User talk:Catflap08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion nomination of Nippon Kaigi[edit]

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 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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[edit]

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 [[causality|cause and effect]], [[Karma in Buddhism|karma] 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![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

3RRNB notification[edit]

Noisemonkey has filed a report on you at Wikipedia: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[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (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 |  | WER 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please participate in the Conversation on Germany[edit]

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)


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#German legal threat?. 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)

Archiving already?[edit]

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)

Your comments at Talk:Germany[edit]

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)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for your hard work and focus. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

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:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Coat of arms of Baden-Württemberg (lesser).svg
Coat of arms of Baden-Württemberg (lesser)
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning July 27, 2014
Committed to improving Wikipedia's content and prose quality. A WikiGnome interested in articles ranging from Architecture to Buddhism to Japanese history with over 90% of his efforts to article namespace.
Recognized for
Hard work and focus
Nomination page

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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 terms of today 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

  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.

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)

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. wikt: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)


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

  • 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;

and (3) think "Just what I expect."

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)