Jump to content

User talk:Catflap08/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

User:Kleinzach's Welcome

Hello, Catflap08! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! ```Buster Seven Talk 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Nichiren Buddhism vs. Nichiren Shū

Please do not edit Nichiren Buddhism to Nichiren Shū unless those articles refer specifically to Nichiren Shū. Your edits to Tanjō-ji, Seichō-ji, and Ikegami Honmon-ji now all have to be corrected. Prburley (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note your edits of Ryūkō-ji (Fujisawa), Hokekyō-ji (Ichikawa)‎, and Chōshō-ji have also been reverted. Prburley (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in a Nichiren edit war of articles on temples, which you describe, I think incorrectly, as "cheap travel guide[s]". Please take this discussion to the Japan Project page, where I've opened the topic [here]. Prburley (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hi Catflap08! You made a request for assistance at the Jimmy Wales page on a certain article. I assume you are looking for an Admin? The best way to get the help you need is to head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention and make a specific request for the help you need. Feel free to ask if this doesn't get where you want to go. EeBee (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

Hi Catflap. I agree with you that Naveen's editing of the SG page was inappropriate and inconsiderate to required cooperation. As you kindly know, I rarely agree with you on various matters, but now I agree with you and have already sent a message to Naveen on SG Talk suggesting he would return the page to where it was without any editing for now. Also suggested that we cooperate. As for myself, I found questionable editing from your side but I did not delete it, just asked questions about it. So please create the correct picture and consider a fresh start to cooperative editing. Regards.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Soka Gakkai

Hello, Catflap08. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Carter (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Catflap08. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Carter (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Catflap08. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John Carter (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And check it again now, too. Also, I think you are probably in a better position to respond to the question at WP:RSN#Riverdale Press blogspot than I am, so I think your input would be welcome there as well. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the thread at WP:RSN#Riverdale Press blogspot, where I asked whether the Riverdale Press meets RS standards. The first question asked was regarding what it is being used as a reliable source for, which, honestly, I'm not sure of the answer for. I think you are, and it would be useful to have someone who knows the subject in question to deal with that question. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Kuon-ji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermitage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

I found a huge number of articles which seem to have some fairly direct relevance to Soka Gakkai on various databanks, including at least a few book reviews. I am sure that there are more book reviews, and think it might well be possible to create separate articles on at least some of them, possibly indicating at least some of their perceived strengths and weaknesses as of the time of their writing. Anyway, if you want them sent to you, please drop me an e-mail. And, if you specifically do want to help develop articles on some individual books, let me know that as well and I can check for the rest of the available reviews I can find and include them as well. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good I will contact you within the next few days as I also have some further information.Catflap08 (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō 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:
  • * [http://www.nammyohorengekyo-onlinebuddhism.com/ Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo - Online Buddhism:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

Hello. Please see "Garbling and deletion of 'Controversy' section" in the talk page about the article on Ikeda. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1991 vs. 1997

Can you clarify the importance of the 1997 date? I guess you explained it in the edit summary but I don't see it in the article yet. Were SGI members forced to leave Shoshu in 1997? Any news articles/sources about this? Shii (tock) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

By 1991 only the SGI leadership were affected. Up until 1997 all lay believers were affected too. Guess in the article on Nichiren Shoshu one should find some links. SGI-Members atbthe time were not always made aware that they were still in Nichiren Shoshu.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! In the article on Nichiren Buddhism, could you please interact on the Talk page, before making edits to sections that are up for discussion? TY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.111.250.59 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nichiren Shōshū may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • [[File:150dpi.jpg|thumb|Photo of a [[Gohonzon]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Myōchikai Kyōdan

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 Myōchikai Kyōdan 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Nichiren Shōshū. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nichiren Buddhism 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:
  • '''Nichiren Buddhism''' (Japanese: 法華系仏教 ''Hokke-kei　Bukkyo'') ) is a branch of [[Buddhism]] based on the teachings of the 13th century Japanese [[monk]] [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Japan

Hello Catflap, when I saw the edit of ‎87.9.140.95 on the Religion in Japan article I also suspected this to be disruptive editing. When I compared the data in the Ipsos Mori ref. (see: last graphic) with the 2014 (??) graphic in the article I realized that this graphic is in fact not based on the ref. (OR) and probably misleading. The other graphic (ref: NHK-survey) appears plausible but I am not able to check it because I do not speak Japanese. JimRenge (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh Cheers for you effort. Just seemed fishy that's all also on the Religion in Thailand article the user deleted a picture. Not that I am a fan of Islam but it just seems a bit strange. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Soka Gakkai. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Okay I am Blocked now just because I and other users have set back changes made by the user in question? Normally I do not edit those articles in any major way – it might be worthwhile to read the edit history and who started to simply delete whole blocks of referenced material. At the same time it was not me who insulted other editors. Please also note this as of January 2014[[1]] Catflap08 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Me and other editors simply reverted the users changes – also look at the article Daisaku Ikeda most all after isnsults like this [[2]]. It was also me who asked for assistance since yesterday and blocking was already considered here [[3]] I do not know if it can be considered warring if whole referenced section in articles are being deleted.Also seems a bit odd to block somebody and THEN ask for second opinion [[4]] and not even wait for me to respond to user:Liz . Catflap08 (talk) 12:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

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

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

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

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

Thats it

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

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

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

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

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

I hate to see you go because you were one of the few constructive editors on these advocate infested pages.
I've had similar problems here as well, and it is a burden to learn Wikipedia policies. Moreover, administrators don't always follow the policies, and you were blocked for a relatively minor edit war of four reverts over a two-day period. They have recently slackened the 3RR rule in the EW policy, so there is a fairly high degree of admin discretion in doling out blocks under that policy as a result.
At any rate, the counterparty was deleting well-sourced material, making personal attacks and editing as an advocate, and you had reported him the day before. I don't agree with the new EW policy, basically, because it is too loose. Wikipedia is teaming with advocates on various pages, especially related to religion and politics, so it is a chore to have to deal with them, but policy-based countermeasures are the only approach that works, in the long run.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Request to be unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my block. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project [5]. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner. Catflap08 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Withdrawn (without prejudice) by Catflap08. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request

I closed your UTRS request, as you still have access to this talk page. Note that you are banned, not just blocked. You'll need to follow the process outlined in WP:UNBAN in order for the community to consider lifting this ban. This is a significantly higher bar than a regular unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for information, I was unaware of the fact that I could access this talk page. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem, it's an easy mistake to make. Good luck with your unban request. --Yamla (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I sent an email to the Arbcom as all other means do not seem to apply to me hope this was right thing to do.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

AN notice

I've requested at WP:AN that your email be revoked. You are clearly still following me, and I strongly suspect you've been abusing the email function aside from your abusive/threatening messages to me dated (Japanese time) 17/07/04 22:08 and 18/11/18 19:42. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I was only made aware of the fact that I could edit my talk page today. Please note that as far as I can recall I only contacted the person, leaving the comment above, twice, therefore the dates stated must be correct. However, the last date stated was due to an incident that occurred on the German Wikipedia – well after my ban here. The incident was dealt with at de.wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Catflap08, I would strongly suggest you do not respond to Hijiri 88 in any way, by any means, whatsoever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  —Cryptic 16:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25757 was submitted on Jun 29, 2019 18:27:06. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #26023 was submitted on Jul 20, 2019 13:02:33. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It has been more than three years that I have been banned from editing the English language version of Wikipedia. Ever since I was still able to edit the German language version of Wikipedia without any major incidents – including rather contentious issues. What I learned from the events leading up to my ban here is that it is a good idea to rethink issues overnight (or maybe even two, three … nights) when engaging in discussions on controversial issues. If this appeal is successful I do not intend to edit Wikipedia proper right away. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I would probably be under close watch and therefore use the time to make use of my sandbox instead. There are a number of stubs that I would like to work on by translating already existing German or Czech articles – only when approved by a majority of fellow editors I would ask for them to be moved into mainspace. Due to circumstances (Corona/Covid-19) I have even less time to focus on Wikipedia so my first steps in editing en.wikipedia will probably be rather small. It is not my intention to comment on past incidents without being specifically asked to do so. Catflap08 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining this on procedural grounds (it's a bit much to ask a single admin to undo this) but will take it to ANI for you. Guy (help!) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You can respond via User talk:Catflap08/ANI, which I am transcluding to ANI. Guy (help!) 21:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Guy it seems I cannot use the link you provided as it always reads in red letters „You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia“. Please notice though that a fresh start on Wikipedia’s English version to my mind would turn out to be a poor start when discussing issues (again) that are in the past. I also consider it to be bad practice, even more so in my case, if I were to discuss people who are not present. If an admin has any pressing questions feel free to contact me via mail – I cannot do the same (for obvious reasons) vice versa though.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Now you can comment below, which will be transcluded to ANI automatically.--GZWDer (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Cat, you might want to address one question at WP:AN, which is reasonable to ask. You can reply here, someone will copy and paste your response. Your request has stalled until you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there any particular question you have in mind? I will study the comments already made and hopefully will be able to address some issues by the weekend.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I will to my best to address questions and issues here. I am aware of the fact that you have to make a serious decision. Please also be aware of the fact that I did not leave the project completely even though there was a period that I was extremely peeved at Wikipedia (some of you even at me). I did continue my work on the German Wikipedia, which operates on a similar set of rules (similar, but not entirely the same). Lately I focused on translating articles (that’s before that virus kicked in). I still have a small stack of articles I’d like to translate into German (mostly Scotland related issue). That’s where I felt how the current ban affects me most – I cannot ask any questions on en.wikipedia. We are all facing a pandemic, so I am not in any rush with editing at all – at the moment I hardly even do any major edits on de.wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a purpose in life to me, it’s a hobby. Now and again I sit here to check pending edits only – that’s where the German and English Wikipedia run slightly different.

@ Nosebagbear I have no intention to see the TBAN being lifted any time soon. As far as I know that would need an extra appeal. Your idea with AfC is actually what I had in mind. There are a few stubs on the English Wikipedia that I could expand by translating existing articles. My sandbox is probably the best place for that.

@ Nil Einne I hope that I won’t come across as rude, but you are putting me in an awkward position. Your questions deal with a certain individual and as I already stated, I do not intend to continue that conflict … and as surprisingly this may come across … I do consider it bad practice to discuss an absent editor. This comment [6] reflects the advice given to me when I previously raised some of the incidents you mentioned to admins … I would summarise it as: let it go, don’t mention them. You are referring to my use of the Unreferenced Template on de.wikipedia. I do at times use that template. I use it when articles provide no references and sources whatsoever. If no references are being added (after a few weeks or months) I do at times nominate articles for deletion – usually its only then that somebody will come along and place a reference or two, which to me is fair enough then – problem solved. And you are right, on my German user page I list a number of keywords that make life on Wikipedia difficult, but also what may inspires one stay and continue. This is also why I created the article about a German organisation called HateAid [7]. I did bump into some, let’s say, right-wing motivated editors on de.wikipedia. It’s important not to fall in the same trap as they do. If ones actions are guided by anger nothing good is going to come out of that – I learned that the hard way on different occasions here on en.wikipedia. What another editor may have had on their mind or not I cannot answer. On de.wikipedia I tend to correspond in German, not in English. The editor you are referring to do have a talk page history over there too. Some edit summaries are in English. On de.wikipedia there is a button called “E-Mail an diesen Benutzer senden” (Email this user) and I made use of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Unbanned

This is to notify you that you are unbanned per community consensus at WP:AN. The appeal was closed with the statement: There is consensus to unban Catflap08. No one has strictly opposed this proposal but a few have voiced their reservations, which Catflap08 should take note of. They are reminded that other existing sanctions remain in force and that any further violations of English Wikipedia policies may lead to even more stringent administrative sanctions. Best, --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you! I am a bit suprised about how fast that went.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nordstadt (Karlsruhe) (August 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
As a populated place, the topic is likely to ultimately be notable. However, more sourcing is needed (see WP:NPLACE); also the external links need to be reduced, any links to commercial enterprises should not appear there.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Eagleash (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Catflap08! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nordstadt (Karlsruhe) has been accepted

Nordstadt (Karlsruhe), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bkissin Oh, thank you very much!--Catflap08 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Catflap08! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Draft:Nordstadt (Karlsruhe), has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee

@ QEDK Boing! said Zebedee Drmies Before I do anything stupid I would like to know if reinserting this edit [8] would be in violation of an existing TBAN? I am an assiduous reader of the Guardian and although I do not always agree to all of Toynbee’s views, it must be acknowledged that she is a renowned British journalist and commentator who voiced a view on an issue well documented on Wikipedia. I just do not want to cause any trouble before I ask for the TBAN to be lifted.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catflap08/Archive_1&oldid=1124538747"