User talk:Catflap08/Archive 15

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) 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I have been spending more time recently over at wikisource than here anyway, at least in part because of my sharing your concerns. I do think that having such reliable sources more easily available is one way to help make it easier that the content of the encyclopedia reflects some standards. If there are any particular PD sources which you would personally like to see put up over there, which don't have too many non-English characters, because I have real trouble with a lot of them, even the Greek, let me know. Under the circumstances, I think you more than deserve something like a lasting and hopefully permanent "thank you" for your efforts around here. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong section
Actually, only the arbs are supposed to edit the bottom section of Arbitration/Requests/Case. You might want to post your comment in your own pre-existing section with an "@Arbs:" start or something similar to indicate who the comment is directed at. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:John Carter I just thought it might be suitable to put it in there as some seem to ask why the case ended up there in the first place. I ended up there following the steps being provided. If one looks up interaction ban one is directed to ArbCom not ANI. Just my apologies if I ended up in the wrong place. Rather a technical question that is – I also do not wish to add anything else to the case per se.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
Hi Catflap08, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for an I-Ban, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz  Read! Talk! 18:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nichiren Shōshū
The wording you keep making states: "They include much of its worldview and its rationale for criticism of Buddhist schools that do not acknowledge the Lotus Sutra to be Buddhism's highest teaching, as stated by Buddha Shakyamuni."

This makes it appear that 'as stated by Buddha is an objective fact as opposed to Nichiren schools belief that this is the case. It isn't objective fact that Buddha ever said this and to claim it is incredibly not neutral. Why can't you see this? Helpsome (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Helpsome A belief is actually not really based on facts so much it’s what people or a school of thought or a sect believe in. So your latest edit does now clarify that. Previously you deleted the mentioning of Shakyamuni completely. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, you probably noticed that the interaction ban with Hijiri passed. It's logged at Editing restrictions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Drmies Thanks for letting me know. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Listen, the idea with iBans is that they should avoid conflict and produce a better atmosphere for all involved. It doesn't always work that way, unfortunately, but here's hoping that it does, and that both of you benefit from it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Barelvi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Barelvi. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape jihad
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rape jihad. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop violating the IBAN
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been moved to AN/I by an admin, here is a link IBAN violation by Catflap08. AlbinoFerret  12:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Free will
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free will. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
Hi Catflap. I understand, appreciate and applaud your commitment to not engaging in this discussion, but if the IBAN is dissolved, you and Hijiri are going to have to find a way to work together if you both are going to remain as contributors to the disputed articles. I've just given him a huge amount of guff in that thread in order to keep him honest about his role in creating this conflict, but the truth is, with regard to the suggested IBAN violations, you really should not have made those edits as you did, especially as you pushed for said ban. That ban was a mistake for the community to consider and for either of you to support if neither of you was willing to let those content matters go. But now we have an opportunity to put these issues to bed in the way that they should have been from the start -- by forming consensus and reaching for middle-ground solutions wherever we can. If I volunteer some time to provide a third opinion when you two just can't see eye-to-eye, do you realistically think you can try to form consensus with him and let bygones be bygones?  S n o w  let's rap 07:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Snow Rise To be honest I’d appreciate if admins would concentrate on content within articles, spot bad faith edits, sandboxing, advertisement, POV and general behaviour of editors. In order to do that one has to study the history of articles AND editors. The number of (long-time) editors is going down … there is a reason for that.  Plus – not everyone spends their live being online in here hours on end to deal with non-productive editing. Wikipedia is losing credibility – there is also a reason for that too. On the other case you mentioned I’d rather not comment on.  --Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any editor to my mind is in trouble when Wikipedia is the focus rather than the reason what it has been established for. Some spend their time here pushing their very own agenda rather than accepting that there are (documented) different point of views on certain matters. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not suggesting a plan to address every systemic problem (real or imagined) of Wikipedia. I was speaking specifically to one particular content issue which has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND between two problematic editors who are the cause of endless amounts of community energy being spent "hours on end to deal with non-productive editing". And you can opine all you'd like in vague terms about what ails Wikipedia and the supposed failures of admins, but I'm afraid what this situation comes down to is that you realistically have just two options here: you can learn to work with Hijiri (and any other editors who become involved) in a collaborative manner to form a consensus and stop edit warring, or you can stop editing that article.  You are the party who explicitly asked that an IBAN be instituted, which is not a trivial community action, and now within a couple of weeks you have violated that IBAN in order to return to contested content and revert Hijiri.  Not only is this a blatant violation of your sanction, it was obviously certain to cause Hijiri to take the issue immediately back to the noticeboards -- where we could have fixed the problem the first time around if you had not steered discussion into talk of an IBAN which was obviously never going to work if neither of you had the least interest of backing off on the disputed content.   The only reason you haven't been blocked already for that violation is that the reviewing admins and volunteers are less than impressed with Hijiri's own tendentiousness in the history of this conflict.


 * But in any even, since neither of you is showing the least bit of interest in finding a collaborative solution to moving forward, nor seems capable of hearing the advice and warnings provided to you ad nauseum by the community over the source of this contest of wills, I'm afraid the only plausible alternative course of action is support a topic ban for both of you on the subject. I'd have much preferred we pull a rabbit out of our collective hat and get you two to a compromise version you could both live with through mediation, but at least this way we know the TBAN should put a definitive end to all of this nonsense, rather than allowing the two of you to rubberband these issues into and out of the noticeboards indefinitely.   Anyway, thank you for your feedback.  S n o w  let's rap 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some say I violated the IBAN some say not. So you propose a TBAN. I suggest you take the time to read the conflict’s history instead of wishful thinking like ask for a collaboration between me and the other editor in question. The editor in question never ever took an interest in the article in question (which I once created) until a conflict erupted on one of his, I guess, favourite poets and suddenly popped up, just as popping up in an article on my home town. We all have had conflicts here on Wikipedia but rarely have I come across any editor who goes so ballistic as soon as anyone disagrees –there is a history to that not even involving my person . This is not against you as a person Snow Rise, but it seems that I have to repeat myself – I am not spending my time here to get insulted! I am also not spending my time on individuals who, in my books at least, show to have some sort of a behaviour problem in order to resolve issues in a civil manner. It is up for admins to decide which behaviour to foster and which to condemn as a result however they also have to live with the consequence of some editors to step back – either way. My topic area is Nichiren Buddhism – mainly its history, the other person seems preoccupied with poetry.  Since content based input seems to be less important these days I have reduced my activities anyways. I have seen some edits on my watchlist, excuse my language, where people are bullshitting and advertise their own agenda – at this point I could not care less anymore to be honest. And just to be clear, as soon as one insults editors, uses swearing language in comments within edits I see no reason to seek a collaboration. To strike out insults and swearing AFTERWARDS as a reoccurring pattern is to me a lip service.  And be honest here – I am not the only one the person in question is having a massive conflict with. My life is not centred around Wikipedia and for information to be displayed in an informative and unbiased way the internet does offer other means too.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Military of ISIL
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military of ISIL. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gog and Magog
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gog and Magog. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buddhism and violence
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buddhism and violence. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop violating the IBAN (again)
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 ) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

SA 13 Bro
I filed a grievance, Sockpuppet investigations/SA 13 Bro, if he shows up again go ahead and add the diffs there. Ogress smash! 21:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Akshardham (Delhi)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Akshardham (Delhi). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quds Day
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quds Day. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)