although I hope that he also takes into account the fact that you might not actually be editing for some time and doesn't issue a warning until you have been demonstrably editing. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reading the paper that SilkTork linked to at the RfC, as it was published recently (2014), and has a lot of information, much of which seems to have been the subject of sourcing disputes in the past. One good source may help clear things up in this case.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny the wording is not much different to the one I suggested to the Hijiri person a while back, he deleted it and therefore I added my post on my own talk page here --Catflap08 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it would be a good idea if you did strike the first sentence of this edit, as SilkTork indicated in the first post of this thread, and as per his second comment in this thread, in which he indicates that not doing so will result in a clear warning. Just striking through, evidently, with the code, would, based on what he said, probably be enough. I understand your own reasoning as well, but I do think it would probably be best to avoid the warning. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User talk:John Carter Sorry no. Cannot do that. If this qualifies for a warning and being called names and even my nationality degraded does not so be it - I may have been angry at times but did not insult anyone personally. If some hold a “carte blanche” I accept that and simply reduce my contributions and walk away from en. Wikipedia making my own conclusions. If one regrets what was said a message should be placed. If one goes through edits one will see that an editor did not want the Kokuchokai reference to be made in the lede full stopp. I find that striking business to be a bit absurd anyway – either one stands to what was written or not. The disputed issue can still be read and it is no sign of having come to any conclusion or resolve. In effect this means one could call someone else names, strike it and all is over and done with?? I may have been agitated and angry in my edits, maybe even ironic and sarcastic but not insulting. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  07:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please put personal animosities aside, and instead contribute positively to building the encyclopaedia. I understand how it feels to get into a personal conflict, so I do empathise with your situation; however, we cannot have editors disrupting the project by engaging in personal issues. Looking at your recent contributions, you are purely pursuing your frustration with Hijiri88, and you are not following advice to calm down the matter. There are millions of Wikipedia articles, including many thousands with tagged problems, some going back to 2006. There is much positive work you could be doing here which would help the project and make you feel happier and more fulfilled than you clearly are at the moment. I do not think bad of you, pretty much everyone goes through personal conflict at some point on Wikipedia. But you now need to either calm it down, or walk away from it and edit in other areas.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  07:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)