Hi, thanks for calling attention to the right page number not being included in the reference for "Global Citizens," but never remove an entire section supported by 5 quotes because one page number is wrong - that's hardly constructive editing. Even if we assume that there hadn't been a page number attributed to Seager (which there was - though now I've added an additional page number), there would still have been 3 sources. The 12 million number is reprinted in lots of books, but they're all basing it on Soka Gakkai's own number - sometimes the author makes this clear, sometimes they don't. What is obvious however is that Seager certainly had no means of independently verifying this number.Kiruning (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Soka Gakkai criticized as being a "cult", etc.
In this edit, you removed both reliable sourced text as well as sources themselves, particularly the Furukawa book, which has the title, "The Soka Gakkai as a Cult" (2000).
Furthermore, the edit summary given and statements on the Talk page in now way support such removal, for which there is no consensus.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because you don't want to give consent to the change, doesn't mean there is not consensus, as every other person participating in this discussion disagrees with you. I had substantial reasons for my edit which I expressed on the talk page. Additionally, many of the editors participating in that discussion agreed with my point of view. This is in no way an "Edit War."
- This is the final warning I'm going to give you.
- The next time you make a disruptive pov-pushing edit on the Soka Gakkai article I will file a thread at the AN/I noticeboard about your conduct.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well-researched edits with solid arguments that are backed up on the talk page in consensus with other active editors is not "disruptive editing." If anything your constant deletion of the constructive edits both I and other editors have made to the page warrants a "warning." Lionpride82 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)