Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 10th Dalai Lama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Litang. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Ixudi
Please do not post threats of blocks and accusations of sock-puppetry to my talk page.
When I'm in a hurry, sometimes I don't log in. But the errors at Padmasambhava took more time than anticipated, and your habitual edit-warring wasted even more time.
The threats and accusations do not resolve the factually incorrect and hostile POV on the page, which you have repeatedly reinserted.
This is an encyclopaedia, not a private position paper.
Hello, I'm noticing that you're moving a number of pages, regarding previous Karmapas, stating that it's the title naming convention. You should consider starting a move discussion instead, as the current titles you're moving to is definitely not the convention that's been used on these pages for well over a decade. Note that I've reverted your moves. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I didn't write that opinion on an article; that flag is for articles, not for the notice board. I added that opinion on the notice board in order to gain aide against ongoing edit warring, to which I had exhausted my efforts.
The point I was trying to make is these page moves concern biographies, and biographies of living persons - not just unknown people, but "highly reputable and revered Tibetan Buddhist teachers". Maybe (like Josh who doesn't even their names) you're unfamiliar with the Karmapa tulku lineage since if you were I don't think you would have felt the need to flag me about saying that of internationally recognized world leaders. Of course, if you want sources for that quotation, I can provide them and it becomes 'encyclopedic language'.
Additionally, Biographies on Living Persons have special editing requirements that are being disregarded by Josh.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Theckchok Dorje, 14th Karmapa Lama. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Just to add necessary details as to why the accusation is false:
I corrected the 16 page titles on the Karmapas once, taking several weeks. Josh changed them back to the incorrect titles. I assumed 'good faith', that a knee-jerk reaction occurred, an "oversight", so I approached the problem that way.
I never changed the pages again, but tried instead to build consensus with Josh for more than 2 weeks on 14th Karmapa, on my talk and his talk pages - while he was unresponsive.
I provided exhaustive reliable and scholarly sources. He was unresponsive.
I finally warned him he was edit warring by being unresponsive and ignoring reliable sources. He provided no sources.
After more than 2 weeks, I gave him 2 days to respond with sources. He didn't. I figured he realised he was wrong. No problem.
I went to correct the page titles again, by then almost 3 weeks later. He had disregarded WP:NO-PREEMPT and had already blocked page moves, while refusing to respond to reliable and scholarly sources.
I brought the events to the attention of the notice board, with concerns about edit warring and abuse of admin tools.
How does Josh's pattern of actions meet a 'good faith' definition? To manoeuver to block corrections of biographical entries, as an administrator, of encyclopaedic articles?
Then he posted a move request on 1st Karmapa without coordinating with me but while overtly disparaging the need for the move. Again, is that a 'good-faith' action?
Following your lead, please stop posting unnecessary flags on my talk page. To me, it's become obviously and unnecessarily abusive. Why not read the sources on 1st Karmapa instead? Metokpema (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaya (clothing) reversion
A reason for the revert wasn't provided.
I did provide a reason. You noted I referred to the edits as "good faith" edits, which I said in my edit summary. The full edit summary is:
The reversion was because the edits appeared to be violations of copyright policy and I identified the source.
I'm guessing you edited while not logged in. It is my practice to provide a more detailed response to login editors and I used to provide a detailed response to edits made by IP editors, but long years of practice has persuaded me that IP editors are checking their IP address talk page. In fact if I had done so in this instance I doubt you would've known where to find it.
It's helpful to login because it facilitates communication.
As I stated, your editing reasons wouldn't open last night (the 2 most recent edits wouldn't open - my Tibetan Buddhism section and your revert - very bizzare). Regardless, I already provided the source of the information and its web link before your revert. I also provided quotation marks for direct quotation and footnotes for the other notable information.
Where's your issue? Could you explain?
I myself added the Tibetan Buddhism section and filled it out with the sourced information, so that's also not a copyright issue. Metokpema (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Tips
