User talk:Cadenza025

September 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Happy Science, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 05:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the hatnote you removed. The book by Nietzsche has no connection to the religious organisation, but the book title can be confused with the name of the organisation. That is the point of having a hatnote: if the topics were related in any way, there should have been a link in the article itself, but since there is no relation between them, we use a hatnote. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. Still I don't think the hatnote should be there. Following your logic, Natural Science, Social science, Formal science, and Applied science should all have hatnotes to Gay Science, but none of them actually do. Thanks. Cadenza025 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which part of WP:HATNOTE made you think so. Hatnotes are added where there is a reasonable assumption that a reader may end up at an unconnected article; different brances of the sciences are not entirely unconnected, and it is hard to imagine a case where someone wanted to read up on applied science but accidentally ended up at Gay Science or vice versa. Have another look at the hatnotes guideline, in particular WP:RELATED which you may have missed when you first read it.

As you presumably know, since that information is at the very top of the article, The Gay Science has also been translated as The Joyous Science, and anybody who only knows the original title of the book is almost certainly going to start by looking for it at "Happy Science", since that is the closest translation of it. --bonadea contributions talk 07:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar shows that The Gay Science has 19,700 hits, The joyful Wisdom has 845 hits, and The Joyous Science has only 186 hits. Even though the translation of The Joyous Science and Happy Science are similar, it is unlikely to be confused with The Gay Science itself. Cadenza025 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This talk has been moved to Talk:Happy Science#The_Gay_Science

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Happy Science has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Your edit did not restore revision 1041820836, and you have not started a discussion about changes to the lead paragraph at Talk:Happy Science. If you are proposing a change that removes sourced content, it is up to you to gain consensus. I recommend following WP:BRD. Politanvm ^talk 03:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I'll be careful to keep the edit summary accurate. Regards, --Cadenza025 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware of WP:3RR as you’re not far off of 4 reverts within 24 hours. And as you’ve read WP:EDITWAR, repeatedly reverting without discussing is not helpful for resolving an edit war, even if you believe your version is correct. There’s no need to remove the hatnote while the discussion is pending - that’s just continuing the disruptive warring. Politanvm ^talk 06:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I appreciate you sharing that information with me as well. Regards,--Cadenza025 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 20:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Cadenza025. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Happy Science, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 05:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Your admission of your personal conflict of interest is noted, which means that you need to stop editing the page directly, and that your conduct on the article's talkpage must be exemplary. Your accusations against Bonadea are nonsensical and indistinguishable from trolling. If you do that again, I will block you for disruptive editing. If you really don't know what a PhD is, I question your ability to edit Wikipedia productively under any circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion I admit that I was wrong on the points you raised and I sincerely apologize. I can understand why you would want to say that I am not competent in any aspect, and you can accuse me of that all you want. However, I do not think this is appropriate for an administrator to say, since it means that any opinion of mine is wrong. Can you please retract your statement? I question your ability to edit Wikipedia productively under any circumstances--Cadenza025 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are either trolling, or you are making accusations against an editor, to the point of asserting that you will harass her through her employer, out of ignorance of the nature of a PhD. Either way, it's incompatible with editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that I would harass her through her employer. Sorry for my lack of words, but that was a complete misunderstanding and I meant to check the admissions policy and syllabus. And I respected Wikipedia's policy and checked it every time, and I told everything about myself openly and honestly. I don't agree with being declared a troll, but I admit that I was wrong about the PhD. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finally understand the meaning of why you guys are blocking me. I am not a native English speaker, so I guess I was off on the meaning of Doctor of Pholisophy and employer.--Cadenza025 (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is really true that there are many lies and mistakes in the article. The lies have been revealed in court cases, but the media does not report them, so Wikipedia pretends that the decision never happened. Just yesterday, the court ruled to dismiss the claim, saying, ″The public will not believe what the other side says because they know it is a lie. Therefore, it is not defamation″. However, the media went out of their way to report only the fact that the case had been dismissed, and not to mention anything else. The media only reports information that is convenient for them, so no matter how many years they wait, the facts will never become clear. Wikipedia unconditionally trusts what the media, which is believed to be trustworthy, says, so if the media as a whole is biased, Wikipedia will also be biased. Even if I were to claim this bias, it would not be accepted. This is because even though there are court decisions, the media does not report them. This is a problem in the structure of society. In the future, as more and more citizens begin to realize the bias of the mass media as a whole, they will point out the bias of Wikipedia.--Cadenza025 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing this all by myself now, but I'm sure tens of thousands of Happy Science members will join Wikipedia when they realize what's going on. But most of them are even less familiar with Wikipedia than I am. I can help summarize their intentions. I admit that I am COI, so I promise I don't change the article directly. I would like to improve it as much as possible within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I understand that you are a new user, but the combination of misunderstanding, refusal to listen, apparent refusal to follow any links, and egregious assumptions of bad faith on your part in this discussion is quite hair-raising. I'm afraid I have to agree with the comment at the end, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia [1], and have therefore blocked you indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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).

Cadenza025 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit that I was wrong about the COI allegations against bonadea, and I apologize and retract my statement. I would also like to correct my statement about wanting to "reveal the truth" and focus on working with other editors.

Decline reason:

Your approach so far has been wholly incompatible with contributing to the Wikipedia. Nothing here convinces me otherwise. Yamla (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cadenza025 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In addition to the word PhD, I found out that there was a misunderstanding in the statement I made in the exchange about checking with employers. This means to check the admission policy, syllabus and other information. This is a misunderstanding, but I admit that my lack of words and my English ability caused it. While recognizing the importance of correcting the decade-long bias in this article, I have always respected Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm revealing everything and I'm not even hiding my IP address. However, I think it was a mistake that I doubted the other editors. They were really teaching me a lot of things. I would like to sincerely reflect on this point. Still, simply blocking me will not correct the errors in this article, and I believe that many people who are aware of the current situation will flock to wikipedia. I am aware that I am COI and my lack of English ability, so I’ll request changes to other editors with trust. I would like right as much as possible within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no reason to unblock you unless you agree to not edit about Happy Science and tell what topics you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I see no reason to unblock you unless you agree to not edit about Happy Science and tell what topics you will edit about instead.: I understand. I promise not to edit the article on Happy Science. Instead, there is only one thing I would like you to grant me the right to do. Since there are so many issues in that article, I am sure that many Happy Science members who are not familiar with Wikipedia will follow the same footsteps in the future. As a fellow believer, please allow me to talk to them on the talk page, tell them that they do not have the right to edit the article directly, and then encourage them to contribute to improving the article without making any mistakes.--Cadenza025 (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cadenza, I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to patrol Talk:Happy Science to help future new CoI editors, but it probably isn’t necessary. If you’re unblocked, you can always watch the talk page, and leave messages on an individual’s talk page to share your advice. But most likely, the current editors of Happy Science will be able to handle future CoI editors, since it’s a day-to-day occurrence across Wikipedia. If there is too much disruption by too many users in the future, Wikipedia has a page protection policy that can be used as a last resort to limit editing to more experienced contributors. Best, Politanvm ^talk 02:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Politanvm. Looking at the exchanges over the last decade, one side is so unfamiliar with wikipedia. As a result, that page has made almost no progress, nothing but bad content has been added, and they continue to use old sources. I’m afraid I couldn’t agree with that it's a good idea to pretend that their opinions don't exist. That page is not about work, life, or organization, much less hobbies and preferences, but is concerned with the human outlook on life itself. I'm not doing this for money, and I'm not doing this because anyone is telling me to. So strictly speaking, I don't think I am a COI, but I do think I am defending the topic from an ideological standpoint. But if that is the case, then no matter what faith you hold, whether you believe in any other religion, atheism, or materialism, we are all COI. No one is truly neutral. Nevertheless, I have made my position clear, and I am suggesting that other Happy Science believers also make their beliefs clear, and let you do the editing. Please understand this sincerity. I am sorry that I doubted you, and I promise it will never happen again. --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cadenza025 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've already admit that I have had misunderstanding at two words, and had refusal to listen because of doubt of editors. I swear I won't do that again, I'll trust fellow editors. However, I object at not here to build an encyclopedia. On RS/N, @bonadea said There have been repeated and extensive attempts from representatives of the group to whitewash the article and remove all references to it being known as a cult. The article talk page archive has a lot of sealioning by sockpuppets. However, what has happened in the past has nothing to do with that discussion, and I'm not a representative of the group. I'm doing this by my own will. If they doubted about me, it is bad faith itself to suspect that I represent the organization. I'm not trying to self-deprecate myself, but I think that if I were a representative of an organization, I would be more careful in my discussions. In addition, without being wrong about the meaning of PhD. I did not know what the word "sealioning" meant, but I learned that this was an insult. In the discussion I was having with bonadea just before she used this word, I had shown her the data, the numbers, and the evidence. The data showed that the term "The Gay Science" that she was claiming was not actually confused with Happy Science at all. I believe numbers are reasonable for anyone else. Nevertheless, the word "sealioning" has been used. What's more, when I objected about that, bonadea said "stop your disruptive editing". I couldn't understand how fair is that in the Wikipedia World. Anyway, to be clear, I'm doing this on my own. If the organization finds out about this, they may scold me for some reason of governance. But I'm doing this as just one believer. I understand why you would want to doubt it, but it is really, really true. So, the statement I said I just want to reveal the whole truth means For correcting mistakes at the page, if necessary, I reveal my own position, and those of others, includes our ideology. I regret to had a bad faith to editors, but the purpose of that statement was to correct the article neutrally as an encyclopedia. As I mentioned above, over the last decade, that page has made almost no progress, nothing but biased content has been added as unbiased ones, and it continue to use controversial old sources. It may not matter to many editors, and I admit that I had some problems with my approach, but I don't think that the act of pointing out bias based on appropriate sources itself is to blame. I'm then suggesting that I request edits according to the WP:COIEDIT policy. I believe that further continuation of the block is unjust. If there is any more reason for you to continue blocking me, please indicate it. Regards, --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not agree to a topic ban around Happy Science and does not tell us what other topics you would edit about. Yamla (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Cadenza025 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This does not agree to a topic ban around Happy Science and does not tell us what other topics you would edit about. I understand. I have a proposal to narrow my own remit. That is, I can talk on just one section on the talk page called "For HappyScience Members", where to discuss to improve the article. Once we have a solid idea of what needs to be added or changed, whether the source is trustworthy, whether it is factual without any promotional or beautifying elements, we submit a {{request edit}}. Politanvm asked me to talk in each user's talk page, but I think it's difficult to make productive work. Of course, experienced editors are welcome to give some advices or directions. This way, you experienced editors don't have to waste the time and don't have to worry about biasing the articles by COI because they can't edit the article directly. Furthermore, we can break the current situation where the content is outdated and stagnant. If this idea is acceptable to you, I hope you can set a time frame because I am not sure if this will work for me either. For example, how about we work within these limits for 90 days and then think about it again? I will always keep my promises. Regards, --Cadenza025 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will not be permitted to edit about Happy Science under any circumstances, anywhere on Wikipedia, or to try to edit by proxy. That is what a topic ban is. If that is your sole interest, then this block should stand as is. Any further unblock requests in this vein may result in the revocation of talkpage access as a waste of our time and yours, since you appear to be solely interested in this topic. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your suggestion that a page be created solely for Happy Science adherents to edit is completely outside accepted Wikipedia editing practices, and cannot be considered. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion I sincerely apologize for my poor English. I didn't mean that I wanted to create a page, I meant that I wanted to create a section within the HappyScience talk page. A section only. Within that section, I want to discuss with other COIs how to improve the article. In accordance with policy, I promise I will not edit articles directly. WP:COI says you may propose changes on talk pages so I figured it was allowed. The reason I'm making this suggestion is that I thought that having me alone discussing things as a COI is one of the causes of conflict with other editors, so I want to relax and discuss things with other COI members on the talk page to improve the page. This is to avoid annoying the experienced editors as much as possible and not to reduce the productivity of wikipedia. I would like to improve the page in a productive and constructive way. Regards, --Cadenza025 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request

I am sincere in my desire to improve the article. I have been honest and disclosed that I am a COI, and although I thought I am a SPA, there should be no reason for me to be excluded because of my good intentions and willingness to work to improve the article. I've read through WP:SPA many times, and I've consistently tried to be neutral and remain transparent, so I guess it doesn't apply to me. I did not engage in an editorial battle, I merely addressed some of the issues in the article on the talk page. I suspected an editor in the talk, which has led to some misunderstandings, even though I admit my mistakes and sincerely regret them, I am about to be deprived of my right to speak out. If nothing is done, my sincerity will be wasted, so I would like to request an Arbitration Request. If I'm wrong, I'm ready to accept and improve everything.

You may email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org . Please be advised that one possible outcome of a poorly-reasoned request to the Arbitration Committee like the ones above could be that you lose access to this talkpage. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Acroterion (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will think hard about your advice. Thank you very much. --Cadenza025 (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]